“If I see One More Ignorant Comment, I’m gonna…” SNAP

April 15, 2016

Polls tell us that real scientists from our leading universities and research institutions are still the most trusted sources on climate change information, which is why so many climate denial canards, and so much internet bullshit in general, starts with the phrase “..according to NASA.”
See one hoary example above, of how a legit NASA study can be turned into a pesky climate denial meme.

Anyway, somebody at NASA got tired of this.

The Independent:

Nasa has taken time out from its usual work of exploring the galaxy to call out

climate change deniers on Facebook.

Nasa’s comments were posted underneath an update from popular science educator Bill Nye, who posted an article about climate change denier Marc Morano refusing Nye’s $20,000 (£14,000) bet that the planet will keep getting hotter.

One user, Fer Morales, took issue with the article’s assertion that human emissions are causing the planet to warm, writing: “Riiiiight, despite Nasa confirming that fossil fuels are actually cooling the planet’s temperature, and that there’s more ice than in the last century in the polar caps. And the fact that so-called rises of the sea levels have not materialised, and that any real scientist doesn’t back up man-made climate change at all, since it’s a cycle that has existed even before we did.”

nasareply1

Huffington Post:

“We invite you to comment on our page, but we ask that you be courteous and cite credible sources when sharing information.”

That’s the disclaimer posted atop NASA’s Global Climate Change Facebook page. And judging from the normally staid government agency’s response to a handful of climate change deniers who ran amok this week under a post by media personality Bill Nye, they mean it.

Nye, known as “the Science Guy,” shared a story on NASA’s page Monday about a climate change denier who refused to accept $20,000 in bets that the planet will continue getting hotter. The post inspired readers to share a torrent of poorly substantiated — yet fiercely defended — theories in the comments section, ranging from outright climate change denial to vitriolic attacks on NASA itself.

After a couple days of the lunacy (as of Thursday evening, the comments section was still growing), whoever manages NASA’s climate change Facebook page finally had enough and decided to set the record straight.

One reader, who referred to NASA as a group of “leftards,” but nevertheless claimed NASA has confirmed “that fossil fuels are actually cooling the planet’s temperature,” earned a clear rebuke: “Do not misrepresent NASA,” the agency responded. “Fossil fuels are not cooling the planet.”

That stone-cold retort appears to have since been deleted, but other similarly blunt replies remain:

nasareply2

Most of NASA’s replies were informative, well-substantiated, and written with admirable restraint:

nasareply3

Advertisements

43 Responses to ““If I see One More Ignorant Comment, I’m gonna…” SNAP”

  1. Harry Twinotter Says:

    No one has much time for the climate trolls these days. Just block them, there is no need to allow them a platform.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I agree. Although it’s more fun to mock and abuse them than to do the daily crossword, and the title of this blog implies that denier trolls and their “crocks” need to be addressed “weekly”, denier trolls like Russell Cook eventually wear out their welcome and should be put out to pasture.

      My concern is that there are perhaps many casual visitors and “lurkers” on Crock who might be taken in by some of the denier BS. Studies have shown that repeated lies and disinformation can become truth in the subconscious of some of the low information, low motivation types that are exposed to them. Those of us that “get it” may not be damaged by troll BS, but allowing trolls too big a platform here may be doing more harm than good because of that phenomenon.


      • “… denier trolls like Russell Cook eventually wear out their welcome and should be put out to pasture,”**

        ** ….because we at Crocks can’t dispute what he says at his GelbspanFiles blog or at his online articles.” The same applies in general form for any place which permits comments, only to censor particular commenters later. Ironic how those who crow about free speech feel a need to silence those who criticize them with material they can’t dispute.

        Meanwhile, …

        “…My concern is that there are perhaps many casual visitors and ‘lurkers’ on Crock who might be taken in by some of the denier BS.”

        Those lurkers can check for themselves in the complete comment history since my arrival here whether “d.o.g.” or anybody else actually refuted a word I say in my blogs and articles. What they’ll find is veiled and direct profanity on, shall we say, the integrity of my blog/article material, and “d.o.g.” himself offers the excuse that he doesn’t offer take-downs about my blog since I don’t have a comment section AT MY BLOG. Lurkers with puzzled looks on their faces might say “well, why don’t you spell out what’s wrong in his pieces right here?”

        My article “Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics” ( http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/gores_ricostyle_prosecution_of_global_warming_skeptics.html ) is online today, complete with a comments section. Will “d.o.g.” now unleash his pent-up torrent of proof concerning each “lie” I tell at that article?

        The man has no excuse today. But don’t hold your breath waiting for a Woodward/Bernstein-style “what did I know and when did I know it” exposé on what my “lies” are and who pays/orchestrates me what to “lie” about.

