What Is The Difference Between A Climate Alarmist And A Child Abuser?

There isn’t any difference. Climate alarmism is specifically targeted to use and abuse children.

ScreenHunter_119 May. 03 13.54

Youth anxiety on the rise amid changing climate – The Globe and Mail


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to What Is The Difference Between A Climate Alarmist And A Child Abuser?

  1. _Jim says:

    Cue -=NikFromBellevue=- in … 3 … 2 .. 1

    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      Cue proud asshole and co-enabler of real child abuse, namely that one of the most publicly visible posters on this blog is a registered daughter/son rapist who also happens to be a notorious spamming crackpot who was banned by Tony Watts “From Bellvue,” as was one Steven Goddard banned, for fanatical behavior.

      When I asked Steven “Godwin” for before/after data plots of individual stations to support his data center “tampering” claims, I was similarly jumped on by tribalist cheerleaders, told I was crazy. I’m afraid the culture of this blog is only too similar to that of RealClimate.org in how backlash against it dominates its *actual* impact. That’s what happens in a bubble on either side of politics. I lost many a public debate when I linked to a Goddard post and the usual army of gossipy Gorebots linked to crazy Nazi comparisons and crackpot theory spam posts here, for which I had no defense to offer.

      You are a troll and this high exposure skeptical blog is overrun with bigots who classify normal everyday city folk who vote Democratic with the damaging sociopaths in Washington, D.C. and the blog is thus quite ineffective in achieving real influence instead of just preaching to the choir as here above you attempt to do. Instead of appreciating a big city perspective from someone with a science Ph.D. who lives a mere four blocks from NASA’s Global Warming office, just above the Upper West Side, you mock that person and attempt to rally more ad hominem piling on.

      Tribally politicizing skepticism and turning it into one big pissing match is a most foolish PR move since it’s otherwise an unbelievably good wedge issue that reasonable liberal folks can appreciate.

      • Have you ever considered anger management?

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          Anger is a healthy response to pure insult, and here you too insult me for stating a clear opinion, instead of offering any valid counterpoint.

          I see that Jim here is ground zero for tribal polarization on the whole damn Internet, being proprietor of FreeRepublic.com, a site that like this one that often enough but not always is PR disaster fodder for the very *effective* ridicule of conservatism and skepticism, here being a Twitter account dedicated to exposing embarrassing tribalism from Jim’s forums:


          Such highly polarizing sites that attract angry fanatics indeed are *now* why we may soon suffer another President Clinton, since the only effect polarization can now offer is potentially larger conservative voter turn out, but these days, demographic disadvantage, especially how cities now dominate national elections means that in fact such public anger and good old boy mud flinging not only cements liberal opinion against you but creates greater irrational fear of you and thus increases *liberal* voter participation instead.

        • Traumatizing children for political purposes is just about as low as people can get. Can I make that any clearer?

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          No, Steve, there *is* something lower than traumatizing children akin to the old Cold Warrior’s middle American “Duck And Cover” grade school campaigns, and that is harboring and enabling a convicted child *rapist* on one’s blog and then actively piling on when you are criticized for it. Kids get along just fine, being rebellious little brats prone to eventual youth movements against indoctrination here in the USA where the Internet has vastly expanded free speech in opposition to propaganda.

        • I see. So in your eyes, not censoring other people’s scientific opinions is rape.

          You have completely lost it.

        • _Jim says:

          Seriously, Nik, get help.

          The “highly polarizing sites that attract angry fanatics” are dKOS, Democrat Underground and a whole host of ‘lesser’ sites.

          Please don’t project onto others *THAT* which you find in your own heart and mind.


        • _Jim says:

          … and I don’t know where those ‘tweets’ are collected on that site claim came from; FreeRepublic has no official link to a twitter account on the front/main page, or any page deeper within the site.

          Maybe if you worked to clean up those cesspools found at dKOS and DU the world would be a better place … can you do that for us?


        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          If I have ever helped Oliver actually *state* a case, in the moment, down here on (virtual) planet Earth, instead of just grubbily cheerlead as a skeptical tag-a-long, and outright copy/paste spammer, then the world is already a better place for it.

          I’m just saying that you have to help him out instead of just let him flounder here in a most inconvenient “sex addict”-therapy state, where he comes off as yet another paper tiger crackpot attaching his wagon to the fast lane gist of his times, so to vindicate himself after he raped all of his kids.

      • Andy DC says:

        The other side does not politicize and engage in a pissing match? That is news to me.

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          They’re *much* better at it though since they are collectivists instead of individualists, and their coordinated attacks are thus highly effective. And right now conservatives are underdogs and skeptics even more so. I’m giving a personal perspective of my experience in exposing climate alarm deception in an urban setting and on liberal dominated online venues. It was easier in person to do that *before* Fox News got on board since I could focus on data instead of a mutually tribal culture war. I just wish skeptics were a bit more aware of the effect they might have on fence sitters and especially mostly liberal scientists who fear speaking out. I would like to see Bill Buckley back from the dead to replace Shaun Hannity, since Buckley actually reached out to liberals in seasoned debate rather than antagonized them.

          My main message here is that there are normal everyday people in my sort of big city and that an Art Of War strategy in winning the climate debate requires a bit of savvy stealth.

        • “Nothing was ever accomplished by a reasonable man”
          – George Bernard Shaw

        • NikFromNYC says:

          I’m suggesting you guys merely tweak your messaging a bit, as sincere and good advice. That I’m seen as the antichrist is telling, namely that you guys need to get out more in the bigger cities where liberal voters hang out. Data deception they care about, but not if it’s delivered as pure politics that equates them to Nazis.

        • _Jim says:

          No advice to the Joe Romms or power brokers at dKOS or DU then huh Nik?

        • _Jim says:

          -=NikFromBellevue=- says: “My main message here is

          … one of ‘concern troll’, and to prescribe my opponent’s only reasonable course of action.

          -=NikFromBellevue=- says: “ I would like to see Bill Buckley back from the dead … since Buckley actually reached out to liberals in seasoned debate rather than antagonized them.

          Uh huh. Against such cretins as Vidal and Chomsky too? History shows otherwise:

          William Buckley Vs Gore Vidal (threatens to punch Vidal)

          William Buckley threatens to punch Chomsky in the face

          Also, Nik, here’s a challenge to you – can you provide even one instance where Hannity was rude or uncivil to a guest?


        • Andy DC says:

          Nik, I don’t totally disagree with you, I wish the global warming/climate change debate was not so wrapped in liberal vs. conservative politics and I have stated so in the past. But it is was it is, the liberal Democrats are generally true believers and the conservative Republicans tend to be skeptics. I can see why all the taxes and regulation proposed in the name of mitigating dubious “climate change” are so intensely disliked by conservatives . But I agree, if we can win over more liberal Democrats to our way of thinking based on the scientific merits, it would greatly benefit our cause.

        • Global warming has nothing to do with science any more. That debate was over several years ago.

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          I’m actually just asking you proud conservative, most of you anyway, to slow down to speed up…to actually personally re-READ the New Testament.

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          I agree Leary was out-classed. Class is establishment status. And he was *loopy* back then, due to coordinated attacks on his character.

          But he did not submit.

        • _Jim says:

          There are different theaters of ‘out-classing’; in this case Leary failed to put forward any convincing argument (which was my point; he was out-classed in the theater of cogent arguments) …

          I really don’t give a damn about ‘class’ the way you were using it. I never ‘submit’. It’s quite possibly one of my less ‘inglorious’ traits …


      • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

        Don’t seduce me Jim.

  2. Sparks says:

    Fucken child abusers! I’m getting angry.. have you seen the Hulk? on scale of 1 to 10 the Hulk is 0.0004.

    • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

      Thanks NikFromNYC for assuring the entire Blogosphere that Steve’s side is winning.
      I know full well the effect my views has on “Fence Sitters” That is the reason that I make my views known. With Steve’s permission I want to reproduce your words for all the “Fence Sitters” in the US to read. Thanks guy.

      • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

        Whatever, dude. I’m not here to fight you. I know that “Steve’s side” of a pathetically *polarized* culture war in our sudden era of absolute level wealth *is* barely “winning.” What I want is for Steve to be fucking President, since I like the guy and he has fight in him way beyond his gray-haired age.

        Thus I offer this Prince, counterpoint jest, merely.

        • Oppenheimer was considered to be a nutty communist by General Groves, but Groves still picked him because he knew that Oppenheimer was the right man for the job.

          We can’t judge science based on people’s personal failings.

      • Sparks says:

        I’m going to be really sarcastic and so offensive that your grandkids will be applauding my comment in future..

        Fuck off shit for brains.

        Here’s the sarcastic bit, there is no sarcastic bit.

      • -=NikFromNYC=- says:


        Then you are good and done.

        Then you will be effective, by rights.

        It’s not compromise. It’s humanity.


  3. emsnews says:

    There are definite political fissures here. For example, all the Democrats who were ‘antiwar’ are now warmongers. But then, all the ‘balance the budget’ Republicans when in power, would run things deep into red ink without batting an eye, from Reagan onwards.

    I would love to vote for a conservative except they despise my personal civil rights especially the right to have an abortion, for example. So I have to vote 100% against them in all elections. Most women vote against Republicans for the same reason even if we disagree with much of the DNC programs.

    When hostile postings appear here attacking ALL liberals over everything, we get alienation which is bad. Nothing gets built this way. No alliances can form. Alas.

    I want a balanced budget and I want full civil rights and I want no hysteria about CO2 due to this being a danger to my family and my existence. And like Ron Paul, I am fully anti-imperialist! This is so very painful.

    • Streetcred says:

      Em, I’m interested, why do you consider the right for you to have an abortion at will should be such an enshrined right … greater than the future of the USA and, extrapolating here, world peace ? I’m asking because there is so much preventative material available nowadays that there is little excuse to ‘just got pregnant’. I’m not either pro nor anti but am more likely favourable with particular warrants against late term, etc.

      • emsnews says:

        Because if I didn’t have one, I would have DIED. How’s that?

        Also, you aren’t me. You don’t live in my body, you don’t worry about dying. I nearly died having a child and ended up unable to carry safely.

        And…it is none of your business what choices I make. Anymore than I can stop you from smoking or eating bad food.

        • My understanding is that government actually does regulate people’s choices about quite a few things. Particularly when it comes to taking human life.

        • James the Elder says:

          Google up “Margaret Sanger and eugenics”. She’s a democrat heroine BTW.

  4. emsnews says:

    So, forcing women who are not you, to carry a fetus and then DIE is good? You are so incapable of figuring out the difference between a living adult human and someone who isn’t born?

    See how you guys isolate yourselves from sane people.

    • emsnews says:

      By the way, I hope we get some sort of medical system set up whereby males can be forced to carry unwanted fetuses. Then the issue of abortion will disappear and not because males are volunteering to carry fetuses and care for babies but due to them demanding they not be forced to do this.

      • David A says:

        Most republicans do not want to take your “right” to abortion away, They, fairly universaly, want to take away your right to PUBLICALLY FUNDED abortion.
        If males were forced to carry unwanted babies, I venture to guess, they would be more responsible and have better control over their male sex drive. (That women instead go through pregnancie, plus have an, in general, lower sex drive, is what keeps men from following there bioogical drive to have as many children as possible)
        Many folk will insist that the right of yours ends, where the childs right begins, but that dog will not hunt in this world, vote republican all you want, you will have a right to an abortion.
        BTW, if an abortion was necessary for your life, then 99.9 percent of republicans would support that right.

      • Sparks says:

        There is NO such thing as an unwanted fetus. you’re an insensitive fool.

    • Your non-sequitur straw man hate speech will be ignored.

    • _Jim says:

      Geez .. how DIFFICULT is this … contraceptives

      Who was it that said “abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.” ?

      Oh – President Bill Clinton in 1996.

      Everyone here needs to ‘grow a brain’ (or something).

    • Ernest Bush says:

      The number of women with your problem is extremely low and you are stupid if you think most conservative men would like to see you die. My question is why did you let yourself get pregnant in the first place if your medical condition was known? My problem with your diatribe is abortion is all too commonly used as an expensive birth control method and I should not be forced to pay for a lack of responsibility that is a growing problem in this society. To take this further, often a woman who aborts her child is damaged emotionally. I know this for a fact since my church and many others help these women learn to forgive themselves so they can heal and find love and joy again. To too many feminists this is simply collateral damage in their drive to shove a needless agenda down male throats.

      I took responsibility to protect and love my child from the moment my wife knew we were pregnant. The same goes for my grandchildren. Most men do. More would like to but are prevented from doing so by women who put their own selfish interests above that of the child. You can bring in exceptions as if they were the rule,here, but you will waste your time. They are a problem created by progressives in this society, who teach them they are not responsible for their actions and are not to blame for anything. The result is predictable.

      Your generation of women will suffer the consequences of all that one issue voting as soon as an increasingly fascist government gets a totally government-run medical system past us. Birth control, abortion, and sterilization will suddenly become the rule for the underclasses you help create with your stupid vote. It will only require them to dislike your genetic makeup to force it on you. Treating breast cancer will be too expensive as it now is in Britain. Enjoy the fruits of your vote.

    • Sparks says:

      If the Fallacy is having sex and expecting no result then see a doctor! if the Fallacy continues after not seeing the prescribed doctor, introduce yourself to a beautiful new baby.

  5. gator69 says:

    Wow! Houston we have found the problem. Some folks think that a party who decides all your healthcare decisions, strips you of your rights to bear arms and be free of illegal searches and seizures is the party of freedom. These same people then vote for a party that promises to raise their energy costs, strangle our economy with infinite regulation, and who war mongers with the best of them. It is a mental disorder.

  6. …”targeted to use and abuse”, not children, but childish fears…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s