Climate Deniers Road Tested the Alt-Right 7 Years Ago

October 31, 2016

 

Shadowy hackers, distorted, weaponized e-mails, veiled threats from White Supremacists, possible Russian connections, …insane Alex Jones rants…where have we seen this before?

Let me think…

I was reviewing the video below when it really hit me just how close the parallels are between 2010’s “Climate gate” nonsense and the current election cycle.

 

Here, classic Alex Jones, who was a little known fringe conspiracy theorist in 2010, road the “climategate” meme to higher profile in the far right pantheon.

 

UPDATE – CNBC: 

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI‘s name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying: “The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. … These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

FYI, the entire “Climate emails/Hockey stick” playlist is here.

Advertisements

34 Responses to “Climate Deniers Road Tested the Alt-Right 7 Years Ago”

  1. billzog Says:

    I agee that AGW’s perceived threat to their pet economic ‘theories’ and their blanket abhorrence of collective action was the final straw that triggered the Right’s total detachment from ‘the reality-based community’. They show no sign of re-entering even a near-Earth orbit; indeed, they recede further into deep space with each day that passes.

    There’s a straight line from the rise of the Tea Party and WUWT to the rise of Trump. We may never recover from this radical reactionary insurgency.

  2. ubrew12 Says:

    Doubt has always been their product. However, their tactics are evolving dramatically.

  3. webej Says:

    Whoa. One must always guard against becoming more like those one is fighting. Seeing some kind of organized force (“weaponizing memes”) uniting fringe right-wing groups (or left-wing groups or jihadi’s for that matter) is a little conspiratorial. Parallels between climate-gate and WikiLeaks seem rather far sought. Speculating about a Russian connection is going way beyond any evidence, and reminds me a lot more of the McCarthy era than climate-gate. American intelligence agencies (renowned for lying about things like WMDs in Iraq, and many other things, illegally listening in on private conversations of allies [and everybody], stuxnet virus, convincing us that the biggest threat since communism to freedom are 256 radical muslims in clay huts in Waziristan, etc) have not presented a shred of evidence. Their reasoning is purely speculative (motive, extent of the hacks, etc). Many of these leaks were not particularly awesome (Podesta’s mail was protected by nothing more than a password=p@ssw0rd). Accusing Russia of hybrid warfare and information wars, etc., is what is known by psychologists as projection. Seeing the extent to which the USA itself (and others) engage in cyber exploits, it seems a little extreme to threaten war and nuclear escalation in retaliation.

    Asking Russia to respond positively to cutting fossil fuels is a little like asking America to join in on an effort to ban nuclear weapons from the planet (Nyet!/No!), but putting them into the climate denial loop as the nexus of evil in the world pitted against “us” (Americans are “great” because they are “good”), this is going too far beyond the available evidence.
    Don’t forget that even Canada’s former conservative government cut funding to environmental science country-wide because they didn’t like the results. Putin is on record stating that climate change is a threat to the world and the economy, even if Russia is no leader in the area of cutting emissions. But then the USA itself has also long been the biggest drag (certainly within the club of advanced nations) on reaching international deals to cut emissions.
    Whoa, time to stick to stodgy conservative scientific method. And it is probably better to link to Alex Jones than to actually embed him (too much honour).


  4. This is a good nonpartisan read on the situation…

    https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/01/20403/nonpartisan-guide-national-security-and-foreign-policy-issues-presidential-election

    Are you comparing this issue to “Climate Gate”…. really????? Rolling my eyes….

    I wonder if any of the deleted emails from Clinton’s server will be found on Wiener’s computer?

    Further…..