        • redskylite Says:

          In my experience as an interested participant in forums like this, deniers never ever state anything with substance, they just try and confuse and obfuscate with muddled bullshit.You are no exception. When I have ever tried to address the bullshit with facts, another bundle of obfuscation arrives, not even acknowledging or focusing on my address. I have long realized I am completely wasting my time, trying to communicate with hardened deniers. The only purpose of response would be to try and address the bullshit that may sway undecided readers. I was recently impressed with a card trick program that is going around the web. Until I discovered how simple it is to trick the mind and make someone fall for a simple illusion. This is how deniers operate. They do not care about the deaths and misery caused by human industrial activities, they are brain dead as far as I am concerned.

          • redskylite Says:

            A simple illusion by Ian Velicaria . . .

            How many fell for this I wonder.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Good one! The only ones who fell for this one were the ones who were not smart enough to enlarge the screen to make it readable and pause the quick flash of the cards at the end in order to compare them to the original set. Even though one was removed, ALL of the remaining cards were different from those in the first set. DUH!

            It IS quite similar to the kind of “displacement” of truth employed by the deniers, and the sound track sounds like it was recorded in a bowling alley or in the bowels of a garbage truck. IMO, done deliberately to distract viewers from the real trick, and in that regard similar to the “noise” deniers make to obfuscate the truth about AGW.

          • pendantry Says:

            @redskylite very well said.


          • Do I really have to hand-walk you fellows through this? Either:

            1) you can point directly to evidence proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between skeptic climate scientists and industry officials (or your choice of enemies du jour), where all acknowledge that false statements will be made, and money will be paid for the service, or ….

            2) you can’t even provide your friends with the evidence when they request it.

            So who obfuscates here? Commenter “redskylite” with ironic psychological projection about obfuscation combined with an irrelevant card trick illustration, “miffedmax” with the worn-out talking point about submitting material to peer-reviewed journals, “addledlady” / “Lionel Smith” with name-calling against American Thinker, and “d.o.g.” with the latest excuse about not being able to log into the Disqus system. Since “d.o.g.” claims to have read my blog so that no one else has to, the test of whether he can stand and deliver on alleged “lies” filling my GelbspanFiles blog and online articles is when “redskylite”, “miffedmax”, “addledlady” and “Lionel Smith” ask “d.o.g.” to detail precisely what those lies are and how he proves they are lies.

            Folks, when “d.o.g.” fails to deliver, who do you turn to next? Peter Sinclair? Naomi Oreskes, Desmogblog? What if none of them deliver, but instead demand you to trust that evidence exists to back up the accusation? Rather than relying on beliefs, wouldn’t y’all love to pulverize me with evidence? Well, apparently you can’t rely on “d.o.g.” to provide it. Who can you rely on?

            Borrowed this movie quote before, I’ll repeat it again: “Man looks in the abyss, there’s nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss.”

            Friends, I’d love to stick around and joust all week long, but in case you didn’t catch it, several of your dear leaders couldn’t keep their mouths shut about their involvement with Gore’s latest circle of Attorneys General friends. Big, big, BIG mistake.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Here’s Russell, back with a stream of obfuscatory BS, and STILL demanding that we play by HIS rules, his bat and ball, and on his field.

            I gave a link to some “proof” of a denier scientist being paid by fossil fuel interests—-Willie Soon—-a huge denier, Heartland stooge, and perhaps the biggest of them all at taking money from the fossil fuel interests, and asked Russell if that was “proof” enough for him. Here’s the link again.

            https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2095512/conflicted-science-final.pdf

            Did he answer? HELL NO!—-he instead proceeded to attack almost every one of us on Crock who have ever questioned his BS (and hack WordPress to give himself more thumbs up). Yep, if you don’t like the message, attack the messengers, and when you have been caught with your pants down and have no credible response, run around and try to pull everyone else’s pants down.

            To remind everyone, that Soon link states:

            “Since 2001, Dr. Soon has received grants from fossil fuel vested corporate interests totaling more than $1.2 Million dollars. These funders are the Southern Company, ExxonMobil Corporation, the Charles G Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute. The only other funding he has received in this time period are anonymous grants from the secretive Donors Trust organization totaling nearly $325,000″. (Note: Donors Trust = Koch brothers)

            And let’s not forget that Willie Soon is one of the 29 addressees on Fred Singer’s infamous crybaby email about what the poor denier babies at Heartland could do about the release of Merchants of Doubt. Here are some of the names on that list—-you may recognize them as deniers and whores for fossil fuels, and LOOKIE, LOOKIE!—-our boy Russell is on there.
            Ron Arnold
            Timothy Ball
            Joseph “Joe” Bast
            Joe Bastardi
            William Briggs

            RUSSELL COOK

            Judith Curry
            James Delingpole
            Steve Goddard
            Patrick J. Michaels
            Steven J. Milloy
            Christopher Monckton
            Marc Morano
            Joanne Nova
            S. Fred Singer
            Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
            Roy Spencer
            James Taylor
            Anthony Watts

          • andrewfez Says:

            I wrote a book about denialists a few years ago, and this is what one of the denialist characters had to say concerning their argument technique:

            ‘Whilst I know not of any one piece of philosophical information that can comprehensively break their entire lot, we must however constantly strive to create the perception that such can be done, or has already been done. Indeed in a contradistinguishing fashion to one sole, all-smiting stroke, we, to the greatest effect, thus work in the realm gratuitous rhetoric, the like to a London barrister weaving a case by multiple strands, the greater of these appealing to an audience not necessarily on any logical ground, but in a manner rhetorical, political, emotive, or otherwise. To be sure, we will have our moments for a given strand: we may find a careless error in our adversary’s argument and work to turn such into a very great thing indeed. But the better part must be attractive enough, even in cases of broken reason, that it remains effective; in fact it’s probably most efficacious not to subject any strand to the focus on first principles or evidence. By this style of argument, several strands may buckle or break, but if the majority stay intact then we give ourselves the finest cause to be the victors. And for every strand our adversary produces, we need only continuously produce two against it to legitimize our stand against him.’

            Near the end of the book, after the denialists have been discovered as charlatans and their ill motives exposed, I added one scene in which there are still laymen arguing enthusiastically for the propaganda they were previously fed, painfully making logical fallacies in doing so, and being called out by others upon doing such. They represent the power of propaganda and the tragedy of the human belief system, which rarely converges upon a set of ideas that are purely consistent with one another, or structured in a Euclidean format, where one fallacy destroys the entire set. In this scene I say the following to the audience:

            On and on it did go: The ill found nuggets of deception that Mr. Princep had long ago formulated were presented, and for every quarter minute it would take to recite one, it would take a quarter of an hour to push back on it with equal force. Counterarguments then followed, questioning everything that was not commonly understood or known in the plebeian ranks, all of which too took an unproportional amount of time to dispel. Credible men unjustly suffered being stripped of their credibility, which had to be slowly rebuilt at the table. And when all possible avenues had been exhausted in exploding one particular subject, another was jumped upon in which the antagonist felt it was fair game to continue to use his formerly destroyed ideas as support of such. It was a war of attrition where patience was the commodity being targeted. The format of the debate – where a man may say anything he wished without the necessity of a reference to weight him down – also favored the men who sought not the truth, but instead only to win the argument. Indeed they took the greatest pleasure in a cheering onlooker or a passerby calling out to them that they were doing the Lord’s work.

          • redskylite Says:

            Well speaking for myself and I think most of the regular pro-science columnists on this blog (including those who you mention), do not need “a leader” to look for. Climate Science is like any other science, that is a multidisciplinary body, the strength is in the sum of its parts. Example Richard B. Alley is a great scientist, has contributed to many books in such fields as Paleoclimatology and Glaciology. He is a great communicator, but no one regards him as a leader to look to for encouragement. I have studied multiple scientific courses and formed a judgement for myself (through course work and my own efforts), I do not need a stately figure like Al-Gore to look up to for direction. I think others who regularly and positively contribute to Peter’s blog would have a similar attitude.

            Russell, I suspect you are being unconsciously autobiographical here and are in fact talking about yourself and those like you, being led along by such non/pseudo-scientists like Anthony Watts and Monckton.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Russell has stepped WAY over the line here with “** ….because we at Crocks can’t dispute what he says at his GobofSpitFiles blog or at his online articles.” WHO are you quoting, Russell? Was it your intent to make it look like I was saying that by putting it right after something I DID say? Is it a misquote of something I did say taken out of context? Or is just your ongoing delusion that we need to dispute your garbage just because you keep feebly bleating “prove it” and saying that “we CAN’T dispute it”.

          Yes, Russell is delusional, as is further evidenced by his statement “Ironic how those who crow about free speech feel a need to silence those who criticize them with material they can’t dispute”. Lord love a duck, but that’s one of the craziest things Russell has ever spouted here—-those who crow about free speech silence those who criticize them? WHAT are you talking about? Omno couldn’t have said it more confusedly.

          As if that wasn’t enough, Russell states “Lurkers with puzzled looks on their faces might say “well, why don’t you spell out what’s wrong in his pieces right here?”. WHEN will the delusional fog lift enough so that Russell can see that we are NOT going to make Crock all about him as he would like us to do. He is like a virus or parasite who wants to take over Crock (brain-eating amoeba?). His blogs and articles are complete denier horseshit and propaganda—-I have read too many of them and know of what I speak, and the ONLY appropriate place to discuss them is on HIS turf—-we can vomit on his carpet and let him clean it up.

          I looked at his latest steaming pile of dung on American Stinker today, and it’s just more of the same—-PHD quality work—-BS Piled Higher and Deeper and full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. I couldn’t get into Disqus to comment even if I wanted to—it loaded for several minutes but never opened. I will say it for perhaps the TENTH time, Russell—-open GobofSpitfiles.com to WordPress comments and I will be there.

          The first thing anyone who risks their brain cells by reading Russell’s latest will notice is that Russell tends to shoot his own toes off by providing a lot of information that actually supports AGW and speaks against deniers. He did that in his July 2014 presentation at Heartland as well. Perhaps he thinks that’s a good opening tactic that demonstrates that he is “fair and balanced”? He then launches into his progressively more demented BS, going back first 10 years to 2006 and then all the way back into the 1990’s and picking out what he says are discrepancies in what Gore, Oreskes, and Gelbspan said—-as if ANY of that matters in the context of what we now know EXXON KNEW.

          Russell finishes with his usual mindless blather about DOG not responding to his BS here. What I really think motivates him is that his Uncle Fred Singer at Heartland has ordered Russell to pull out the stops, perhaps offering a raise—-since the Heartlanders were up to their eyeballs in the tobacco mess, they must be scared s**tless about getting caught again in the EXXON KNEW denial mess, especially if it nets them some jail time. Russell will look good in his orange jumpsuit.

          • addledlady Says:

            Have to say I admire your fortitude going back to American Stinker. I once finished up there – following a link on an education topic – and had a look around.

            It was in 2007, during Obama’s first crack at the presidency. I had never _dreamed_ that people could say such extraordinarily vile and racist things – about anyone.

            My first and last visit.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            American Stinker and the other right wing and denier sites where Russell posts are pretty much “extraordinarily vile” in all respects. They cater to low-information, low IQ, angry white men, and are not places for a nice lady like you to visit. You are smart to stay away.

            Anyone who visits them regularly risks permanent damage to their psyche. I am still working to fully recover from several months spent jousting with the morons on Personal Liberty Digest, Bob Livingston’s libertarian website. Bob did me a favor by banning me when I beat his brains in once too often. (PS Don’t go there—Bob and his columnists make Russell Cook look like a genius).

    • andrewfez Says:

      I scrolled through the comments on the latest Young Turks piece on climate change. Not a denialist to be found.

      • Harry Twinotter Says:

        I have noticed climate change denier comments are dropping off. Perhaps the cash for comment funding is drying up.

        • andrewfez Says:

          The one old climate denier engineer fellow that used to sit day after day on the climate crocks youtube channel no longer visits his account. I saw a year or so ago where one of his friends (there is a whole youtube denial clique that networks there) was trying to lure him back to the denial circuit on his Google+ page, but no reply was given months after the original invitational post. There for several years, right after climategate, he was posting everywhere, everyday, all day, like that was his main retirement hobby, but seems as though he just moved on at some point, out of the blue. Could have been a paid denialist after all.

  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    Fighting with trolls is a pastime, a game, a source of amusement for many with a scientific background. It is really not done to educate the deniers (almost all of whom are uneducable) nor is it done to educate undecided lurkers, although that is used an excuse. It is done for the delight of mockery and confrontation.

    And it is a colossal waste of time. I am guilty of it. But at least I have the excuse that I have merely a B.S. degree and am bad at math. There is little else I might do to help progress being made on the AGW front.

    What upsets me are the qualified people, especially those with advanced degrees in climate-related science , chemistry, physics as well as electrical engineering and finance who could, if they applied themselves, make contributions toward finding real solutions, inventions, adaptations.

    Who might step up to the plate and go to bat for the public interest instead of doing nothing as our once highly publicly-owned electrical sector gets consumed by the corporate sector. (Well, that is my own crusade, anyway).

    It is well past the time that we can afford the luxury of arguing with idiots over facts.They need to be excluded from any serious discussion.

    • Magma Says:

      “nor is it done to educate undecided lurkers”

      That is my motivation on mainstream sites such as newspaper forums, rather than simply abandon comments to AGW deniers and conspirationists. But when I do play whack-a-troll on climate blogs (both denier and scientific) it *is* largely “done for the delight of mockery and confrontation” and I agree it’s a futile, time-wasting activity.


    • I spend pretty much all the spare time I have working on social media to raise awareness of climate change. That is something that anyone can do, degree or no, and IMHO, much better than spending time responding to trolls. I believe one of their goals is to lure people into wasting time responding (and creating the appearance of a “debate”).

      • Magma Says:

        Last year on andthentheresphysics Richard Tol tied up an entire comment thread generating multiple long responses from some very smart people.

        I eventually commented

        Although this exchange has been interesting and entertaining, this equation seems self-evident:
        (Tol’s time expended)/(Σ Tol responders’ time expended) << 1

        The latest time this happened I simply wrote "Do not feed the Tol."


    • @Gingerbaker: “… What upsets me are the qualified people .. who could, if they applied themselves, make contributions toward finding real solutions, inventions, adaptations.”

      That entire premise is based on the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming being a settled debate. Skeptic climate scientists dispute that notion in highly detailed ways, citing peer-reviewed science journal-published papers to make their case. AGW believers across the board tell all not to listen to such skeptics because they are paid and orchestrated by industry interests to lie. I simply ask you-all to show me the proof behind that accusation, and you call me all kinds of names without ever rising to my challenge, and then you suggest I should be silenced.

      Exactly what part of your total self-inflicted wipeout do you not comprehend?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Here’s Russell, frothing at the mouth because he has ingested too much of that toxic denier Kool-Aid and sees his demise fast approaching. Will he recover or end up buried in the denier under 6 feet of denier BS? We shall see.

        Russell dares to use (and abuse) GB’s “what upsets me” comment, when Russell Cook is one of the LEAST qualified people you can find on the web. Russell is NOT one of those people GB mentioned (and Russell conveniently left off)—-“those with advanced degrees in climate-related science , chemistry, physics as well as electrical engineering and finance”, but rather “someone who knows no science—Heartland scraped the bottom of the barrel to find him and literally dragged him in off the street” to speak at the 2014 Heartland conference. I have posted the video of Russell saying that into the camera many times.

        It’s a freakin’ NOTION that that CAGW is a “settled debate”, says Russell? That’s why Russell is a denier, folks—-because he denies the settled science that 99.99% of climate scientists accept and instead tries to sow confusion and doubt.

        Skeptic climate scientists (an oxymoron, that) “dispute” that NOTION with pure bullshit, not science—they have NO “case”. EVERY peer-reviewed science journal published paper they cite has been a distortrion and misquotation beyond recognition of a paper that actually speaks in SUPPORT of AGW. I defy Russell to cite some papers that actually refute AGW with observed data—-there are very few if any.

        “AGW believers across the board tell all not to listen to such skeptics because they are paid and orchestrated by industry interests to lie”, says Russell.

        No, Russell, we first tell “all” not to listen because the denier’s science is bad and they lie about it. Then we ask “all” to examine the evidence linking fossil fuel $$$ to the deniers. Then we ask why such a small %-age would deny the science, and suggest that it’s because they are paid to do so. That’s all the “proof” we need.

        And Russell is not even a denier scientist—-he is a know-nothing, paid by Heartland to whore for fossil fuels, and he proves that with every comment he posts on Crock. He is delusional enough that he talks to us about “not comprehending a total self-inflicted wipeout”? Like his? Lord love a duck!


        • The proper term for the funds that Heartland sends to Cook is “pity money”. A few folks at Heartland must feel sorry enough for Cook that they want to keep him off the street.

          The Heartland folks can’t possibly believe that they are getting a positive ROI from the money they send him — the fact that Cook is not on the street right now can most likely be attributed to a few Heartland folks who feel sorry for him and have figured out how to bury the money they send him in Heartland’s overhead budget.


          • @caerbannog666 In a sense, you are correct there, in that I expended my own cash reserves down to a critical level while doing what I do. You already apparently indicate this, which means you’ve at least taken some time to read my blog material, in direct opposition to what “d.o.g.” suggested you should not do.

            So, why not show some pity toward “d.o.g.” now and dive deeper into my blog posts and expose precisely where the “lies” are, since “d.o.g.” is apparently unable or unwilling to do so himself. Your fellow Crocks readers will be beholden to you for the effort and will forever wonder why “d.o.g.” could not deliver on such a simple challenge.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            @caerbannog666 is “in a sense correct” in what he says? And he could only have gotten that info by reading Russell’s blog “material” (i.e., deluded BS)? LOL

            Actually all anyone had to do was read what I posted about Russell’s sorry past regarding $$$$ many months back on Crock. (Remember, I go to GobofSpitfiles so that you don’t have to). I wrote about Russell’s financial arrangements with Heartland and how Russell’s poor mother was even selling off some of her personal belongings to support Russell (who was living in her basement at the time).

            The folks at Heartland have so much dirty fossil fuel money to spread around among the bigger denier whores that they can give Russell his pittance without even worrying about it—I don’t think they care if they are getting a decent R.O.I.—-it’s pocket change considering that Craig Idso, Senior Editor, Center for the Study of CO2 & Global Change, was paid ~$140K in 2012, and Fred Singer, Co-Editor, Science and Environmental Policy Project, got ~$60K that year, to say nothing of what the the two Basts pulled down.

            Take a look at Heartlands CONFIDENTIAL 2012 budget document to see just how much money they have to play with:
            http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1-15-2012-2012-Heartland-Budget.pdf

            And I would suspect that they’re not smart enough to realize that Russell’s BS is just that—BS—they are like the WUWT lemmings that think Anthony Watts and Russell are geniuses and are probably quite pleased with Russell. The more we ridicule him, the more they like him.

            Russell is again begging for hits on his blog. Could it be that his whore’s pay from Heartland is in part dependent on people going there? Is that why he is so frantic? And slinging such BS as—“d.o.g.” is apparently unable or unwilling to do so himself”, and “your fellow Crocks readers will be beholden to you for the effort and will forever wonder why “d.o.g.” could not deliver on such a simple challenge”.

            OPEN YOUR SITE to comments, Russell, and I will be on it like stink on you-know-what—-I am getting tired of saying that I will not crap up Crock any more than we have in dealing with what you post here. You want to talk about your GSF.com BS in detail, we will do it there or nowhere. (And I’ll bring friends to that party—-your hit count WILL go up).

        • miffedmax Says:

          No, Russell, we’re not going to give your pathetic blog hits no matter how much you beg us to.

          Go submit to a real, peer-reviewed journal if you have something useful to say.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Submit to a real, peer-reviewed journal if you have something useful to say”.

            LMAO! Since Russell has no credentials or science knowledge, he CAN’T submit
            to any journal that deals with the science of AGW. To my knowledge, they do not accept OPINIONS from ignorant anal orifices, and that’s why Russell is limited to having his articles appear in such right wing and denier rags as American Stinker, Breitbart.com, Red State, ClimateGateCountryClub, Global Warming.org, and that hotbed of twisted science, delusion, and low-IQ readers—the infamous WattsUpWithThat. (Referenced from “archive” at GobofSpitfiles.com—-remember, I go there so that other Crockers don’t have to risk their brains)

            And thank you for echoing my thoughts with “No, Russell, we’re not going to give your pathetic blog hits no matter how much you beg us to”, although I do think “pathetic” is overly kind.


      • Meh, with respect to the scientific debate, I couldn’t give a tuppence about industry interests.

        The fact is that the “skeptics” arguments aren’t backed up by scientific evidence. They regularly abuse statistics and physics that would make any fourth-year STEM major blush.

        I regularly see comments and posts at WUWT that as a scientist, I would be *embarrassed* to have written. I have to wonder how these people still have jobs. Most of the skeptical academics are emeritus or speaking about areas outside their own fields.

        Tamino has a post up, just today, on the abuse of some very simple statistical concepts by “skeptics”. I recommend reading it*. And that post really just scratches the surface.

        TL;DR: To accept the skeptics’ viewpoints, you have to throw out good science and math. That’s probably why 90%+ of natural scientists accept anthropogenic climate change.

        [*] https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/global-warming-basics-trend-games/

    • grindupbaker Says:

      Same for me for the 1st 3 paragraphs. I obliterated one full weekend about 5 times. Still, it’s quite interesting science. I’m trying a new thing where I try not to swear much (I’m British).

    • addledlady Says:

      “… nor is it done to educate undecided lurkers …”

      I don’t necessarily think I’m providing an educational service to lurkers, but I do try to ensure that outrageous stuff does not go unchallenged into undecided minds.

      Sometimes I talk the educational talk – like providing a link to an easy read (like Crocks) or an easy and informative video – directly to the troll/commenter/jaq-er, but I am really doing it for the benefit of lurkers who might, every now and again, take the chance to inform themselves. The occasional comment saying thanks for the link tells me that I sometimes hit the mark.

      Doesn’t happen often, but often enough to keep me at it.


  3. We have to confront the issue at some point: what do we actually want to accomplish?

    Battling internet trolls becomes the substitute for behavior changes such as becoming vegetarian or getting rid of that (useless) car, eschewing jet vacations and buying fewer (none) consumer goods from China. Next step is consolidating life functions — food, clothing, shelter, entertainment — into zones that measure ‘within walking distance’. Our greatest challenge relates to agriculture/food. Most Westerners live 1,000 km from their dinners. It’s easier to argue ‘science’ online than to make the seismic social shift from machine-based suburban living to inhabiting medieval hill towns surrounded by small farms, performing life functions by hand.

    First of all, none by the smallest fraction out of 7+ billions knows how to make such a way of life work! We have all become slaves of our mechanical servants, we have bent every aspect of our lives around them.

    Responding positively to climate change is going to be very difficult — think evolutionary bottleneck — why not throw up smokescreens and pray for a miracle?


  4. Best comment thread ever. @dumboldguy: I raise my glass to you.

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    Let’s get back to discussing Russell’s latest steaming pile of BS on American Stinker. (As I said, I go to Russell’s blog and to American Stinker and risk my sanity so you don’t have to).

    In order to fully appreciate how totally FOS Russell is in his writings, one must explore his links. When one does, they will find that they all loop back to Heartland, WUWT, and other sites and individuals in the circular firing squad and echo chambers of the denier world.

    For example, the link “besieged by methodology problems” in the American Stinker piece leads to this article on a Heartland blog, written by Joe Bast (the highly compensated president of Heartland) and the ever-famous Roy Spencer. And it was originally published in the WSJ (the “urinal”), that hotbed of climate change science.

    http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

    The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
    • by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer—-June 30, 2014
    [First published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.]

    Following links in that piece will lead you to this piece, co-authored by David Legates, who was fired as the Delaware state climatologist, the infamous Willie Soon, William Briggs, and the buffoonish Lord Monckton of B(r)enchley. All are Heartland “experts” and are on the fossil fuel whores payroll along with Russell. Inbred much? EVERYWHERE one follows a trail in Russell’s world, it circles back to the same small core of deniers and denier bullshit—-if it wasn’t so sad (and evil), it would be funny.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1
    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

    And finally, the trail leads to this link, some of that “proof” Russell is always asking for about deniers being paid to lie about climate change. Long but full of damning evidence, evidence that Russell would like us to ignore. Willie Soon is only among the first in a long line of deniers that the AG’s will be pursuing.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2095512/conflicted-science-final.pdf

    Willie Soon and Conflicted Climate Science: Science Journals Unwittingly Serve As A Conduit For Corporate Interests June 2015

    Introduction

    “The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) monitors the individuals and organizations trying to delay the implementation of sound energy and environmental policies that are necessary in the face of the climate crisis. For more than twenty five years, the fossil fuel companies and their allies have adopted a strategy of “manufacturing doubt” as a means of stalling and subverting regulation, similar to the strategy deployed by the tobacco industry when facing mounting pressure by regulators seeking to protect public health.

    “With oil, coal and utility companies at the lead, corporate interests have pushed uncertainty about the scientific consensus on climate change as an explicit strategy.

    “Numerous leaked documents and investigations have revealed efforts that often include tactical funding of scientists who believe or are willing to express a counter-narrative, creating the impression that the scientific community is divided on the urgency of climate change.

    “In February 2015, we released documents with Greenpeace produced by a five-year investigation into the corporate funding of Dr. Willie Soon, a well-known climate science denier, of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, a part of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA).

    “Since 2001, Dr. Soon has received grants from fossil fuel vested corporate interests totaling more than $1.2 Million dollars. These funders are the Southern Company, ExxonMobil Corporation, the Charles G Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute. The only other funding he has received in this time period are anonymous grants from the secretive Donors Trust organization
    totaling nearly $325,000. (Note: Donors Trust = Koch brothers)

    “This report summarizes the latest findings….”

    (…..and it continues with 22 pages of jaw-dropping evidence of Soon’s play-for-pay)

    Is that enough “proof” for you Russell?

  6. dumboldguy Says:

    Aaaargh! Got moderated—-too many links? Try again

    Let’s get back to discussing Russell’s latest steaming pile of BS on American Stinker. (As I said, I go to Russell’s blog and to American Stinker and risk my sanity so you don’t have to).

    In order to fully appreciate how totally FOS Russell is in his writings, one must explore his links. When one does, they will find that they all loop back to Heartland, WUWT, and other sites and individuals in the circular firing squad and echo chambers of the denier world.

    For example, the link “besieged by methodology problems” in the American Stinker piece leads to this article on a Heartland blog, written by Joe Bast (the highly compensated president of Heartland) and the ever-famous Roy Spencer. And it was originally published in the WSJ (the “urinal”), that hotbed of climate change science.

    http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

    The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
    • by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer—-June 30, 2014
    [First published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.]

    Following links in that piece will lead you to this piece, co-authored by David Legates, who was fired as the Delaware state climatologist, the infamous Willie Soon, William Briggs, and the buffoonish Lord Monckton of B(r)enchley. All are Heartland “experts” and are on the fossil fuel whores payroll along with Russell. Inbred much? EVERYWHERE one follows a trail in Russell’s world, it circles back to the same small core of deniers and denier bullshit—-if it wasn’t so sad (and evil), it would be funny.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1
    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

    And finally, the trail leads to this link, some of that “proof” Russell is always asking for about deniers being paid to lie about climate change. Long but full of damning evidence, evidence that Russell would like us to ignore. Willie Soon is only among the first in a long line of deniers that the AG’s will be pursuing.

    (Link deleted—to follow)

    Willie Soon and Conflicted Climate Science: Science Journals Unwittingly Serve As A Conduit For Corporate Interests June 2015

    Introduction

    “The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) monitors the individuals and organizations trying to delay the implementation of sound energy and environmental policies that are necessary in the face of the climate crisis. For more than twenty five years, the fossil fuel companies and their allies have adopted a strategy of “manufacturing doubt” as a means of stalling and subverting regulation, similar to the strategy deployed by the tobacco industry when facing mounting pressure by regulators seeking to protect public health.

    “With oil, coal and utility companies at the lead, corporate interests have pushed uncertainty about the scientific consensus on climate change as an explicit strategy.

    “Numerous leaked documents and investigations have revealed efforts that often include tactical funding of scientists who believe or are willing to express a counter-narrative, creating the impression that the scientific community is divided on the urgency of climate change.

    “In February 2015, we released documents with Greenpeace produced by a five-year investigation into the corporate funding of Dr. Willie Soon, a well-known climate science denier, of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, a part of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA).

    “Since 2001, Dr. Soon has received grants from fossil fuel vested corporate interests totaling more than $1.2 Million dollars. These funders are the Southern Company, ExxonMobil Corporation, the Charles G Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute. The only other funding he has received in this time period are anonymous grants from the secretive Donors Trust organization
    totaling nearly $325,000. (Note: Donors Trust = Koch brothers)

    “This report summarizes the latest findings….”

    (…..and it continues with 22 pages of jaw-dropping evidence of Soon’s play-for-pay)

    Is that enough “proof” for you Russell?

    • andrewfez Says:

      The biggest evidence against Soon is that his model fails to follow the last several decades of TSI, because he reverse engineered it to overstate recent irradiance by picking a handful of proxies that don’t directly (or uniformly) correlate with TSI. Or in other words, the biggest evidence against Soon is the paper he published in Geophysical Research Letters, if memory serves regarding the publication.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The biggest “evidence” against Soon is simply that he took ~$1,500,000 from fossil fuel interests over a span of 15 years for his “research”, ALL of which denies CO2 as the cause of global warming. That’s ~$100,000 a year and “nice work if you can get it”.

        Soon is also on the Heartland payroll as an Expert and contributor, but the exact amounts are hidden in their budget. They say, “estimate $1500 per year”, but because pay to their contributors is on a “piece work” basis, it’s hard to judge. If Heartland says $1.5K, you can be sure it’s many times more than that.

        Details here: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/05/willie-soon-heartland-star-was-he-paid

        BTW, Russell Cook wrote an article in the GlobofS**tfiles in defense of Soon (I’ve upgraded the name of Russell’s blog to better reflect its content and what your brain will turn into if you go there too often) Same type of “cover Willie’s ass” BS that Joe Bast also wrote for Heartland, and I’m sure Russell got paid to write it.

        PS I may be repeating this, but Russell Cook is also a Heartland “expert”, even though he has no expertise beyond slinging BS and propaganda in support of AGW denialism.


    • DOG, as a fellow “angry old white guy” who wonders why the angry white guys I’m angry about are angry at me, I too confess to reading Russell’s work.

      The pathetic closing statement in Heartland’s ‘The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ article references the thoroughly debunked OISM Petition Project, which was signed online by about 0.3% of the approximately 11 million Americans who meet their signing criteria, and a few that don’t. It’s inductive reason at its most obvious worst.

      “Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.”

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The complete bullshit that comes out of Heartland does more than make me angry. I’ve said it before, but if we were operating under “Tombstone AZ in 1880” rules, I would have been out there with my guns long ago mowing them all down.

        The whole Oregon Petition scam is so bad that it makes my blood boil and my eyes pop, and what you quote from Heartland is full of more lies.

        The Petition Project is NOT “a group of physicists and physical chemists” based in La Jolla, Calif.”—-that’s a mailing address they use because La Jolla is a lot more prestigious than where they are actually located—in the woods of Bumfuck, Oregon at the end of a dirt road, and the “group” is a bunch of quacks and scam artists, headed by the infamous Art Robinson, who has NEVER done any climate change research and is a Heartland stooge..

        More than half of the petition signers are engineers, NOT scientists, and of the “real” scientists among the signers, only a few dozen are actual climate scientists of any stripe. Only a few hundred have ANY expertise in ANY field that is remotely related to climate change science. It is incredible that anyone ever gave the petition any credibility in the first place, and that the deniers are STILL touting it as being meaningful.

        The “larger point that is is plain” is that Heartland shamelessly lies to the world about almost everything about climate change, as is apparent in “There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: