chris writes :
Really Steve Goddard. Who are you? What are your qualifications, other than having a chip on your shoulder? Why do you have no such information listed? Usually, when one goes to the ABOUT section one finds information about the author, their background and funders. Here I find nothing but a description of word press. Very strange. Will this posting remain? Interested to see if free speech exists on so called “conservative” blather pages such as this one. Doubtful, since the main point of your blog seems to be to get yourself a cheering section and I’m not cheering for you. Sorry little boy.
I’m a senior citizen with a long career in science and engineering, environmental activism, and I worked as a wilderness ranger for two summers during the 1980s. I do this without any compensation – but huge amounts of money have corrupted climate science, and that pisses me off.
Why is it important to know who you are and what your motivations might be? Because this will give us, your readers, some insight into what you are actually up to. Amazingly, you claim that millions of people who have never met each other are engaged in some elaborate, sinister, overarching conspiracy to do … something. Seems improbable.
I don’t present conspiracy theories. I present evidence. I can’t stand bullshit. If you read through the blog, you will know exactly what my life is about and why I do this.
No matter how hard I try to squeeze my mind into your little box, I can’t for the life of me figure out what all these scientists are up to with this huge and elaborate hoax. More likely, you as a single individual are engaged in a “conspiracy” of sorts, to employ the power of word press to distort and distend reality to suit your ideological addiction.
If you think my facts are wrong, feel free to show what I am doing incorrectly.
Chris:
He is here for the same reason most of his readers are at this site. We are interested in the truth regarding weather history and are tired of hearing fairy tales form the so-called “Experts”.
It is folks like you that make it important we continue contributing at sites like this one. You do not seem to have much experience in this field of study. If you spend some time reading what has been archived on this site and a few others we could refer you to, you might begin to understand the fantasies you have been told about “Climate”.
fantasies about climate? There are no fantasies about climate. Climate is real and does its thing based on various kind of physical and biological factors. What interests me is that sites such as this claim to prove that there is some sort of vast conspiracy by “scientists” and, I guess, “communist marxist liberals” to delude the public yet never seem to be able to adequately explain how or why this is being done.
Do steve and his acolytes actually believe that they know “the truth” while a gullible public and idiots like me are the patsies and dupes of this cabal?
Interestingly, we do have clear evidence that corporate interests, particularly in the oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” or whatever you want to call it. In that they are directly benefiting from climate denial ie pushing forward information which creates obstacles to other entitiesinterfering with their profit. So according to this site’s acolytes, as I understand it, corporations which have a direct, explicit interest in climate denial based on their profit margins are noble truth-tellers, while tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of loosely affiliated individuals with no national, ethnic, financial or family ties to each other are somehow, mysteriously engaged in a giant and elaborate fraud of enormous complexity. Fixing all that data and making sure everyone tows the line must be mighty hard work for whomever is behind this!
The current theory about “Climate” is a fantasy. Especially when we are discussing long term variable weather patterns. Climate can not be defined as a period shorter than known long term regional weather patterns. We know there are weather patterns that cycle from 40 to 80 years, average 60! If they know that, then a 30 year period used to define “Climate” is a Fabrication/ Lie!
There is no means of measuring Global Climate or even Global Temperature. We are lucky if they can give us a measurement of regional temperatures within 2C of what is experienced.
Nasa even admits they do not provide real temperature measurements, but model outputs that they hope somewhat resemble current temperatures and are “Believable”.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
chris,
It is really very simple. Take a specific post of mine and demonstrate that I am incorrect. That way you can destroy my credibility.
Your gossip is a waste of time. I am an engineer. I respond to numbers.
Chris says: “Interestingly, we do have clear evidence that corporate interests, particularly in the oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” or whatever you want to call it. In that they are directly benefiting from climate denial ie pushing forward information which creates obstacles to other entitiesinterfering with their profit.”
Please provide that clear evidence. Name names, amounts, and exactly how they are benefitting. How much money is being spent on the public relations campayne to convince people that CO2 is destroying the planet? Is it more or less than your examples?
What interests me is fools who condone the censorship of the Alarmist blogs, then try to accuse skeptic blogs of being the only ones that do it.
BTW: If you have clear evidence (not hearsay or innuendo), produce it. We are always open to learning new facts. Not about hearing ignorant opinions and conspiracy theories.
“Interestingly, we do have clear evidence that government interests, particularly in the western and advanced areas, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate science” or whatever you want to call it. In that they are directly benefiting from climate science ie pushing forward information which creates obstacles to other entities interfering with their profit.”
That’s better! 😆
We also have clear evidence that government spends enormous amount of money funding “climate change.”
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318570.pdf
From the above pdf: “Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010”
Apparently “true believers” are receiving far more money from the government (or, as you say, “directly benefiting”) than any skeptic could ever hope to receive. This government funded gravy train needs to continue rolling at any cost, right?
Also, I see here (http://worldwildlife.org/about/financials) that the WWF received over $11 million in Corporate funding. Apparently corporate funding is only bad when it doesn’t go into the coffers of groups like WWF and Greenpeace.
If you have ” clear evidence that corporate interests, particularly in the oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” or whatever you want to call it. ” you can show it and its link to THIS BLOG. If you don’t then you are lying and have NO credibility. Just like the alarmist charlatans of the AGW/Climate Change agenda crowd.
http://www.rtcc.org/eu-budget-set-at-e960bn-but-climate-commitment-in-balance/
Over a Trillion dollars to be spent on bogus climate change JUST by the EU.
And people reckon skeptics are “well funded”. Anyone who says that is completely full of it when lined up against this financial fact.
What a joke. EU taxpayers haven’t woken up to the fraud of the millenium. They have been sold a pup. This is why the Carbon Taxes are so vital in all G20 nations to fund this idiocy.
And its why Steve’s blog has come under attack by more and more sock puppets recently.
You, or rather Steve, has given me a really good idea.
When the only attacks are on the presenter or a strawman, you know the presentation is spot on.
Another attack the messenger because we can’t attack the message crybaby.
not a crybaby actually.
Chris: “If this guy wants me to believe him, which as I understand it, is the point of the site, then there should be no problem with me questioning him, his motivations, his beliefs etc.”
You sound like Peter Gleick. Maybe you want a list of all readers qualifications so you can assess our motivations with your open mind? How far will you go to get the information you desire?
Actually that is all you have done – whine. You started out whining, and have continued to do so, even whining that you are “not a crybaby actually.”
No facts, no sourcing. Just whining, opinions and innuendos.
No, actually, I got exactly what I wanted information-wise. I’m not sure why you consider asking questions or making statements to be whining.
Well actually, no. I will take the time to go through Steve’s data because I have an open mind. If it makes sense and there is no obfuscation then I will absorb it. That’s what I do. I have no preconceptions, I do not label myself or put myself into an intellectual box. But the fact is folks, this whole site is premised on the belief that “liberals” and “scientists” are engaged in some sort of huge conspiracy to do whatever it is you all are afraid of. So to question the author about this, and to ask them to explain themselves, is hardly “attacking the presenter”. If this guy wants me to believe him, which as I understand it, is the point of the site, then there should be no problem with me questioning him, his motivations, his beliefs etc.
I know that you haven’t read much of this blog, because if you did you would know much about my life, motivations, and day to day activities. You would have also known that I hate cars and ride my bicycle 200 miles per week.
No, you’re right. I guess I was hoping to find some kind of abstract on the about page. You are certainly fitter than I. You have disabled my ability to reply to your other responses for some reason so I will do so here.
Do I believe in the the bill of rights? Sure. It exists. It doesn’t have any application to me, however.
Gossip? I’m not sure what you are talking about. You’re an engineer who responds to numbers you say, but you’ve also got a particular ideological viewpoint, and that is what I am interested in knowing about you. I’ll look at the links but right now I’m having too much fun crashing this party and saying all the wrong things!
Look Steve, if you don’t like what I have to say, you don’t have to read what I write. You can even block me from writing if you wish.
Incidentally, I do apologize for making some assumptions about you. You seem like a relatively nice, earnest fellow.
My issue, I suppose, is that the starting point for this blog is the assumption that the world of science is pulling some kind of gigantic fast one. In order to follow your logic it is necessary to accept this. It is, in fact, a precondition for climate denial. So before I pore through your data I would like to understand this precondition. If the vast conspiracy idea makes sense, then it would make sense to go through the data. If the vast conspiracy theory does not make sense then the data is a moot point. Anyway, I can’t look at the links right now because I have to respond to all those people writing silly posts about me. I love crashing a party and saying all the wrong things
You are extracting an assumption from insufficient data. Indeed, there are parts of science that is a scam. Steve documents it (Steve Milloy even documents more of it). But Steve Goddard also USES science to debunk the JUNK science.
Consensus is not science. It is fine for politics and religion, but has no place in science – as Galileo and Copernicus demonstrated.
The only reason I ever block people is when they start spamming the same thing over and over again, or if they are making violent suggestions.
Lefties trash me with ad homs all over the Internet, so it is not surprising that you had the wrong impression.
Is religion a conspiracy, or are they groups who think alike and gather? Is the democrat party a conspiracy?
not sure what you’re getting at here but yes, in some senses religion could be called a conspiracy. As for the democrat (sic) party, all politics is conspiratorial. I would say that the interests of democrats and republicans lead to various minor conspiracies on the part of political actors. Hope that answers your question.
Then the IPCC is a conspiracy, and yes you have answered my question.
How so? To what end?
Not long on logic, are you?
Also, Steve, why don’t you just indicate all of this in your ABOUT section instead of leaving it mysteriously empty? Would save people a lot of time.
Why do you love redundancy?
hunh? have to repeat to get through the thick coating of ideological presupposition that seems to exist here I guess.
Not your redundancy (although I can see your thick part). Steve’s redundancy. As he indicated, he has talked a lot about who he is and where he came from in the articles. I suggest you read them instead of casting false accusations.
And learn the art of reading. You seem to lack the comprehension aspect.
No, you are correct. I perhaps overeacted to the empty about page.
I can think of at least one reason: he doesn’t want to. That was my reasoning when I saw little information there. Following his posts here gives me much more an idea of the kind of person Steve is.
When I read something someone says, I don’t give a rats behind about their qualifications, experience or where their funding comes from. I examine what they say, not who they are, because that doesn’t change the truth of their statements one iota.
Those who seek out a persons background for the sole purpose of using it to judge the veracity of their statements are mere ad-hom weenies and don’t deserve the time of day.
Fair enough.
Nobody other than you has complained about it. And why should Steve have to please you? You are truly a very demanding – and as PJ noted – whiny person. If this is trolling, it is of a piss-poor variety.
Aw, sorry Jeremy for putting you in a bad mood. I don’t know what you mean by “trolling”. I actually arrived at this site by accident, through clicking a link. I had never heard of this guy before so wanting to know something about him seems only natural. How am I being demanding? I can’t make steve do anything. I can ask or comment and he, and you, are perfectly free to not respond or to ignore what I have written. My main intellectual curiosity is to find out what it’s really link inside the conservative box, and boy! am I getting an education. Like I said to PJ, how is asking for information and clarification being whiny. From my perspective, a whole lot of you are being whiny about me not following the expected orthodox thought patterns on this site.
Another series of lies.
Lie … “Aw, sorry Jeremy for putting you in a bad mood.” (Of course, you’re not sorry.)
Lie … “I don’t know what you mean by “trolling”. (Another pretended ignorance.)
Lie … “I actually arrived at this site by accident” (Repeatedly stated … highly suspect)
Lie … “My main intellectual curiosity … ” (You came her to bait and insult.)
Lie … “expected orthodox thought patterns on this site.” (Your expectations aren’t reality.)
Chris says:
“That’s what I do. I have no preconceptions, I do not label myself or put myself into an intellectual box.”
O.K. we believe you. Who made that Koch Brother comment again? “Oh and by the way, happy valentines day to you and the kochs.”
Yea, you are very open minded with no preconceptions…….LOL.
Every time I see the reference to an “Open Mind” I am reminded of Tammy’s site and the description: “Airhead”! 😉
Sorry gator, not the case here. It is quite legitimate to question a presenter’s ideological motivations for presenting particular information particularly when it is clear that ideology is motivating that person. I have an extremely open mind. I will absorb facts that make sense. But before I begin to sift through the information presented on this site, I would like to understand the person presenting them.
My understanding is that climate denial comes as part of a package of politically correct opinions regarding gun control, obama’s birth certificate and communists under every bed. Given that steve has a pro gun posting on a site dedicated to climate denial seems to prove my thesis. People who sit themselves in the conservative box and then close the lid tend to parrot the same politically correct opinions over and over again. Obviously these people are motivated by ideology and everything that is said by them is consequently suspect. Hence my questioning steve.
Chris,
Forget the gossip. I have 14,000 posts here. Prove me wrong.
BTW : Do you have a problem with the Bill of Rights?
“Sorry gator, not the case here. It is quite legitimate to question a presenter’s ideological motivations for presenting particular information particularly when it is clear that ideology is motivating that person. I have an extremely open mind.”
His name is “Mike1947”. Pay attention.
Yes it is and Chris is still an Airhead! 😉
kk, gator and mike. sorry about any confusion in postings. first time using wordpress comments; every forum seems to have a different system!
Anyway, as an open mind is something you mock , presumably you believe people should have closed minds and shut their eyes and ears and only think correct thoughts?
I am very familiar with “Open Minded People”! You display the open mind of an “AirHead”! It is an “Age and Experience” thingy. I think people should display the ability to think rather than display the ability repeat what rumors they have heard.
You brought Fairy Tales to a discussion about the real world. I am here to discuss the difference between the two.
You are missing the real action
I see Mike. Please tell me your fairy tales. It is because I have an open mind that I visited this site and put up with the nastiness. I am curious and I explore things that interest me. I have do my best to have no preconceptions but, being human, clearly fail as I did in regards to steve. However, I would like to point out that my opinion of him has changed somewhat since I began this little adventure and that I am not afraid to say so. That is what an open mind is all about.
anyway, enough of this. Time to visit the links.
Chris,
You brought the nastiness with you. Open minds do not begin with unfounded insinuations.
I wish you a speedy transformation into truth seeker, and one who is willing to give another the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.
Thanks for continuing to present the evidence, Steve. I wonder if chris would pose the same questions to the well-funded, book pushing, climate looney, B McKitten who only states, “…after college…” in his bio. Did he even graduate from Harvard?
Have you watched NOVA’s Earth from Space? Awesome show, I thought, and only a few minutes at the end regarding supposed human influences on global climate. Not bad for a PBS special.
saw it Zip, it was awesome til the end
No idea who or what you are talking about. But yea, I would question him if his ideas seemed to be outlandish.
Chris is paranoid and does not deserve any more replies or information.
Leave him alone to stew in his own juices. No one will care.
The rest of us can enjoy Steve’s fabulous work.
nope, not paranoid at all. Just happen to have some insights into mind, intelligence, ideology and so forth. Sorry by the way to all of you who are so incensed by me! It simply makes it all the more clear that this is a sort of fan page rather than an effort in serious inquiry.
Cut the gossip and demonstrate that my claims are incorrect.
Not incensed.
Bored.
Chris:
Many of us did our serious inquiry many years ago and we are commenting on current affairs. Whether it is attempts to further destroy constitutional rights or promote the Fairy Tale of Global Warming by the members of the Chicken Little Brigade!
Your rants show your lack of wisdom on those things you claim to have insights on. You display the nearsightedness of the promoters of both Gun control and fighting the non-existent problem of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Climate Change.
Of course it could just be that you also suffer from Cranialanalinsertitis, like the rest of the CLB members.
I see. Thank you for clearing that up. So the fact is that this page and the majority of the participants in these discussions are rooted in a particular ideology. If you would like to imply that I have my head up my ass why don’t you just say so instead of dressing it up in pseudo-latin.
If you cannot comment under the person you are addressing, at least have the decency to quote what you are commenting on.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Thanks kim, ur a sweety!
Chris, this country and many others are free.
You are free to leave this website if you disagree.
I’m sure Realclimate and 350 would appreciate your comments if they are more in line with what you believe.
For me, I didn’t buy Hansen’s testimony way back in 88…(having come from a Weather background), so thankfully I was free to do my own investigation, and what I found allowed me to realize that the BS being peddled just didn’t add up.
So don’t go away mad…just go away…your free to do so!!
Absolutely. And I’m free (thanks again steve for allowing me to keep swatting at your backers) to comment on things that don’t particularly make sense to me. It seems that people are outraged that I would dare be so politically incorrect as to question steve’s politics on HIS OWN BLOG for god’s sake. But is that not what these forums are all about, debate, discussion and questioning?
My politics are quite clear. I believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
Typical liberal ploy, ignore the facts and demonize/ridicule/marginalize/demean the opposition. Chris must have read Alinsky.
nope, actually I haven’t. please don’t put me into your box. I am not a liberal, conservative, marxist, fascist or any other kind of label. If you chose to label yourself you are free to do so but assigning labels to others is bad manners. Note that I put the term “conservative” in brackets because I myself don’t like to use it. On the other hand, “conservatives” proudly trumpet their ideology so don’t I apply it based on that.
What a retard. You claim you don’t do it yet you do it anyway. Typical libtard.
well lou, sorry i can’t post directly below you. Steve seems to be getting tired of me questioning the orthodoxy on this site and is cutting off my ability to reply. Not really sure what a “libtard” is but anyway. If you read carefully what is said here I am saying that I use the term conservative with people who define themselves that way. I don’t define myself as anything so I would ask people not to put me in a little box of their own making. Btw, I can’t actually be retarded since a “retard” is a particular medical term for someone with intellectual disabilities which prevent them from functioning without assistance in society. I don’t have that designation.
It is word press. Stop trying to create conspiracies because the world does not treat you like an Emperor.
Actually, steve figured out this reply thing. Sorry for implying you were causing the problem I was having. Hi Phil, I’m not sure what you are getting at. I don’t think the world should treat me, or anyone for that matter, like an emperor. You seem to be assigning me a label based on some preconceptions you have.
What label would that be Chris? I do not believe I used any labels. Or called you any names in that post. But you are welcome to quote them and then reply, since you cannot apparently post a response to anyone.
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with me mr MD?
“Chris must have read Alinsky.”
Or just follows the Democratic talking points…….oh wait.
Alinsky was no genius. All his tactics really say is, “We have no valid argument”, and he simply found a superfluous strategy to dance around that void.
Sorry gator, seems to be a lost thread. Glacierguy mentioned Democratic talking points implying, I think, that this is something only they use. My response was that talking points are used by all political animals, whatever their stripes.
I see. And there are no Republican talking points?
I base my ideas on my own research. I see the Republican Party as being less inclined to steal my rights and money than the Democratic Party.
Who was speaking of republicans? We were discussing Alinsky. Do you not know who he is?
f…me! This should go HERE!
Sorry gator, seems to be a lost thread. Glacierguy mentioned Democratic talking points implying, I think, that this is something only they use. My response was that talking points are used by all political animals, whatever their stripes.
Anyway gator, to which Alinsky are you referring. There are many of them.
Republican talking points do not follow Rules for Radicals.
“Anyway gator, to which Alinsky are you referring. There are many of them.”
A new height has been reached in the pursuit of obtuseness. 😆
How so? Instead of an insult why don’t you just provide an answer. Are you referring to Saul Alinsky? Looks like an interesting book. I might just read that. I’m not sure how he’s come up here but anyway.
Good! See, you didn’t have to try and be an idiot.
Chris, Instead of asking Steve a direct question about who he is, why don’t you just tell us about your preconceptions of who you think Steve is? oh wait…
because I would like to know the answer directly from steve whose blog this is. Makes sense to ask the person directly no?
uh hunh. Very impressive! Why are you assigning a label to me?
You wrote “climate change denial”… Don’t be an idiot.
sorry? Still not sure what you are getting at. You are saying that you take a couple of ideas someone expresses and then put that person in a little box with a label on it. Is that not rather fascistic of you?
Chris, as it relates to CAGW, please prove the data Steve presents here wrong or is this beyond your capabilities? That’s the only question here. Please provide evidence and facts that prove him wrong. Beyond that, you’re just emoting.
Not really. I have been trying to get at the ideological presuppositions which underpin this site. And they have been, after only a little probing, gleefully revealed to me. But you’re right. I will now take my layman’s knowledge over to the data and see what’s up.
I don’t always agree with various aspects of Steve’s political views, but am smart enough to recognize that he is dead on with respect to his views on climate science. The reason why? Because the numbers speak for themselves. Also, I have independenly verified much of his work.
My question is that, if the alarmists are right and have settled science on their side, why do they constantly feel the need to embellish if not outright lie? Polar bear populations are soaring. We have gone the longest period since the Civil War without major landfalling hurricane in the US. Severe tornadoes are down in number. There have been many droughts in the past that were far worse than the ones over the last few years.
Also check out past alarmist predicitons. There is no hockey stick. Sea levels are not rising appreciably. Ski resorts are doing fine. Snow has not become a thing of the past.
Also, why are 99% of their adjustments to raw temperature data warm biased? With increasing urbanization and a growing urban heat island effect, shouldn’t there be a bias toward cooling the present and warming the past instead of just the opposite?
Chris, I don’t know anything about conspiracy theories or how the work, but if you follow what is on this board and do some independent varification on your own, you will definitely conclude that all is not right about the state of climate science.
Thanks Andy for responding without rancor. I appreciate that after some of the name-calling above. It seems odd that you would state that there have been no landfalling hurricanes when the Eastern seaboard just had Sandy, and prior to that Katrina in New Orleans etc. These events were clearly landfalling hurricanes.
Sorry Chris – Sandy was not a hurricane when it made landfall. That is why people have taken to calling it “Superstorm Sandy”. And he did not say “ever”, he said for the longest “period” WITHOUT a MAJOR one since the civil war (not any since the Civil War). Which it is. And he also said “major” which NOAA classifies as 3 and above (which Katrina is one of).
Keep your scarecrows to yourself. Address what is stated, not what you want people to say.
I’m sorry to hear that your feel persecuted for your beliefs. Regarding my reading ability, it works well enough when the material is clear. That statement wasn’t. I asked for a clarification, which was provided so thanks! I’m unsure why it had to come with a blow.
In any case, whatever the nomenclature, both weather events Sandy and Katrina were gigantic and caused a great deal of damage.
Whether they were technically hurricanes or not is rather irrelevant when framed against their destructive effects. The statement regarding periods of time between landfalling hurricanes implies, it seems to me, that any talk of powerful weather systems causing major damage and loss of life is hokum. This is clearly not the case. The issue lies in how much weather-related damage is occurring annually, and whether or not this is increasing over time.
fyi, if I don’t refer to something that you think should be basic knowledge, it might behoove you to consider that not everyone lives in the states. Consequently our knowledge of specific US storm names and so on might have gaps.
“We have gone the longest period since the Civil War without major landfalling hurricane”
Please point out the non-clear parts of the sentence. It seems very unambiguous. “we have gone” – a journey or in reference to the 4th dimension – time
“the longest period” – a demarcation of time. Unless you are stretching the symbol at the end of this sentence into a line.
“Since the Civil war” – A starting point for reference. The author is not claiming an omniscient knowledge of all history.
“without major landfalling hurricane” – Major may be ambiguous, but that was explained according to NOAA standards (not arbitrary or the author’s capricious definition). Hurricane is unambiguous – a tropical storm with sustained winds in excess of 79 mph. Landfall is not ambiguous. To set foot or touch land.
So the truthful statement was made. You challenged it (as you are doing now). You were proven wrong. It matters not that Sandy was a powerful storm. The challenge was Hurricanes. Sandy was extratropical. No one denied it was a storm. But being extratropical when it made landfall means it was not a hurricane. For that matter, Nemo was also a extratropical storm. More commonly referred to as a Nor’Easter. it did a lot of damage as well. But neither are hurricanes, and that was the claim. Since substantiated.
But it is not that you did not see the sentence as unclear, but that you at least 2 times completely misread the sentence. Each time you were pointed back to the sentence, you misread a new part (or omitted it). Misreading on a consistent basis, or not being able to read a part of a sentence does indeed indicate a reading comprehension problem.
Chris,
I admit, my post was not the best written in the world. What I am trying to say is that the US has not had a major (CAT 3 or higher) hurricane since Wilma in 2005. That is a total well over 7 years. Since the end of the Civil War (1865), that 7+ years without a major hurricane is the longest the US has gone without one.
Sandy was obviously a very bad storm with a huge wind field and a devastating tidal surge, but sustained winds at landfall were barely hurricane force (75 mph). To be a CAT 3, you need sustained winds of at least 115 mph.
All I am trying to say is that “skeptics” are not all right wing kooks and conspiracy theorists. Somehow the issue has gotten politicized that way, when the truth should stand on its own merit. I simply suggest you follow these blogs in an objective, questioning fashion without preconceived notions.
You missed the most important “howcome”.
If the science is settled, why do the Alarmist resort to petty pejoratives, useless ad hominems and childish insults in debating skeptics. If the science is settled, then just the scientific arguments are sufficient. Yet they never are. Indeed, they always lose the scientific arguments.
I don’t get it. There have been no major hurricanes “landfalling” in the US since the Civil War? But, simultaneously, Katrina WAS a major hurricane which “landfell” in the US?
Both points cannot be correct. As for the science being settled, science is never settled. I’m not sure what pejoratives you are thinking of in your reference. I have had a number of them hurled at me today, that’s for sure. Idiot. Retard. Libtard (whatever that is) and so forth. All for having the gall to express the wrong opinion!
Do we have to dissect the entire quote for you? Did you read “longest period”? In other words the longest time between major land falling hurricanes since the Civil war (when records first started to be kept). If you had read his statement, then you would realize that yes, both statements can be true. One end point of the “period” is Wilma (W comes after K so it was after Katrina) 2005. The other end has not been reached yet! So on December 4, 2011, the longest period was established. IN the last 14 months, the record has only been added to.
As for the “Science is Settled” check the Alarmist camp (specifically Gore and his followers). They are the ones claiming it. And the pejoratives?
Do you know the root of “denier”? They are comparing Skeptics to Holocaust deniers. You need only go to SkS, or Real Climate or any other warmist site, declare you are skeptical about AGW – and you will find out how tame Steve’s site is. I would wager that all here are survivors of the vitriol and hate from the Alarmist. They are most vicious when you use actual science to rebut them. They hate that.
chris says:
February 14, 2013 at 7:18 pm
I don’t get it. There have been no major hurricanes “landfalling” in the US since the Civil War? But, simultaneously, Katrina WAS a major hurricane which “landfell” in the US?
Both points cannot be correct.
Reading comprehension problem?
It would seem so. I had to dissect every word for him. He seems to not know what “longest Period” “since” “major hurricane” or “Landfall” is.
“We have gone the longest period since the Civil War without major landfalling hurricane”
And apparently only follows headlines from the democrats since he missed Wilma (referring several times to Katrina).
I’m sorry to hear that some of you feel persecuted for your beliefs.
Regarding my reading ability, it works well enough when the material is clear. That statement wasn’t. Grammatically, it is stating that there have been no major hurricanes in the US since the Civil War. I asked for a clarification, which was provided so thanks!
I’m unsure why it had to come with a blow.
In any case, whatever the nomenclature, both weather events Sandy and Katrina were gigantic and caused a great deal of damage.
Whether they were technically hurricanes or not is rather irrelevant when framed against their destructive effects. The statement regarding periods of time between landfalling hurricanes implies, it seems to me, that any talk of powerful weather systems causing major damage and loss of life is hokum. This is clearly not the case. The issue lies in how much weather-related damage is occurring annually, and whether or not this is increasing over time.
fyi, if I don’t refer to something that you think should be basic knowledge, it might behoove you to consider that not everyone lives in the states. Consequently our knowledge of specific US storm names might have gaps. Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing the name hurricane Wilma in the news at some point.
Grammatically it does not. There were 2 qualifications to your misreading the statement, both very easy to see – longest period since – in other words there have been others – and landfalling – which says nothing for non-landfalling hurricanes. You had to not only ignore those qualifications, but outright have your nose rubbed into them to see them. That indicates a reading problem.
Again, if you cannot read a simple sentence,even if the grammar is not A+ (it is passable), then you do have a reading comprehension problem.
BTW: I do not live in California, but I understand the difference between a tremor and a major earthquake.
I have no clue on gene splicing, so I tend to not challenge people who appear knowledgeable on the subject just to get a rise out of them.
Yes and I have been subject to a whole barrage of petty pejoratives, useless ad hominems and childish insults simply because I’ve asked questions here. See all the really lovely stuff insulting stuff people have posted about me. Didn’t take long either. Steve hoisted my posting up and within minutes I was labelled a “libtard”. And now I see that several folks have been speculating about me being a machine or a “group”.
Chris said … “Yes and I have been subject to a whole barrage of petty pejoratives, useless ad hominems and childish insults simply because I’ve asked questions here. See all the really lovely stuff insulting stuff people have posted about me. Didn’t take long either. Steve hoisted my posting up and within minutes I was labelled a “libtard”. And now I see that several folks have been speculating about me being a machine or a “group”.”
_________________________________________________________
Chris came onto this website questioning Goddard’s credentials, accusing him of having a chip on his shoulder, assuming that goddard would censor/delete his posts, calling this website ‘conservative blather pages,” saying Goddard just wanted a cheering section … then calling him a ‘little boy.”
And that was just the beginning of the insults he has hurled. And now CHRIS is claiming that HE has been insulted since coming to this site. My, my … this guy is a prime example of one who is lacking in self-awareness.
But I suspect that is giving him WAY too much credit … he is actually a liar. He came to this website with the intention of slinging poo, knowing full well that it would be hurled back … and voila’ … he would have all the proof he needs that we conservatives are closed-minded meanies and rubes.
Congratulations, Chris, job well done. You insulted us and … we insulted you … as you knew we would. Quite a major accomplishment on your part, huh?
No Chris – you set the tenor of the debate with your opening salvos. If you do not want that type of language used, do not make your introduction full of them. You set the tone. And are now shocked to find others can be as petty as you? You are either extremely naive, or extremely disingenuous.
Chris,
Actually, Steve has been quite open about what he thinks and what his experiences have been in his topic selections and comments. Having a CV posted does not really matter, in fact it opens one to being accused of argument by authority, a bogus device often used in “climate science” circles. I don’t care what degrees he has or not, I care about the facts he presents and the conclusions he draws. That’s why I have been reading this blog daily for years.
I have been working in science my whole career. I have had to evaluate claims by salesmen and engineers, garage inventors, big firms and everything in between. I have also had to make decisions based on what equipment readings were actually telling me, not what I hoped they would be. As I have had to do, Steve looks at the DATA, not the number of degrees an author has. I have seen PhDs that could not pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions are written on the heel.
So stop arguing, look through the blog and find a fact that you disagree with and bring it on. A lively discussion can then ensure, to the betterment of everyone.
I also meant to mention that my experience has made me into a pretty good BS detector. And CAGW and its minions stink like a dead skunk in the middle of the road….
Damn, I meant ensue…
No problem with the typo. I wasn’t looking for a degree particularly. I was simply amazed when I went to the About section and found absolutely nothing about the author of the blog. I could care less if someone has a phd. I too have spent my life dealing with people’s bs and have found anonymity to be a significant indicator. But as Steve is no longer anonymous, on to the data!
Chris,
Please provide the numbers for your claim “Interestingly, we do have clear evidence that corporate interests, particularly in the oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” or whatever you want to call it.”
That statement alone speaks volumes.
The most dangerous things are not what someone knows, or doesn’t know, it’s the things that they think they know and are completely wrong on.
Fair enough. I will stop using the term “climate denial” which, you are right, on reflection, is a rather dumb statement. As for the info you requested, you can, if you wish, find the long screed I posted about half an hour ago. In it I mention where you can go look for the information you are seeking. I also indicate that I will try and find it for you myself since I don’t think many of the people here like to leave their comfort zones.
frozen guy, what don’t I know and what am I completely wrong about? And, given that your only interaction with me has been my posts so far, what do you actually know about me?
this is a huge amount of dialogue wasted on a troll
You are correct. I think Chris has shown us enough.
Well, I’m a troll now…hahahaaa… amazing! All because I am expressing the wrong kinds of opinions. Hahahahaaaa….. talk about politically correct defensiveness!
Interestingly enough, Chris is complaining that he can’t find enough information about Steve Goddard, but seems strangely reluctant to let us know anything about him. He doesn’t want to be ‘labeled’ or ‘placed in a box,’ but wants to do exactly that to Mr Goddard. (Just how it appears to me …)
No, because you are talking in circles…. I gotta lye down now, getting dizzy.
The replies by ‘Chris’ are very mechanical almost none human – to a script or formula.
ahahaaaaahahaaa…. so now I’m a machine! Or a group of people twinking you all. hahahahaaa….too funny!
Well you don’t sound like one person.
You have a script?
Well for one, you thought, as your words demonstrated, that this site is associated with the Koch brothers. You think there is a conspiracy to fund, as you say “climate denialism”. What is that? Denying there is a climate? I ask you again, who is funding it, how much money are they providing and to whom, and exactly how are they benefitting?
BP is actually funding the other side. You see, all this crap increases the cost of energy, effectively making the products they provide more valuable.
Just because Mike Mann says it at every opportunity doesn’t make it reality.
Did you also believe Hillary Clinton when she said they was a vast right wing conspiracy to falsely accuse her husband of infidelity?
Didn’t really pay much attention to that whole billary thing. You are correct that some oil companies are funding fossil fuel alternatives. You are also correct that I jumped the gun on the association between this site and particular moneyed interests. I have I think apologized to steve for already somewhere in one of these posts.
Regarding the Kochs, they donate millions to various organizations such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. These organizations strongly promote the denial of any anthropocentric climate change. The Kochs, amongst other things, are heavily involved in making money from oil so they have a vested interest in ensuring that the way things are done, and the ways in which they make their money, remain unchanged. I don’t call this a vast right-wing conspiracy. I call it business people spending money to increase or hold on to their market share. Pretty straightforward.
Can you prove AGW? If not, then there is nothing to deny.
“These organizations strongly promote the denial of any anthropocentric climate change.”
Busted again. None of them promote the denial of anything. They do promote skepticism. You can claim you are not anything you want. But one thing is for certain. You are an Alarmist. Only Alarmist use that term. Mostly out of ignorance. Since very few people are denying warming, the only thing that is in question is the cause. But most Alarmists have not been trained in that part of their religion.
“These organizations strongly promote the denial of any anthropocentric climate change.”
Wrong, and a typical tactic. No one claims there is no anthropogenic (not antropocentric, as you spelled it – not sure what that is…..) aspect, just that it is not catastrophic, and CO2 doesn’t control the temperature of the Earth.
You are either in serious need of doing some actual research, or you are purposely wasting everyone’s time. Either way, I’m done.
“Regarding the Kochs, they donate millions to various organizations such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.”
Please provide source. At the same time, can you provide information regarding government funding of climate research, environmental projects, and ‘green’ energy. Politicians also have a ‘vested interest’ in this subject.
May we see please comparisons of who is funding each side of this issue, and how much?
Also, fyi, I have after my interactions here stopped using the term climate denial, first because it is not a very clear term and secondly because it seems to make people uncomfortable in that they feel they are being lumped in with holocaust deniers.
I wanted to say something and then realised that life’s too short to waste my time.
excellent choice mate.
Readers of this blog are still waiting for a discussion about the data presented by Steve and I’m pretty sure we will continue to wait.
Secondly, it is not so much about a conspiracy but rather it is the old “follow the money”. Western governments are spending 10’s of billions of dollars on climate research. This means high paying jobs and all expense paid travel for lots of government bureaucrats . It really is that simple.
If you want proof of the conspiracy just spend some time reading the climategate emails. It is all there in their own words.
Well Pathway, you will have to wait a long time. As I’ve stated several times already, I arrived at this site completely by accident. I admit that I started out blathering about the climate science thing, but I realize now that this is not my interest. I want to know more about the people who spend a great deal of their time on insular sites such as this. Frankly, for me, the climate debate itself is irrelevant. I am comfortable believing that it will all work itself out. I’m interested in the Climate Skeptic angle only in that it seems to come as part of a package of beliefs which must be held in order for someone to be considered politically correct.
Chris is an obssessive. He’s got all bent out of shape because there is no bio on the About page. He’s typed thousands of words and wasted many people’s time with his obssession. Ignore.
No Billy, not obsessed, just not much else to do at the moment. Still in good shape, no bends. Ignore away!
You are correct. A quick look at the replies from this person shows a strange mechanical formulaic answering mode.
More than one person or just a script?
Interesting observation. Don’t know why, but the term ‘tag team’ kept coming to mind as I was reading these comments. (I know … not exactly a scientific response.)
Yes, I had to go back and reread just to confirm my initial feelings. No not scientific but something does not ‘smell’ right.
oh yes, here it is… I’m both a machine and a group of people… hahahaaa. Wow! I’m sorry you guys are so caught up in your own delusions.
Anyway, do we know anything about Chris?
you’re free to ask. I don’t have a blog but if I did, I would probably put information about me front and centre.
Do you believe man is causing a catastrophic runaway warming of the atmosphere by introducing additional CO2?
You said the Bill of Rights do not apply to you. Where do you live?
Are you Male or Female?
What college degrees, if any, have you obtained? And at what universities?
Alright, is your real name Chris?
Yup. I am a male. I have a BEd from a Canadian university which would be irrelevant to you, but not working in teaching currently. I live in Canada. (can’t wait to read people’s vitriol about that!) I believe that the way we are currently dealing with our gaseous industrial emissions is problematic and that by and large, we are getting to the point where we are creating problems for ourselves as humans. What, and at what scale those problems are is not clear to me. I also believe that most people dislike change of any kind and will do almost anything to stop it. Consequently, I see the majority of people who question climate science as either 1) ideologically frightened – the “government’s trying to take away my liberty” types or 2) working to maintain an industrial interest. I don’t believe that there is some kind of “plot” by those engaged in climate science. Hope that’s sufficient Brad. Thanks for your interest!
Beliefs belong in church’s. And the old strawman about people being afraid of change is disgusting and insulting. People are afraid of degradation of life quality, not change.
AGW is a belief, and after decades and hundreds of billions of dollars, less likely to be the cause of climate change than when we first started investigating. It is so far a failed hypothesis at best.
Do you “believe” or have proof that CO2 produced by man is causing Catastrophic, Runaway, Global Warming?
Perhaps the people invested in catastrophic global warming are the ones who peddle fear while others of that group have vested interests. 😉
Those industrial emissions improve our standard of living. Without industry, we would be living like those in the Middle Ages.
Those that are afraid of change are afraid of progress.
Climate science has been distorted by all the (government) money that the climatologists only get if the come up with slanted “science.” The answers are bought. The ratio of money on the CAGW side to that on the sceptic side is more than 1000 to 1.
Be very careful of what you believe. Concentrate on facts. Collect them. Skepticism is a virtue. Blind belief is not a good idea.
You stated before that you have ” clear evidence that corporate interests, particularly in the oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” or whatever you want to call it. ” you can show it and its link to THIS BLOG. If you don’t then you are lying and have NO credibility.
tchev: I’ll try and do that for you. Of course, you could also go and look for this information yourself if you were intellectually curious.
Brad: not sure.
Ed: absolutely! That’s why I’m am approaching this site with scepticism.
@chris says: February 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Sorry gator, not the case here. It is quite legitimate to question a presenter’s ideological motivations for presenting particular information particularly when it is clear that ideology is motivating that person
===============================================================
“it is clear that ideology is motivating that person”
Clear to who?
Some teachers are child molestors. Does that change the answers in the back of their textbook?
I’m assuming you are a public school teacher, based upon your reasoning skills or lack thereof.
And that is of course @ chris, I smoehow missed his response to my earlier post.
You may not like the person presenting the facts, you may not like the way the presenter is presenting the facts, you may not like the facts themselves but it makes no difference because the facts are what they are.
Join a debate club, learn how to form a logical argument (that may require a critical thinking course), and come back some time later, or not.
hmmm…ok. It’s funny to me really how incensed you all are. And that is my point. I arrived at this site quite by accident. I had never heard of Steve Goddard before so when a link I clicked brought me here I decided to investigate the inside of the box self-labelled conservatives sit in. That is my intellectual curiosity and that is why I am here. The climate debate’s not my main interest frankly. I am trying to understand for one thing to understand how it can be that people who call themselves conservatives and rail against political correctness are themselves, as has been abundantly demonstrated to me this past couple of days, are extremely politically correct themselves. The evidence? I expressed an unorthodox opinion on here and found myself being insulted and denigrated and told to get lost which is of course the very definition of political correctness.
Really I’m here to study you.
The most interesting thing I’ve found so far is that everyone on here is highly defensive and that there’s a great deal of twinking going on.
That an amazing generalization to make: I’m stupid because I’m a public school teacher, (which, in point of fact I am not). hahahaaa…talk of reductive reasoning. You’re not doing much to advance the thesis that you are a great debater, my friend!
“Really I’m here to study you.”
Frankly, this is the point at which this entire conversation should have ended.
Chris is not interested in the actual material that Steve presents on the state of climate science … or anything else, for that matter. He stated it, himself, very clearly … he just wants to ‘study us’ … like a higher life-form would study a lower life-form. That is a conversation-ender. Nothing else needs to be said after that. And it justifies (in his mind) the lies and insults he has repeated … he simply wants to see how we will react. Because (in his mind), he is the enlightened one … and we are the primitives. In his mind, he came here to go slumming.
He is trolling. And we took the bait.
Me in this case.
In scepticism 101, ideology is a red flag, but at the end of the day it’s the quality of the evidence and the argument that count. Once Chris comes to understand this, perhaps he can teach his own students a few basic critical thinking skills.
Chris,
Boy you are a bore. As I said before, get a life eh? Get a girl (or a boy, or whatever). However, before I ignore you for good, on that Big Oil crap that you come out with, consider this. When the CRU was set up at the UEA (You’ll know of which I speak, I am sure, given the depth of knowledge of climate science that you have shared with us), by Herbert Lamb, do you know who was the major contributor?
Shell International.
Big Oil.
Have nice life. When you get one.
Well, if I’m so boring why do you bother reading what I’ve written? Ignore away! My life btw is, and has been, extremely rich and fulfilling up to now.
“extremely rich and fulfilling up to now.” – Up to now? Then why don’t you stop doing what has caused your life to be poor and unfulfilling.
Ignorance is bliss.
Chris, not sure where you are going here and I would not presume to speak for Steve but there are several recurring themes that Steve focuses on: Alterations to raw temperature date that may be questionable, the inability of global climate models to predict future trends, the insistence that any unusual weather must be due to manmade global warming/climate change while ignoring equally or more severe weather having occurred in the past when CO2 was lower, the hypocrisy and lack or objectiveness shown by the media vis a vis Democrats/Obama and conservatives/Republicans. the ineffectiveness and lack of economic viability for alternative energy sources, the efforts of this Government to infringe on individual rights and personal responsibility, replacing them with dependence on the State, the assumption that only Government can solve problems, that being successful is somehow bad, and that the Govenment has the obligation to level the social and economic playing field, forgeting some people will always be more successful than others. Steve, If I got anything wrong, please excuse me, and if I missed anything, please feel free to add.
Sure. To be frank, and I’ve just figured this out myself, it’s not the climate debate that I’m interested in really (as I’ve stated elsewhere I arrived at this site quite by accident and had never heard of Steve goddard before). IMuch more interesting to me is seeing how people who label themselves conservatives actually think and act. So this is what I’m doing. I guess I don’t have the same fears as you do about my “freedom” being taken away. Sorry.
Chris, you seem to be under some delusion that you are something other than a garden variety libtard. Your beliefs, your manner of presenting those beliefs, and your prejudices are 100% CONVERGENT with that of a typical libtard. Also your grasp of the climate issue has a depth of about 1/2 of one one thousandth of an inch. Tone down the smugness factor a notch or two.
Likewise Joe.
Are you 8 years old? Likewise what?
pfffeeew…. I made it to the end of the comments to this point …. man, I need to lay down again. This Chris fellow sure knows how to dance around the mulberry bush. WOW!
Yeah, that was the longest thread I’ve read yet here.
Chris, I was curious too when I went to the “about” page but it certainly didn’t bother me. I had been around here long enough before then to know that what I was reading was factual concerning data. Steves identity didn’t concern me then and doesn’t concern me now. If I thought I was being lied to or he was trying to slip it into me then I might try harder to find out who he is and then not come here anymore.. It’s not important. Let it go.
Which mulberry bush is that?
His name could be Jimmy Crack Corn! I don’t care!
Ok….
Chris, here is a good introduction to climate skepticism. Really study this. Print out the charts and mark it up with a colored pencil. Steve has gone over this and COUNTLESS other problems with climate data.
Look at the current NASA temp chart of US temp anomalies.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Now let’s go back in time and look at the same chart as it was presented in 1999, before this AGW “hysteria” completely took over “science”.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Look at 1998 and 1933 in the 1999 chart. You can plainly see that 1933 was about .6C warmer than 1998. (the year of the Super El Nino).
Now look at that exact same chart as is presented today, and look at the 1933 and 1998 data points. What you will find is that the current “version” now shows 1998 as about .2C warmer than 1933! Walla. Somehow, 1933 got shifted downwards about .8C. The new FACT is that the past 14 years have been the warmest of the past century in the US!
Now to further this FACT-finding exercise. Go here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and plug in Annual Temp 1998-2011(in both sets of yr boxes) and append that to the NASA 1999 chart.
Note the downward US temp trend since 1998. Then note that from 2008-2011 the US temps were about a full 1C less than 1998. So if we append the recent 1998-2011 data to the 1999 FACTS we find that from 2008-2011 the US temps were about 1.6C less than 1933. And quite “average” compared to the last century.
Then click on the Historical References page
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/historical-references/
Then, do yourself a huge favor if you want to know about the Climate History of our planet during the last couple thousand years and buy this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415127351/ref=wms_ohs_product
Excellent response, glenncz.
However, looks like Chris scurried back into the woodwork from whence he came. I agree with some of the comments, above, that said he was wasting our time. His kind like to lurk at skeptic sites, sling some poo, then disappear. They’re not interested in an honest exchange of ideas.
TPGeezer, they are not wasting our time whatsoever. Chris gives us a very good example of how hundreds of millions on this planet think. The don’t understand group think or realize that they could be subject to it. MOST people just go along with he people whom they consider authority figures in whatever endevour they are considering. I have seen this consistently in my own profession. People like Chris don’t need to know the Truth, they just need to know they are Right. And being Right just means having the guy next to them agree with them. Sadly, in this day and age it’s quite easy to find someone who agrees that EVERY major climate anomaly is because of man’s evil addiction to fossil fuels, which is being forced on us, because of greed, instead of using green fuels. This entire thing is a fascinating look into human nature.
Sorry Geezer, I’m back, so I guess that’s your theory shot to hell. What I’m finding through accidentally stumbling onto this site is that almost everyone on here has already made up their minds about what they feel the truth to be. So there’s not much to debate.
Chris The Pretender, here, pretends that we conservatives are the only ones whose minds are made up (closed), but of course, HE has an open mind … as demonstrated by his loooong screed, below, in which he trashes:
Steve Goddard and those of us who visit/enjoy his website
Conservative pundits
Climate skeptics, in general
Creationists (Real/present danger? Real menace? Taliban/Al-Quaeda? HYPERBOLE MUCH?)
Wayne “thing” LaPierre and supporters of the 2nd Amendment
He also objects to the term ‘libtard’ and in the same sentence (and repeatedly throughout his incessant bleating … call us ‘twinks.’ I call that a lack of self-awareness.
No, you are finding out that your mind is already made up – and was before you got here. What we laugh at is your very behavior. That of the clowns who think they have all the answers, yet in reality have none.
We are looking for answers, and reject science by consensus.
Chris,
You seem to be projecting. Everything in this field is uncertain. It’s very early days from a scientific point of view.
A very EXPENSIVE look at human nature. These are the people who believe that ‘nature/primitive life is good’ and ‘man/technology is evil.’ Global warming feeds into that belief system and/or is a tool for furthering their goal of diminishing man’s impact on the planet.
They are confounded. Because on one hand “they” are like the rest of us. They would like a nicer house, newer car, more vacations to exotic lands, the ability to go into a store and buy whatever one fancies and enormous cash reserves – so they never are wanting for the wonders that CO2 gives. Also, they want more free time, which is another direct benefit of CO2 production (ie. energy). CO2 (energy) creates more free time in our lives. Even the poor in the industrial parts of our world live very rich lives.
What’s fascinating about this topic, is that even many of our bright intellectuals at the top of the movement, are completely brainwashed themselves. One of the posters above used the very good analogy of religion. Billions of people world wide belong to various religions (as do I), completely based on faith, devoid of fact, and for many their religion plays a major role in their lives. They can’t imagine that it’s tenets are completely false and just another fairy tale. Even the best of us, have deep seated believes which are completely false.
Ok Glennez, thanks for the tutorial.
I like your analogy, btw. This is my point, and the reason that I am here. To learn about a different group of people with different beliefs than me, and to try and figure out how they arrived at those particular modes of thought. I agree completely that we can all carry belief systems which are completely false. I often catch my self making such assumptions. On the other hand, I am highly aware of this tendency and do my best to proactively counter that tendency, however fallibly. I have been through a good deal of the material on this site but still feel no need to adopt Steve’s world view. Which, of course, makes me irritating because I’m here on a “safe” space for certain types of opinions but am not agreeing with them. In other words, I am not being politically correct per the expectations of those who use this location to stroke each other.
@glenncz says: February 15, 2013 at 10:20 am
Correct. And I would add that what these dipsticks don’t get is that ALL the comforts that we in the Western world enjoy derive originally from fossil fuels. Or that we have an obligation to help the 3rd world develop (if only from enlightened self-interest), and that we can best do that by helping them get cheap access to fossil fuels.
Where does enlightened self-interest come into this? Well, because the birth rates of developed countries decrease significantly.
http//www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/12/data_visualation
Yes Jeremy, as I wrote above, the study of global warming is more than just science it’s a study into the deepest behaviors of human nature. And yes, “we” have to wonder, how can people be so STUPID that they don’t cherish all the comfort and time that fossil fuels give us everyday! If they don’t accept that, they don’t have even the slightest chance of figuring out consensus global warming or the alternative energy scam.
Education is key. Unfortunately, climate skeptics are being frozen out of the education system, much like the publishing/peer-review process. I recently read that they are planning to delete the word ‘theory’ when teaching global warming. They will continue to teach the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, etc, etc, but they will teach global warming/climate change as FACT.
So Jeremy, the problem is that you are afraid people are trying to take away your comforts?
Thanks Steve for a memorable and exciting v-day! And also to you who have been by and large civil. I can’t remember if you allow swearing so we’ll see if this stays up. If not, I will return and re post again in politically correct form.
I took some time to travel through this k-hole of an information dump you have here and find nothing that makes me think any differently than before. First, as I said previously, why does this stuff always have to come as a package? There is a mind -dulling repetive banality to the sites of self-professed conservatives such as yourself: global warming hoax; gun control madness; obama’s a queer. Climate fraud hysteria; gun-control panic; obama’s a muslim… on and on and on ad-yawn-infinitum. I see the same package of plaints and rage and pseudo-clever “gotcha!” stuff at any number of sites. Beck, Limbaugh, what’s her name, Malkin. It’s all the same shit with a different shit disturber.
This does nothing to disabuse me of the notion that those of you who label yourselves conservatives follow a rigid core of orthodoxy. You march in lock-step group-think, like a North Korean military parade, and woe betide anyone who gets in your politically correct way, as I discovered Thursday.
From what I can tell, the number one bona fide you have in the eyes of your acolytes is that you are not “an expert”, like those evil, plotting scientists everyone on here has to loudly hate in order to maintain the correct political viewpoint and get your approval.
Or maybe it is that you are an expert after all: as you keep pointing out, you’re an engineer so you have the expertise to sift through the scientific atrocities you see everywhere and interpret them correctly. I don’t know. It’s very confusing.
This leads me to conclude that you are, therefore, an expert in following established “conservative” orthodoxy and have enough acumen to, in turn, become a guiding expert in orthodox, politically correct thinking.
To make things clear, I have never heard of you before February 14, 2013 (oh happy valentines’s day for me, I’ve discovered Steve Goddard!). Browsing around before my Valentine’s day night, I followed an interesting link. It took me to your page. I read what I found, understood the site to be a zone of politically correct orthodoxy and went to find out who was writing. No information at all on the About page about the author, which I still find bizarre. Presumably that’s part of some strategy of yours.
In any case, I guess I’m a little old fashioned. If was going to randomly invite people to my party I would do them the courtesy of letting them know immediately whose party they were at when they first arrived. It was for this reason that I made the initial posting which got everyone’s knickers in a twist. You decided to draw attention to it, and here we are.
No wonder everyone on here was so mad at me. Given your obvious cult celebrity status I guess I was supposed to approach you and your site with self-effacing deference and hushed reverent awe, I might even over time, if had I towed the line and said all the correct political things, and agreed vociferously enough with every one of your premises, and paid my dues attacking unsuspecting party arrivals who stumble through your e-hole, been eligible to become an exulted part of your hive mind, a favoured acolyte of Steve Goddard, expert non expert. One of these people you look forward to chatting with when you sit down at your computer to log on for your daily dose of orthodoxy. .
You yourself don’t seem to be particularly crazy. You’ve got a real chip on your shoulder clearly, and a great deal of fear in your heart apparently. Some of your acolytes are obviously unhinged, besides which you have all these silly little twinks lurking around, your attack dogs and enforcers I guess.
I have to say that perhaps the most depressing thing I have found during this excursion has been the abysmally uninspired, lumpen nature of your twinks.
Libtard. I mean really. How much thought went into that? And to boot, it isn’t even an original insult. I’ve seen it used dozens of times by twinks on other blogs I’ve visited. So not only have they chosen a facile and boring pejorative, but they haven’t even created it themselves, instead lazily picking from that tiresome litany of stock invective plastered all over the interior of so many conservative boxes.
So come on Steve’s twinks! Show some spirit. Show some life. Show some originality. Coin some new insults so that when you’re being politically correct, you don’t sound like an endless droning loop. Perhaps I’ll check back in a few weeks to see how you’re doing.
Regarding your evidence of scientific conspiracy: meh. I’ve seen stuff like this before. Nothing new here. Of course, maybe some of the stuff I’ve seen elsewhere originated with you in the first place, as you are apparently THE expert non-expert.
You have found some inconsistencies, some questionable behaviour and some methodological problems with various climate-type studies. That’s great. That’s what science is. Messy and incongruous and inelegant, until something coherent develops from the roiling stew of thoughts, ideas and studies. You have however, it seems, through an effort of mental acrobatics which escapes me, managed to turn a bunch of disparate fuck ups into this tapestry of scientific conspiracy you believe you see.
What I see is a bunch of folks studying natural phenomena which they find unsettling and worrisome. I see some of them believing that the urgency of their findings justified their representing certain aspects of their research in a more “alarmist”, to borrow your term, manner. I see this as related to their desire to break through the sullen bonds of apathy which tend to create human inertia at inopportune times, to in their minds, get something done before it’s too late.
I also don’t see any evidence which indicates all of this is a gigantic elaborate ruse so that somebody can get a free flight on the government’s dime, or drachma or ringit or whatever.
I also have to wonder why someone as concerned about truth in science as you profess to be is not tackling the problem of creeping creationism. Perhaps you do somewhere in your 14 000 posts – do you work btw, or is sitting in front of the computer refining your orthodoxy a full-time occupation? In which case from where does your income derive? – but I don’t have the time right now to sift through all that tedious political correctness to find it There’s a big, exciting, vibrant world out there and I’ve spent quite some time already exploring this one mangy corner.
The creation “scientists” are a real and present danger to the American intellect. Trying to educate the nation’s children properly in science while using a religious book as a science text just isn’t going to work. And this idiocy will, if allowed to persist, eventual turn America into a truly backward nation full of muddle-headed, unimaginative, politically correct types. So I would urge you Steve, to leave the climategate stuff for a while and turn your intellectual acumen towards stopping the very real menace from these American Taliban and their Al-Quaeda-like militia partners.
Here’s a link to a good debunking site which might be useful and interesting to you should you decide to take up this challenge: http://www.creationtheory.org/
Incidentally, it’s a mystery to me why these creationist types are so set on getting only the bible into science courses. Their case would be much better made if they could force all the world’s religious texts into the nation’s science classrooms since all of them, Quaran, Bhagavad-Gita and so forth promote divine origin stories. They could then use the only real objective evidence available to us for the existence of a divinity, and that is the fact that ALL human societies down through the ages have independently developed a concept of the divine. Of course, that would not be politically correct since the bible is somehow supposed to trump everything else!
As for your conservative boxes, I’m sure they have a nice structure and all but I don’t really like the mental furniture with which they are equipped. As I keep saying, it’s the overwhelming amount of political correctness in self-labelled conservative thought that gets to me the most. You HAVE to think this. You MUST believe that. You NEED to be a certain kind of obnoxious at all times or else you lose your pink elephant badge. Too proscriptive for me frankly, and if you’re a milder kind of person reading this, strikingly fascistic thinking, wouldn’t you say? This so-called conservative mind-set is a little too much like a self-congratulatory ideological circle-jerk for my taste.
Besides, if I lived in a conservative box, I might have to encounter that wayne thing. As a teacher, if it was trying to enter my class to show off it’s assault rifle, it would have to shoot it’s way in, which is to say I would not let it anywhere near my or anybody else’s children and would die trying to stop it.
Actually no. That’s not fair. It’s sad really. This is a man clearly wasted and hollowed out by the fact he’s caught between jesus and the devil, as we like to say; he is the ur- example of a Faustian pact in action. That he has chosen to sell his soul, so to speak, and therefore has created his own emptiness is, if I recall, one of the signatures of tragedy.
Regarding guns. Whatever. Have them if you want. It’s your right blah, blah, blah. Just do your best not to fuck with others’ rights to live in gun-free environments. Also your gun promoters might want to stop speaking from all sides of their mouths. You may want to persuade them to stop yapping and blathering about cosmetics and what not, weaving semantics and sophistry into that mythical cloak stained with second amendment ink that they wrap around reality. In other words, get them to shit or shut up.
It all boils down to one thing: there are bogeymen and “bad guys” out there and guns make you feel safe. It’s an extra set of balls. In which case just say so. Be manly. Stand up and proclaim loudly and proudly: “I’m frightened so I need a gun”.
For those of you who have asked for the Koch-related links, lots of them out there. They mostly seem to point to tax returns from Koch funded foundations which indicate donations of between $10 000 and $1 000 000 + to various “Think Tanks” (ugh…like groupthink!) which label themselves conservative (Cato Institute, A for P, and… here’s a little bone for some twink to chew … Empire Foundation? Heritage America? Americans Standing Up and Proudly Singing?? The other names escape me presently).
I haven’t actually seen this motherlode and the tax returns could be apocryphal but I doubt it. Since it’s pretty much guaranteed that next to none of you will make the effort leave your nice, warm, familiar, politically correct safe zone to check into this, I will see if I can find something for you.
As for myself, I think I’ll continue being as free of deleterious preconceptions and politically correct thought processes as I can, and embrace the creative destruction of this amazing cultural collision we are presently experiencing as a species.
I’m not sure what country you live in Chris, but in the United States we have a Constitution which says
In the UK, they do not have that right, and their violent crime rate is eight times higher than in the US
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/inconvenient-truth-violent-crime-rate-in-the-gun-free-uk-is-800-of-the-heavily-armed-us/
You are twice as likely to be murdered by a hammer than by a rifle in the US. You are 100X more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a rifle. Are you terrified of cars and hammers, and want them banned?
Your fantasy about living in a gun free environment is beyond absurd. DHS just bought 7,000 automatic rifles and 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition – for use inside the US. What is Obama up to? That is enough bullets to shoot everyone in the country five times.
No because the car and the hammer are incidental to killing. Guns have only one major purpose, which is to kill. And actually, if I can find the energy… getting tired dealing with all those twinks! … I will take a tour with you of all the various statistics on violent crime available outside of your comfortable little bubble and we will see that your numbers are wrong. Would you like to join me? Are you willing to leave your comfort zone? I will point out, just in case you decline, that the homicide rate in the US is, on average, four times that of comparable nations. The US is third behind Mexico (1st) and, if I recall, Estonia. In case you didn’t see my earlier post, I live in Canada so I’m not particularly worried about the DHS. Of course, being invaded by America is not out of the question, I suppose, at some point. From what I understand, the 10th Mountain Division is based in upstate New York partially to be in close proximity to the border for just such a (theoretical) purpose. I’m sure there are also detailed plans for just such an aggression stuffed away in some drawer at the Pentagon. Developing plans is for any contingency is after all what military planners do best. Oh well.
Too bad you think your government is trying to kill you. It must be very stressful living there. Why don’t you leave if you are so frightened of being offed by Obama?
“Too bad you think your government is trying to kill you. It must be very stressful living there. Why don’t you leave if you are so frightened of being offed by Obama?”
I will ignore the rest of this silly post (what makes you think we want to invade Canada, anyway?) … we do not think our government is trying to kill us, per se. As long as the citizens are armed, we are assured they won’t try. History is replete with cases of tyrannical rule over people who were disarmed. Ignoring that history is foolish.
Obama is not our main fear. The government has tried, numerous times in the past, to limit our 2nd Amendment rights. That is dangerous territory (see above paragraph).
But, why, pray tell, should we not fear being ‘offed by Obama?’ He is now employing drones in other countries to arbitrarily kill individuals on a ‘kill list,’ and that has included American citizens. Obama … judge, jury, executioner. (This is so un-American that I don’t know where to begin.) He is notoriously thin-skinned and vindictive toward his perceived political enemies. Drones are now becoming commonplace in this country … unarmed, so far. He has repeatedly done end-runs around the Constitution with his executive orders.
All this government needs is a convergence of motive, method and opportunity … and that fatal line will be crossed when an armed drone will be used against an American citizen … on American soil. And even when Obama is (FINALLY) gone from office, we still have to contend with all these conditions still being in place when the next administration comes to power.
Your thought process is severely defective.
There are 20 million semi-automatic rifles in the US, yet there were only a few dozen murders committed using semi-automatic rifle in the US last year. Obviously the purpose of these 20,000,000 rifles is something other than killing. Less than one ten thousandth of one percent of these rifles were used to kill humans.
They are used to deter crime, prevent killings, and for recreation. You are much more likely to be killed by human fist than by an “assault rifle”. You spew left-wing BS – without even using your brain to think if it makes sense.
You are terrified of something which represents no threat to you, yet ignore something which is a huge threat. Have you ever studied any actual history?
you’re more likely to die from cold……..
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath
And so, another alarmist, having settled the science by force of his opinion, lordly releases his established wisdom unto the lowly serfs of mankind, smugly struts off with self accolades playing in his head.
yeah!
@Chris
“The creation “scientists” are a real and present danger to the American intellect. ”
No they are not. They are impotent cranks. If you want to turn them into a boggy men, then that perhaps says more about your mindset and fears than it does about what is going on in the real world.
Once again once again we see the real political animal of the left. You were only interested in Stevens politics. I asked you several scientific questions related to climate change and you danced your leftist two step.
Gun control is real, AGW is not. Learn the difference, if you are intelligent enough.
For years there were no skeptic sites, so everyone here spent many hours in the alarmist camps, listening to the incessant bleating about evil man made CO2. I read every peer reviewed paper that came out, trying to figure out what the Hell they were whining about. I discovered the entire affair was based upon model driven drivel. My eight years of earth science studies had told me they were full of crap, and they were indeed. Not one shred of empirical evidence.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes. Period.
Ockham’s Razor anyone?
Go back to the Luddites and partake of the holy kool aide Chris.
Yeah, it’s not really a concern of mine either. I still find it interesting however that climate sceptics tend to also come with a whole lot of other ideological baggage. As to back to the luddites? Very twinky of you to say that.
Holy kool aide? What the fuck is that?
Are you channeling a 12 year old girl? Twinky? Really? And then are you going to play dumb about drinking the kool aide too?
Chris, conversing with you is like trying to talk to a seriously ADD child. You came here with “denier” and “Koch Brothers” and other George Soros’ funded talking points, and then you claim you are not a global warmer. You are all over the map.
You attack people of faith for wanting to teach their children what they believe to be the most important thing in all of life. As Hillary would say, what difference does it make?
Leave the ideological BS on the side of the road and use logic as your guide instead. You will be a much happier, and better person.
Exactly gator, regarding gun control, since it frightens you so much, stand up and say so. Don’t equivocate by pretending that there’s no such thing as “assault rifle” etc (AR-15 Bushmaster – or kid killer if you will – A = Assault, R = Rifle, model 15; M-16: M= Military, model 16: same basic weapon, one for civilian sale and one for military use). Stand up tall and proud, admit you are frightened and that you need a gun to feel safe. Don’t try to hide your fear behind NRA sophistry. That would be honest of you.
A fork, used in an offensive manner, is an “assault fork”. The term assault is an assault to basic logic. And is used for one reason alone hysteria.
The term was coined by the Nazi’s about 80 years ago. There is a reason for it., I will allow you to find it out.
Chris, you are a nut. Any gun, hammer, knife, baseball bat, car can be wielded by a lunatic like you. That is why I own a gun.
Cops who are only 30 minutes away when I need them there now, is why I own a gun.
It is my right to defend myself, and criminals have guns, that is why I have a gun.
I am not afraid of guns, as you are.
I’m surprised you can spell ‘honest’.
Chris, people in Chicago are afraid because they can’t protect themselves. Where I live, people are not afraid – because everyone is armed and the violent crime rate is essentially zero.
Your belief that you can read other’s minds is ugly and delusional.
Yep, Al Gore has a spell checker too, that’s the only way he spelled ‘truth’ correctly.
Pleases provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
We are tired of the childish yammering.
One would hope, but given the vast number of young earthers out there and the very proactive way in which creationist interests are working generate conditions in which “creation science” will become an accepted alternative to real science, this is indeed something one hopes those with a professed interest in real science would address. Plain and simple. Bogey men, btw – a boggy man would be someone who has just pulled themselves out of a bog!
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Grow up Chris.
Obviously Chris is wedded to his bogey men and won’t give them up too easily. What rational people see as rather sad cranky individuals, Chris sees as threats to American society. You do live in a very fearful world.
Quite the contrary. What is becoming more and more apparent is that you folks are here because it’s a nice safe place for you to chat back and forth regarding your pet peeves without the inconvenience of contrary opinion. I’m out in the world all the time. I am here right now because this place is part of the real world which I’m interested in exploring. As I’ve come to realize, I am much more interested in the people I’m finding than the specifics of their belief systems. I still find it quite amazing how delicate and sensitive everyone on this site has been so far. I seem to have managed to bruise quite a number of fragile egos in my short time here. @ will. Well, I hope you’re correct!
“… you folks are here because it’s a nice safe place for you to chat back and forth regarding your pet peeves without the inconvenience of contrary opinion. I’m out in the world all the time. I am here right now because this place is part of the real world which I’m interested in exploring …”
Riiiight! Because we are afraid of the world … and you are demonstrating how edgy and brave you are by typing crap from the anonymity of your computer. How droll.
What is apparent is you hate that which you cannot control. This is not the only place we gather. It is but one, yet you have decided that you know it all (by consensus no doubt), and are an instant Frazier Crane.
Sorry, you are making assumptions and trying to pass them off as facts. The opinions behind the assumptions are not facts, so the assumptions cannot possibly be facts. Just ignorant assumptions based upon conceited opinions that have no basis in reality.
“still find it quite amazing how delicate and sensitive everyone on this site has been so far.”
I kind of get that way when people are trying to steal my wealth and freedoms. Another reason why I own a gun.
This is largely a satirical site Chris, not a technical blog. (Although Steve also does some interesting data analysis.) There are plenty of those around. I visit and read and comment on a wide variety of media. Some of those are conservative, some are progressive. If you want to complain about echo chambers then from my experience the worst are those you most strongly endorse. Critical commentary is simply deleted. In those forums you most admire, the type of ‘dissent’ you have expressed here would not be tolerated for more than one or two postings. You would simply be banned from posting.
The comedy is from NOAA and GISS, who have created a data set which is completely meaningless for anything other than politics.
@ Will: If this is indeed a satirical site, people don’t seem to be getting the satire.
“If you want to complain about echo chambers then from my experience the worst are those you most strongly endorse.” Could you please indicate where I have endorsed any of the sites you are referring to? I posted a link to the http://www.creationtheory.org/ site somewhere above (and here it is again). Did you visit this site? I would hardly call it an echo chamber given that it’s one man’s quixotic operation. It’s actually quite an entertaining read, particularly the “hate mail” section, although I do find the author’s use of this term a little over the top. Anyway, go take a look! You might also want to visit this site link which I have posted already but for convenience let’s keep them all in one place: http://www.canadafreepress.org. Those are the only two sites I believe I’ve mentioned. And, while I appreciate your advice, I already do read what I guess are called “progressive” sites with a skeptical and open mind. And you are correct. I find the twinkiness on those sites just as puerile as it is here.
Chris you’re a veritable font of mis-information. It doesn’t appear that a single attempt by you to post a fact has panned out.
AR as in AR-15 = Armalite Rifle
http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/index.php/tutorials/article/45-ar-acronym-thread/
the civilian AR-15 is in fact different than an M-16 in that the civilian AR-15 is not capable of fully automatic fire in stock spec.
Joe … I was going through that list of acronyms and found these:
SWAG = Scientific Wild-Ass Guess
SSDD = Same Shit Different Day
Both seem perfect for describing much of Climate Science.
Nice. Better let the people decide though.
so after 194 posts, “Chris” (or whoever the hell he is) can’t back up his claims that “oil and gas industries, spend an enormous amount of money funding “climate denial” and resorts to telling everyone that they can research it for themselves. Figures.
I work in the oil and gas industry and can tell you, Chris, that the oil and gas industry spends little to no money funding skeptics but DO, however, spend millions (much to my dismay) supporting your so-called climate scientists and their profit destroying alternative energy projects. Don’t believe me? Perhaps you can research it yourself. 😉
Well Wendy, as I mentioned, I will go and do your uncomfortable research for you eventually. Just wait around. Chris or whoever the hell I am? I answered a bunch of questions about who I am already. But feel free to ask away if you suspect that I’m somehow someone other than who I claim to be. This would be news to me btw.
yes, please do. You made the claim so back it up. We’re all ears.
While you’re at it, detail how much went to skeptics and how much went to “climate scientists” and their associated organizations……….and how much they’ve spent on alternative energies over the past 30 years. go ahead.
Hey Chris…..still waiting for all that “clear evidence”. Did you “misplace” it? LOL
Steve, My next post is going to contain a ton of links. IN the spirit of being helpful, I am giving Chris all the links he needs to prove his case about Big Oil and Skeptics. So please pull it out of the spam bin. You will recognize most of the links.
Thanks
Here you go Chris. Research. What real scientists do:
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/hide-the-job-decline-stimulus-funds-to-climategate-professor/
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-money-trail/6136-taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangefraud%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Fraud+news%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/08/climate-money-big-government-outspends-big-oil/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-money.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/five-times-cost-of-manhattan-project.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-and-big-oil.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/3-million-mistakes.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-money.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a237570be4660439e371341ae8452d5.a41&show_article=1
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Flashback-Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1268247828-xTbL0h+f/kj3O5NJ93VVEw
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/0947541692.txt
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/0962818260.txt
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate-environmentalists/
http://www.climategate.com/insurance-aftershock-in-the-wake-of-climategate#more-2448
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518486
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pitman_cries_poor
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_globaly_toward_global_warming_each_year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD0
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/follow-the-warming-money/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/05/wapos-juliet-eilperin-retracts-false-heartland-claims/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/oreskes-big-money-no-evidence-skeptics-merchant-of-doubt/
hahaha… wow!
http://www.rtcc.org/eu-budget-set-at-e960bn-but-climate-commitment-in-balance/
Chris, how does EU government funding of climate kookiness compare to your allegations of oil company funding of skeptics. The climate kooks have convinced the political kooks to spend a massive amount of the poor worker saps taxes on a fraud. And Australian political kooks have signed up too (temporarily until we throw the ALP out later this year).
So please, drop the Oil company fund conspiracy cos it doesn’t stack up. CAGW is the greatest monetary fraud perpetrated on the world’s middle class. (Rich are uneffected as are the poor). That’s why people like me are angry, when certain people make up bullshit stories and then convince stupid politicians to spend everyone elses money. And I’m glad Steve runs his Blog. Obviously its working getting the facts out, otherwise why are you commenting here? You’d be warmly welcomed by the sock puppets at Real Climate.Org
Thanks fj, again, I get it. I get the neural stroking. All I’m saying is that you could probably get the same kind of effect from different websites.
“Large majorities of both conservative and moderate Democrats (83%) and liberal Democrats (91%) think there is solid evidence of warming. But liberal Democrats are more likely to say that warming is mostly because of human activity – 77% say this, compared with 51% of conservative and moderate Democrats. The percentage of liberal Democrats saying warming is mostly caused by human activity increased 13 points from 64% last year.”
There is your ideological breakdown from Pew. It is a liberal agenda. Most people agree the Earth has warmed, and where the split really comes is when loony lefties believe it is man.
You have much to learn.
Absolutely! And so do you. The difference appears to be that I am open to learning while you appear to be convinced you’ve got everything figured out.
Chris, quit projecting.
All I have said is that the preponderance of evidence states that the climate changes we have experienced are natural. This is what most people believe. I have not once said which drivers are causing the changes.
Also, I am not running around making false claims about the Koch brothers or Big Oil.
God you are so immature. Is it possible we could find out at what school you teach? The students’ parents should be warned there is a lunatic on the staff.
No, sorry. But keep reading. You’ll find some more info as we go along.
The two comments just above this are clearly new information to your “open” mind. But you neither acknowledged the assertions, or accepted them, or made a rational argument against them, instead you changed the subject to an attack on the person. BTW, a typical leftist non-response.
Just to forestall the “let’s attack the libtard Canadian” twinks, here’s a nice Canadian site with a self-professed conservative bent for you to peruse. You should find a lot to keep you happy: http://www.canadafreepress.com/ (many American conservative commentators on here so you should feel right at home even though you’ve technically left your country).
Want some cheese with that one?
Really? I kind of like it. And Kevin O’Leary. I’m pretty open remember.
Chris is sure paranoid about creationism.
I could easily come up with examples that idiots from Democrat Party failed badly in some things.
What’s interesting is that hard core warmists tend to be hard core evolutionists so it does make me wonder…
OMG!!! The sun is bad for us. Skin cancer for everybody!!! As it turns out exclusively avoiding the sun gives you much greater chance of getting any kind of cancer… it’s called vitamin D deficiency.
OMG!!! Eating eggs and fatty steaks gives you heart disease!!! As it turns out, it had more to do with chronic high blood sugar level… brought on by excessive consumption of processed “grain based food”… Don’t believe me? Here are the studies – http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/paleolithic%20diet
For many years, I’ve had to deal with idiots over nutrition and they tend to come from Democrat Party. When I looked deeper into Paleo diet stuff relating to climate, etc. That was where I noticed that global warming was turning out to be a pure bullshit. That’s how I found Real Science, WUWT, etc.
It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens to their scared Evolution Theory… I’ve stumbled into interesting stuff when researching the other side of this so called theory just as I did with nutrition and global warming…
Chris,
What do you need to use to be able to cut through granite stone with such precise?
What’s a pejorative?
Etc etc etc.Talking about ‘young earthers’ Remember that most state funded climate scientists say the world was created in 1979.
Some of my best friends are Progressives. 😉
Look, Conservatives can be as bone headed as Progressives. But one thing I appreciate about Conservatives is that they tend to argue their case, particularly those of a libertarian mindset. Most Progressives simply assume they are smart, because Progressive = Smart, and if they are asked to justify what they believe from first principles, they tend to stare at you in shock. A bit like a rabbit in a headlight.
There was a study several years back that basically showed why liberals/progressives cannot debate. Universities are their echo chambers, so they can pontificate and never be challenged, so they never developed the skills to debate or defend their beliefs. Conservatives/Libertarians on the other hand had to constantly defend their positions throughout school, so learned quickly how to properly debate, source and defend their positions.
You can have the smartest person in the world be a liberal (oxymoron I know), and they would still be incapable of articulating or defending their beliefs (note the term) because they were never challenged on them until later in life. The old cliche’ about old dogs and new tricks comes into play.
It is also why most liberal forums and blog sites censor heavily.
Hi Steven and Co,
Sorry for the long delay. I’ve got a number of things on the go right now so priorities, priorities. In any case, I’m back, and contrary to your beliefs, I am pretty much exactly who I say I am. I don’t dissemble. Ask anyone who knows me and they will confirm this. I’m straight up.
I feel bad about what I said regarding Wayne Lapierre. It’s just that he gets under my skin in that way. Anyway, if it came down to it, and we were video game characters competing against each other in this crazy endeavour – him trying to get his gun into my classroom; me trying to stop him – I see it with him ending up in flames before he even reaches the door of the school as i rivet him with c-tails. Unless he’s got a sniper or two lurking in the woods, he’s done for.
A little about me since you’re so interested. Let’s start with the basics: my parents are in their eighties and where bombed by Hitler during the second world war. I was born in Canada but they are pure British. My father carried a sub machine gun in Sinai where he was posted after joining the military, at age, in 1946 before immigrating to Canada in the 50s with his young wife. My mother raised a family in a sub-zero industrial town far from home where everyone spoke French. I’m curious, therefore, to see what my British relatives, including the ones who live in the US, have to say about England being more violent than America.
Essentially, I’ve been trucking since the day I was born. link to bathtub photo
I somehow managed to avoid having a chip successfully implanted when I was younger so I’ve been free to do much of my own programming. Everything I know to be true in this life, I’ve confirmed for myself through exploring in ways such as this. I’m willing to wager that I’ve done more things, been more places, seen more sights and laughed with more people than you can name or imagine. Which is of course not to say that your experiences are any less rich, satisfying, scary or whatever, but simply to state that mine have involved a wider cross-section of the world’s possibilities.
Having been born in the sixties, I think my dna was imprinted with rules for radicals from the get-go. But we’re in a new kind of sixties now, from my perspective, so viva las nuevas reglas deles radicales. As for being obsessed, I can only say that a man with his own blog, intellectual universe, residents therein, 14 000 posts, and pyrrhic global internet presence is far more successfully obssessive than I could ever hope to be.
Just to be clear, I did indeed arrive at your blog by accident. I was bored on valentine’s day so decided to follow a scribol link, which I’m sure you know is anonymous, to a posting on a site which I suspected might be by people who would get up my crack; I needed the stimulation for the evening’s activities. Also, I have not interacted with many, to my knowledge, deep conservatives before so I was interested to find out what they might have to say to me. I am, therefore, learning in real time about you and your supporters.
When I arrived at your blog party and went to look for a host but didn’t find one clearly defined, I admit I got twinky. Perhaps some of you can’t blame me. I was pretty much out the door, having spewed my piece, when I suddenly found myself – that is, my post – hauled up in front of the acolyte crowds for gloating; must have been a slow news day.
It seems that I’ve not so much poked the beehive with a stick as climbed in with the bees and insulted the honey. You are not crazy (mea culpa), so much as sour an grumpy. And you are not a hive mind at all but a collection of disparate individuals, visiting here for a wide variety of motives and anxieties. Clearly there are elders here as well, and I do not mean to show any disrespect in that regard. How could I, with parents about to die?
The point is that you are all here in your conservative box and that I intruded, like a bad guest, into your happy space. I’m sorry for shitting on it. I actually find it quite spiffy, so my comment about manginess should be disregarded, or applied to a dingier corners of the internet. To tell you the truth, I actually enjoyed learning about your camaraderie. You’ve got some elan going on here folks. I say, without irony or anything else, that I smiled a couple of times.
What is apparent to me, however, is that there will be no learning as long as we are masturbating our neurological certainties with “online communities” such as this. So I’ve decided to have my own blog party, if feasible, based on the concept of a libertarian-daoist debating website (kind of like ufc with ideas). I’m currently looking in to the logistics of this so it’s all early stages but I’m thinking of calling it “Next door to Steven Goddard’s”. I’ve decided on this because I’m hoping the first debate will be: “Be it resolved that the world outside of steven goddard’s conservative box is not as scary as he and his supporters think it is.” Look, I have no idea if this will work or not -finances, legalities, internationalism etc but if it does, I hope you will do me the honour of inaugurating the first of many twink-free discussions of modern reality with your ripostes to my objections.
Pretty tapped out now so I’ll have to come back in a bit with some of my perspectives for you to chew on: history, political economy, guns, education, money etc.
Wayne LaPierre gets under you skin because you have no rational rebuttal for his statements. It is a common affliction for (unfortunately) too many people.
Hey Phil! What the leftist sheep do not understand is that we hear their side of the story every hour of every day. They come here spewing what they believe will be a revelation to us, not knowing how many of their clones we deal with on a daily basis. This latest parrotroll said what they all say, that he wanted to experience conservative thought. That of course is a lie, he like the others, came to preach and convert.
It’s like having your toddler come home from kindergarten and decide he is going to educate you now. These leftists always think they have some “new” knowledge, and always think they are superior. What they do not understand is how far behind the learning curve they really are. We have been there and dismissed that after thorough review.
Ockhams Razor is mystery to them.
You hit the nail on the head when you said “toddler”. They are as simple as children, and that is how their minds work. They cannot take dissonance or discord. So they come to reveal their revelations, not realizing it is neither revealing or a revelation, and are shocked when intelligent people reject their sycophantic ravings due to facts. That is why they always have to try to denigrate the intelligence level of their opposition. The roots of racial bigotry comes from the liberals who found it was easier to lower some than to raise themselves.
gotta edit those spaces…
right on
Are you seriously asking me to believe that you don’t see any reason why the us might invade canada? I don’t think it will happen but I’m sure it won’t take too much brain power, particularly if you work together, to come up with a reason why.
chris says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
hahaha… wow!
——————————————-
Dozens of links to refute your false statement, and this is your open minded response?
@David – which one; I’ve made so many. But here I’m primarily concerned with answering a previous question regarding why the us might want to invade canada. So to avoid people being beef-wits, I’ll give three hints: realpolitik, resources, regime, the r-trifecta of international conflict. We’ll get to the guns, and the 401 corridor, later.
Naw, fk it. Let’s talk about guns. When I was a young twink, caught in a bar fight, some pit-bull man launched himself across a table, seized my face in his jaws and tried to suck my eyeball out. Oh well. Stayed away from that bar for a couple of weeks. And that was many moons ago.
I was in the reserves and shot regularly, an FN (fabrique nationale) of Belgium – the third in that trifecta of reasons there is such a thing as an assault rifle, (there’s a mistake in here by the way, if you look closely, and it’s not in the grammar). My parents having been bombed, I’m an avid military buff’. I like a good old-school wargame – currently in my vasl, I’ve got a regiment of Kleist’s 1st panzer corps slugging it out meeting engagement style with the 8th mechanized Brigade on the Dubno shoulder in June 1941. That might also begin to answer your question as to whether or not I know my history. I’m also not bad at chess and in the fps environment. But can talk more about this during the debate.
Do guns frighten me? Nope. Do many guns in the hands of certain people, such as those who think a loaded weapon is all you need to ultimately back up a thesis, alarm me a great deal? Yup. Does it alarm me that the US government has more guns than its citizens? Not really. By and large, I think the US government, and the American armed forces, and some militia folks, are honourable people with a desire to use their weapons only to defend what is true and just. My problem is with how people get to true and just in the first place.
Incidentally, I used to keep a 105 shell casing full of flowers in my class during Remembrance week, along with having the kids make poppies, because I thought it important for them to actually see and touch a relic of that terrible and awesome activity they were celebrating on 11.11.11.11
kleist or von kleist f.me i wish i knew more german!
David posts…
chris says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
hahaha… wow!
——————————————-
Dozens of links to refute your false statement, and this is your open minded response?
Reply
chris says:
March 12, 2013 at 6:41 pm
@David – which one; I’ve made so many.
—————————————————————————–
The ones directly above March 4, 2013 at 10:30 am, And yes, “open minded response” was pure sarcasm. You did not respond at all, not in the least.
It should be “ein dummkopf”. Dummkopf is masculine (I guess because guys are more likely to be idiots than women?) 😉
I lived in Stuttgart for three years and took an hour per day to learn the language. I started to type ‘ein’, as this was what I was originally taught, and then reconsidered. 😉
I am still learning the genders of German nouns. What I find (kind of) stupid is that in the languages where nouns have gender, they STILL do not agree. So a masculine noun in German is a feminine one in France or Spain. Oi vey!
EM Smith said (or someone on his blog did) that you can learn to speak English quickly because there is no noun gender (learning to spell it is another issue entirely). Trying to figure out definite and indefinite articles for German nouns will keep you guessing for a lifetime!