    If Clinton is elected she is not going to lift a finger to slow down green house gas emissions… she is going to talk the talk but will do nothing to damage the profit margins of her corporate handlers and sponsors…

    “Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal’ you name it. They are after everything and I’m just talking through them. And of course they go support somebody else. That’s fine and I don’t particularly care.” Hillary Clinton

    “‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life.” Hillary Clinton

    And Trump is no better…

    Sheldon Wolin got it right in, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism

    • mboli Says:

      The out-of-context quote from Clinton’s e-mail does NOT mean she is opposed to addressing climate change.
      She was talking about loud extremists who were in the habit of interrupting her public appearances. She “talks through them.”
      She doesn’t subscribe to their blanket condemnations. She thinks that some fracking is OK. a position you might not agree with but is defensible. She thinks the Keystone XL had become a largely symbolic issue. Which is undeniable.
      Your statement that she will do nothing to slow GHG emissions, to protect “the profit margins of her corporate handlers,” is simply bunk.

    • webej Says:

      “I wonder if any of the deleted emails from Clinton’s server will be found on Wiener’s computer?”

      Count on it. From what has come to light we can assume that they were using an Outlook client and IMAP. Using a laptop offline or with WiFi, defaults are to cache all server mail folders on the client. This means that there are probably *.ost files containing ALL mail correspondence from the various mailboxes which Huma used. These mails would only be deleted from the local cache when synchronized to the server mail store, but when the Clinton server was taken offline, nothing would be deleted from the offline cache without pro-active management of client devices, which we can assume did not happen to Weiner’s device. And even if mails did disappear from the local mail store, without pro-active use of products such as bit bleach, there is probably a whole lot to be found in the free space of the hard drive.
      This is what happens when you do an end run around State department protocol and their IT department: you operate in terms of uninformed and incompetent advice and assistance. Oops. Mails are hard to get rid of anyways, because the other parties to each mail has a copy on their (provider’s) infrastructure.
      Comey would really be going out on a limb if there were nothing material there.
      In his first press conference he stated that there was not enough there for a criminal referral, but still enumerated all kinds of facts that do imply gross negligence [the statute does not require intent, only negligence]. In other words, he did not want to influence the election but also did not want to hide it completely from the electorate. He would certainly not override himself [his reputation is for smarts and integrity] unless he thought he owed it to the electorate to hint that there is far more damning evidence of misconduct. But nothing will be revealed before Nov 8 out of reverence for impartial elections. Comey must know he is damaging himself politically, and is likely acting from a sense of obligation against his own better interests (or is worried about obstruction charges later down the pike).
      The emails found, regardless of what’s in them, may well provide evidence of perjury, obstruction, tampering, and serious misconduct under various laws mandating that classified documents be stored securely (confidentially and indestructably).
      It is also disingenuous to suggest the emails exposed so far have been tampered with. Many have DKIM signatures, which guarantees they have not been doctored; the key used to generate DKIM signatures is owned by the mail providers (such as GMail) themselves, and cannot be modified without invalidating all their existing DKIM signed mails (in the world).

      • mboli Says:

        The @webej schema:
        a) Technical stuff about how e-mail is stored. All reasonably correct.
        b) A lot of hooey about Clinton and classified e-mail.
        c) Even less supported speculation about Clinton, Comey, and what will be discovered in the future.
        d) Some more technical stuff about e-mail, reasonably correct.
        Possibly sandwiching the cow manure between two slabs of real bread makes it more likely that people will swallow it?

        • webej Says:

          hooey is a perjorative lacking any substance

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, one must definitely watch out for those pe(R)joratives that lack any substance. LOL

            “Hooey” does mean “nonsense” (and mboli DID spell it correctly).
            That is exactly what dweeby J is spouting here—nonsense—so I fail to see any validity to the charge of “lacks substance”. Cow manure is also an appropriate characterization of dweeby’s self-satisfied and glib writing style —his comments on this thread read like a homework assignment for a 12th grade creative writing class.

            As for these two statements, one can only say—-“Lord love a duck, dweeby! What planet do you inhabit?”

            “Speculating about a Russian connection is going way beyond any evidence”?

            “Seeing some kind of organized force (“weaponizing memes”) uniting fringe right-wing groups…is a little conspiratorial”?.


    • Good for you, Louise! Oliver and Maher get shamed trying to debate Trump’s campaign manager who so easily confronts their hypocrisy. And a large contingent of Youtubers are hip to this, it’s a wonder our host and seemingly most on this forum don’t get it. I’m voting Clinton and holding my nose, as Chomsky says. We came so close to our only chance at dignity this election — Sanders. At least we found out that the young people do get it.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “Good for you, Louise!” says Eugenics Boy, and thereby encourages Louise in her foolishness. Thanks to mboli for pointing out Louise’s failings and saving me the trouble. Of course, Louise DID show how “fair and balanced” she is by including the hard-hitting statement “And Trump is no better…” Is Louise auditioning for a spot on Fox News?

        Louse says “This is a good nonpartisan read on the situation…” https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/01/20403/nonpartisan-guide-national-security-and-foreign-policy-issues-presidential-election

        Non-partisan, my ass. I like the IPI’s efforts in general and particularly on the environment, but this piece is just another smear job on Clinton, and all one has to do to see that is read the IPI companion piece on Trump that was published the day before, in which the IPI is surprisingly easy on Trump.

        https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/31/20377/nonpartisan-guide-national-security-and-foreign-policy-issues-presidential-election

        Apparently, the IPI, like Bill Shockley, is upset that they are no longer feeling the bern and considers Clinton to be an “establishment” lackey that must be attacked because she is not sufficiently “left”. I might agree with that AFTER she’s elected and we see how she follows through on the campaign promises, but IMO they are no better than McConnell saying before he was even inaugurated that the Repugnants would do everything they could to sabotage Obama. Whose side is the IPI on anyway? Clinton is the planet’s only hope right now, and half-assed misapplications of what Chomsky said don’t help, nor does saying “We came so close to our only chance at dignity this election — Sanders. At least we found out that the young people do get it”.

        Of particular interest to Crockers is what Chomsky said about Trump and climate change.

        “One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point,”

        Some have cited that passage in calling Trump a “unique danger to life on earth”, and said “the most compelling point Chomsky makes is that voting shouldn’t be seen as a moral act, but as a strategic necessity aimed at preventing the worst possible outcome”. To wit, Chomsky said:

        “Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites,”

        No Bill. It’s sad, but all too many of the young do not “get it” ,and neither do you and Louise.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          PS to Peter. Great job on the Real News talk. You DO get it.

        • markle2k Says:

          IPI looks suspicious because they claim non-partisanship. Calling your organization non-partisan because it has no formal identity with a political party is disingenuous when you also identify with a political perspective whether it be “Progressive” or “Libertarian” or “Conservative”.

    • mboli Says:

      It is an opinion column by Martin Wolf. Much of the column reiterates what readers of this blog know already.
      Wolf main point is what he calls “denial minor” (in contrast to “denial major”), which “comes from those who recognise the evident dangers but argue that tackling climate change effectively is a relatively low-cost and simple challenge.” He continues “Even if, as some argue, the technologies needed to sustain economic growth while progressively eliminating carbon emissions are either here or arriving at ever-falling cost, the political, social and economic challenge of delivering a decisive break in these trends is daunting.”
      Wolf then charges that Obama engages in denial minor, and Clinton might well continue in that vein. He is perturbed that climate change has occupied such a small role in the national conversation of the US election.
      The article is in the Australian Financial Review. It is behind a pay wall (trivially defeatable), which is why I summarized its conclusions here.

      • webej Says:

        The so-called costs to the economy is actually the height of lunacy:
        1. If we divert all military spending on fighting a real problem like surviving, the costs are nil and the ensuing budget would be far great than the highest currently embraced ambitions of “greens”. If you are thinking of return on investments it cannot be more obvious.
        2. The real costs to mankind’s future if we do not smarten up and start acting in adequate ways are too staggering to even be able add up.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          WHAT? You need to slow down before you topple off the edge of the “heights of lunacy” and hurt yourself. Does your Mom ever come down to the basement to check on you? She should.

          1) It’s unfortunate, but military spending in this crazy world IS devoted to “fighting a real problem like surviving”, and “diverting” it would not guarantee our survival as a country or a species.

          2) The only way to “adequately answer” that is to say “DUH!”

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            Don’t follow you, DOG. Military financing is already in the budget.

            They can spend their money deactivating roadside bombs, or perhaps, use it more constructively addressing a different issue of national security (yes, AGW is a national security issue according to the DOD and President Obama) by, for instance, constructing solar farms on Fed land in the Mojave.

            As CinC, the Prez could make this happen with a single order if he felt like it.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I was responding to Dweeby’s comment, i.e, “If we divert ALL military spending on (sic) fighting a real problem like surviving, the costs are nil and the ensuing budget would be far great (sic) than the highest currently embraced ambitions of “greens”. It was incoherent and nonsensical, as was his use of “adequate” and “to even be able add up” (sic) later in the comment.

            The point I was trying to make is that surviving as a nation in the present world requires that we have a military, and that it was the height of lunacy to suggest that we just stop spending money on it. Do you dispute that?

            Actually, what you have said here is what’s hard to follow. Yes, military spending IS in the budget, but military national security and climate change national security are separate issues (except for the need for the military to plan for inundated naval bases and the global turmoil that is coming with wars over water and food shortages caused by AGW).

            Yes, let’s DO build solar farms in the Mojave, but that’s not the job of the military. And it’s not clear WHAT you’re advocating the president could “make happen with a single order if he felt like it”.

            (PS Look at all the thumbs down my comment is garnering. More disappointed berners and Mom’s-basement-dwelling millenials that can’t seem to get over it? Nice job—-you can’t find the balls to make a comment here and just use anonymous thumbs, but you CAN and WILL punish me, yourselves, the country, and the whole world by not voting, or writing in Bernie, or voting Green or Libertarian—-all to “make a statement”. Grow up!)

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            ” Yes, military spending IS in the budget, but military national security and climate change national security are separate issues “

            Not sure I would agree with that. National security means what it says. Both the DOD and Prez have said it quite plainly.

            I have never heard of the concept of different meanings of the word. And the beauty of the term is that it can be used to justify almost anything – including erecting RE, which I don’t see how it would NOT be in the military job description once the CinC says it is.

            “And it’s not clear WHAT you’re advocating the president could “make happen with a single order if he felt like it”.”

            That’s a whole other interesting topic – what can the President, as head of 1/3 of the government called the Executive branch, do with Executive orders? He certainly would be able, I believe to change policy, redirect spending. Especially if it is in the interest of “National Security”. Science tells us we have one decade to get 80% of the way full renewable energy to stay under 2C. That sir, is a National Security emergency.

            It would require the immediate bidding process and construction of 100’s of solar PV manufacturing plants.

            Could he not redirect the Dept. of Energy, for example, to construct a solar and wind power-only electricity utility system, much as Eisenhower initiated the U.S. Interstate road system (ostensibly justified as a national security interest – a means of moving ICBM’s around to hide them from the Russkies? I daresay he could. If had the balls.

            I daresay he could do a lot of things if he wanted to – change regulations to instantly make burning coal regulatorily-impossible. Ban new oil pipeline construction pending some convenient excuse or another. Withdraw any and all fossil fuel subsidies for some ginned up reason. It’s called the Imperial Presidency, and it was invented by the George Bush administration. It’s not a radical idea – it has precedent.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            If it makes you feel good to argue semantics over “national security”, go right ahead and make fruit salad by mixing oranges. apples, kumquats, and bananas. I agree with your basic idea that we need more RE, just not your attempts to twist it so far to support your RE NOW fixation. The military needs to be ready to FIGHT WARS (or at least be ready to do so in order to “project power” and intimidate our foes). Our president recognizes that they should stick to the role they are designed for.

            I seriously doubt that either the Chinese or Russian military establishments have many troops erecting RE beyond small installations, and remember that those countries are authoritarian and their troops do exactly what they are told to do (or die). RE in those countries is in the hands of the “private” sectors for good reasons.

            “Science tells us we have one decade to get 80% of the way full renewable energy to stay under 2C. That sir, is a National Security emergency”. Can’t argue with that, and if the SHTF, maybe we will mobilize some of the military to work on RE. Of course we may need to re-institute the draft, since we will also need so many more riflemen to fight in the wars that will erupt all over the globe when the S does HTF.

            “I daresay he(she) could do a lot of things if he wanted to – change regulations (etc, etc, etc)” Yep, in a perfect world—-one not run by politicians and special interests and the plutocracy. Maybe we DO need an “outsider” like Trump to change things (just kidding).

            And who are you going to vote for on Tuesday, GB? Who is going to make your dreams come true?

    • markle2k Says:

      That paywall is almost as annoying as the Forbes paywall. Here’s the text from a quick CTRL-A copypasta. I chopped most of the button text and picture captions out:

      OPINION Nov 2 2016 at 9:42 AM Updated Nov 2 2016 at 12:11 PM Save Article Print

      Climate change is real and the world is in denial
      It is a remarkable fact that the question of climate change was barely addressed in the US presidential debates.
      It is a remarkable fact that the question of climate change was barely addressed in the US presidential debates. CHARLIE RIEDEL
      by Martin Wolf
      Nature does not care what we think about it. Indeed, nature does not care about us at all. But we should care about nature. Above all, we should care about nature if our actions are affecting it adversely. Probably the most important way in which we are affecting nature is via the climate. Yet our response is foolish denial and fond hope. Nature will not be impressed.

      What nature is doing at present is heating the planet. Of this no serious doubt remains. The global warming ” pause” of 1998-2013 is definitively over. Even before recent temperature rises to the highest on record, the notion of a pause was absurd. In 1998 there was a strong El Niño – a feature of which is high global temperatures. What was remarkable is that the years after 1998 remained so hot.

      Both last year and this one, with another strong El Niño, temperatures have hit records. A straight line between the peaks of January 1958 and February 2016 lies above the temperature in all intervening months. The same is true for a line drawn between March 1990 and February 2016. Twelve-month and 60-month moving averages give a similar picture. No slowdown in underlying rates of temperature rises is happening. After this El Niño another purported pause might occur – but probably at a higher average level than during the previous one. (See charts.)

      Just as the world is hitting peak temperatures (relative to the 1951-80 average and pre-industrial levels), so is it hitting peak concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This year, the global average will almost certainly pass 400 parts per million, which is more than 40 per cent above pre-industrial levels. Given the well-known physics of the greenhouse effect, the causal relationship between the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and consistently rising temperatures is at the very least overwhelmingly plausible.

      Under Donald Trump, the US would presumably abandon the modest steps taken against climate change under President Barack …
      Under Donald Trump, the US would presumably abandon the modest steps taken against climate change under President Barack Obama. Evan Vucci
      Finally, we also know that the rise in concentrations of carbon dioxide are sure to continue, and for a long time. This is because emissions have themselves continue to rise, despite the talk about bringing them under control. So not only are the stocks of carbon dioxide continuing to rise but even the emission flows from human activities.

      It is a remarkable fact that, given these simple truths, the question of climate change was barely addressed in the US presidential debates. This is not because it cannot matter. It is not because the candidates do not disagree. It is because few wish to think about the implications of these realities.

      The two dominant responses to the evident reality of climate risks are denial. But they are very different forms of denial. I think of them as “denial major” and “denial minor”.

      Market economy

      “Denial major” comes from the right. It starts from two facts and one supposition. Fact one is that many of the people who take climate change seriously are very suspicious of – if not downright hostile to – the market economy. Fact two is that climate change implies a costly global spillover from market-driven economic activity. The supposition is that doing anything to mitigate climate change must entail massive interference in the market economy and impose large economic costs. The natural conclusion is that the idea of man-made climate change has to be fraudulent because the possibility of its truth is too painful to contemplate. It would be possible for those who want no action to agree, instead, that climate change is true but not worth any action. The drawback of this is that it would force a discussion about why doing nothing makes sense.

      A President Hillary Clinton would be likely to indulge in “denial minor”, substituting modest gestures for policies able …
      A President Hillary Clinton would be likely to indulge in “denial minor”, substituting modest gestures for policies able to bring credible change. JOE BURBANK
      “Denial minor” comes from those who recognise the evident dangers but argue that tackling climate change effectively is a relatively low-cost and simple challenge. This, too, is implausible. Even if, as some argue, the technologies needed to sustain economic growth while progressively eliminating carbon emissions are either here or arriving at ever-falling cost, the political, social and economic challenge of delivering a decisive break in these trends is daunting. It is too easy to get away with applauding what are in fact little more than gestures in the direction of tackling climate risks as if they are the real thing. The much-praised Paris agreement of December 2015 is not only toothless but would fall far short even of keeping temperature rises below 2C, let alone below the 1.5C thought more desirable. This has to be a global effort of appropriate scale and urgency. Otherwise nothing relevant would change.

      “Denial major” guarantees failure. It is what a President Donald Trump would take with him into the White House. Under him, the US would presumably abandon the modest steps taken under President Barack Obama. But the US is not just the world’s second-largest emitter; it is one of the biggest emitters per head. Without the US, the effort to reduce climate risks would be dead. That this was not thought worth even raising in the debates is astounding.

      A President Hillary Clinton would not be guilty of “denial major” but is likely to indulge in “denial minor”, substituting modest gestures for policies able to bring credible change.

      Indeed, without at least a start on carbon pricing and a determination to develop technologies far faster, the necessary shift in trends could not happen in time. The world would then have to adapt to the consequences of climate shifts it did not have the capacity to mitigate.

      This year, the global average of concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will almost certainly pass 400 parts …
      This year, the global average of concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will almost certainly pass 400 parts per million, which is more than 40 per cent above pre-industrial levels. Jim Cole/AP
      It is impossible to have just a US climate policy or a Chinese climate policy. It has to be a global policy. Much has changed in attitudes since the UK government published the Stern review a decade ago. But little has yet altered on the ground. Only if we collectively recognise and act upon the realities right now is anything much likely to change. On this, I remain pessimistic.

      martin.wolf@ft.com


  5. The origins of “Fuck Face Von Clown Stick?…. per Jon Stewart..

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Your point, Louise? I’m just a dumb old guy, and it’s not obvious.

      • webej Says:

        It is indeed obvious that you are a dumb old guy. Replying to yourself — in your smug solopsism. Using phrases like “to wit” in your peculiarly sophomoric way. Always there to bring up the peanut gallery, with a plethora of ad hominem comments based on self-reinforcing dogmatic prejudice. Do you ever actually contribute an argument or an angle on any issue? Or are you content with your baleful hooting at anything that comes by? You seem to be compensating for the esteem you apparently missed out on in life, joining all the other self-appointed coaches cheering and jeering from the sidelines.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Come away from admiring yourself in your mirror, dweeby, and reread my comment. Replying to myself, you say? What’s “obvious” is that you don’t understand how the “comment” and “reply” features of WordPress work, never mind proper usage of the English language. Language is meant to convey real thoughts and arguments, NOT the huge VOMIT of ad hominems that is the only feature of this comment of yours.

          Go back to my 10:01 comment and reply to my points. Have you even read and done the comparison of the IPI Clinton and Trump pieces that I suggested?. Creative writing (with florid, glib, and overdone prose) may be more fun, but you need to go back to the much more useful Compare and Contrast exercise—-way more useful if you want to communicate with the intelligent members of the Crock community, that is, rather than immature narcissists like yourself. You will find that I have indeed “contributed an angle or an argument” there—-why have you ignored it?

          Yes, it does appear that you are terminally impressed with yourself and your self-imagined talent as a writer and thinker. “Smug solopsism”, “peculiarly sophomoric”, “bringing up peanut galleries”, “plethoras of ad hominems”, “baleful hooting”? And the killer—–“self-reinforcing dogmatic prejudice”? Lord love a duck, but you HAVE fallen off the the edge of the heights of lunacy with all that mandibular diarrhea—-I do sincerely hope that your mother will soon come down to the basement and administer to your “ouchies” and clean up after you.

          In closing, YOU are the one with the self-esteem problem, as is obvious by the no substance, Trump-like lashing out shown in this comment. I spent 30 years in education as a paid “coach” to students, teachers, and parents alike, and tried to help misguided young people like you. Can you show us that you are not a hopeless case? You seem to be compensating for the education in logic and rational analysis you apparently missed out on in life, joining all the other self-appointed “opinionistas” spouting nonsense from the sidelines.

          And I DO appreciate the four thumbs down that my one comment garnered. From you, Shockley, and Louise, I’m sure, and perhaps the fourth is from someone like that moron “Tommy-Poo” Bates. Too bad none of you have the balls to to really respond to me (your foolish and self-destructive rant here doesn’t count).

          • webej Says:

            ad hominem — QED
            abusive — ibidem
            self-involved compulsive revanchism — liquet

            γνῶθι σεαυτὸν

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thank you for proving my point by replying with this arrogant “no substance” reply. You are a walking pe(R)jorative directed at the concept of intelligent discourse.

  6. andrewfez Says:

    This election is bringing out the crazies. I posted something on facebook the other day about Mike Pence being a Big Tobacco shill (see Think Progress: Mike Pence, Cigarette Truther) which baited in a friend of a friend to come in to defend Pence (i.e. the ‘free market’); such then lead to some obligatory climate denial:

    I’ve been looking for where the negative hypothesis for climate change was disproven. Can you help me out?

    Note the wording of the goalpost, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and denial the GHG standard model hasn’t already been through rigorous falsification testing; even implying there is some structured alternative hypothesis/theory. It is though he is saying I won’t accept multiplication unless you disprove 3 times 15 is not 207, is not 206, is not 205,…

    Of course WV is always behind the times so out came the old arguments of last decade after I ‘disproved the negative hypothesis’ that the sun’s irradiance could explain late 20th cent. warming:

    Skeptic if you please. Tim Bell, LinDen,Christie may disagree. Why is it that CO2 rises after temp increase? How have the computer models done when run vs pat climatological events. Was there another “hockey stick” prior to the one shown by Michael Mann ? Explain the warming pause. I know. It went into the ocean. Why was William Connolley removed as the climate editor of Wikipedia. Define peer review. Wasn’t there a personnel shake up at the university of East Anglia ? What do you make of the U of East Anglia’s emails? Like I said –skeptic. Thomas Sowell said it best: “would you bet your pay check on tomorrow’s weather prediction?”

    I think I might make a video about it. I usually don’t do much troll slaying these days, but since this guy decided to walk in and make himself at home in my digital living room…

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Sounds like you’ve hooked a big one. Have fun. I no longer have the energy to debate denier trolls on every tired and deluded talking point they bring up in such profusion—-one after the other, ad infinitum, mindlessly, in ignorance of science and logic, endlessly, mindlessly……..ZZZZZzzzzzz…….!!!

      (Snort) Sorry, I put myself to sleep thinking about it—–they are so boooooooring.

      And don’t put down WV by saying it’s “behind the times”. Don’t forget that WV exists because it seceded from VA, and that was an “ahead of its time” move. It’s a shame that the extractive/exploitive industries and the greedy rich have had WV under their thumb for so long, but the “mother state” of VA is not much better. If it weren’t for all the Yankees that have moved into NO VA, Tidewater, and the other developed parts of the state, VA would be more backward than WV.

      • andrewfez Says:

        Well I talked for 20 minutes straight, but didn’t get to the debunking yet, so I’ll have to do a part two video to address the Gish Gallop. Should be fun as the latest summer temps put us back into statistically significant warming, even using ’98 as a starting year; the pause is over.

    • mboli Says:

      @andrewfez: I think have encountered the proverbial Gish Gallop. Your friend isn’t interested in engaging on the individual arguments, it is designed to stop debate.

      Like if somebody ended a lecture with a slide containing fifty bullet points in very small type. There is no intent to have the audience read and engage with each point, they are too small to read and respond to.

      However if he is still on friendly terms, you can respond to the “negative hypothesis” assertion with a joke: a classic xkcd cartoon.
      https://xkcd.com/892/


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: