Denier comment of the day, September 30, 2012

Something a little bit different. It seems Jo Nova has finally gotten her site back up and running after the NWO and Illuminati run by Jewish cabals organised a hacker to shut her down. Anyway, her post titled “Bingo!We’re back… :-)” has this to say. I’ve highlighted the bit I like.

There are many details to iron out, but thanks to some pesky hacks, I now have a bigger support team, a larger network of shared expertise, a much larger server and eventually, as we work through the site, a more efficient, faster site, that is more resilient, more stable, with a better back up system. I’ve also had a few very helpful donations.

We’re not protected by a soft media, a large public purse, and we don’t hide behind a censored fake debate as so many do.

They can attack, but it only makes us stronger.

More soon…

Please report things you notice here that need a fix.

We are aware of the thumbs up, and a few missing image links. Tell us how the service works for you.

The Temporary site is still up, and may stay there indefinitely. So  if you had a comment or conversation there: Not there yetStill not there yet,  I needed a holiday and  “Sunny Days” . Thanks for your patience.

Oh, where to start Jo? Where to start? How about with some honesty? How about some reality? How about a bit less conspiracy ideation? Perhaps a lot less hypocrisy? How about less censorship? Finally, a bit less paranoia? Did I miss anything?

About these ads


Filed under Classic denier comments

13 responses to “Denier comment of the day, September 30, 2012

  1. Nick

    What a shame,the misdirecting dullard has got her site back up…

    “We’re not protected by a soft media..” Oh yes you are,Jo. News Ltd has,amazingly, given you opinion posts in the past.

    “..we don’t hide behind a censored fake debate…” Oh, so Jo’s ‘debate’ may be fake but it’s uncensored. The world needs to know.

  2. Sou

    Re her: “public purse” comment, I doubt JoNova would reveal her funding sources – not that running a conspiracy theory blog would cost a great deal.

    Some of her close ties are public knowledge, but I don’t think she would ever be open and transparent about whatever funds she gets from various sources. (She probably demands payment in gold bars, given her paranoia about ‘fiat’ currency.)

    She has benefited from the ‘public purse’ when she used the ABC Australia website to publish her articles for free and promote her delusions – IIRC about five times over several months. (We taxpayers might have even paid her to do so – does Unleashed pay its contributors?)

    As for ‘hiding behind censored fake debate’ and ‘they can attack’ – didn’t she recently object to a survey because it showed conspiracy ideation was a predictor of rejection of (climate) science? Must have gotten over her objection.

  3. atoieno

    Jo is nothing and has nothing to say in the reality of the situation. The evidence against her view is overwhelming. Why do we bother to acknowledge her existence?

  4. porygon

    Because she doesn’t seem to live in fear like you people.

    • Fear? I’m not afraid of anything. If anything, those who display paranoid behaviours like Jo, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre by censoring dissenting opinions and engaging in conspiracy ideation are the oneswho are afraid. They are afraid of the truth and chosse wilful ignorance as their protection. Now do you actually have anything of value to say? Perhaps something insightful and interesting?

  5. porygon

    Why would you ask for an insight when you clearly already know everything?

    I understand only your team has anything of value to say, anyone who disagrees is insane, right?

  6. porygon

    Surely there can be equally logical, competing ideas to explain something?

    I used to buy into your claims but after reading the unbeliever’s material It seems like climate change is one of the things I don’t HAVE to believe in. That is all they are really saying.

    There seems to be a lot of them lately.

  7. porygon

    I mean there seems to be a lot of things I don’t have to believe in lately.

    • It’s not a case of belief. You either accept the scientific evidence or you accept distortion, misrepresentations and rightwing ideology. The fact is, the deniers have no peer-reviewed papers disproving AGW other than dodgy ones published in the trade journal, Energy & Environment. To reject the quality peer reviewed literature means you either a) are an expert in about 20 different scientific disciplines or b) believe there is a global conspiracy of a monumental scale involving tens of thoudsands of scientists, journal editors and national scientific bodies to prevent opposing science. It is your choice of course, but I can tell you now, it is a scientific discussion and the only thing deniers seem to be able to bring to the table is propaganda.

      • Nick

        All deniers/rejectionists bring to the table is rhetoric…and they often don’t realise that’s what they’re bringing.

        The ‘bringing competing ideas’ is an example of that rhetoric. The actual competition of ideas goes on within science,regardless of what those outside the field think. You cannot ‘ideate’ away basic physical facts,or invent your own numbers,or repeatedly ignore facts that are established…except in the ‘soft media’ world of blog science that Jo provides.

  8. porygon

    I am very familiar with the way present your case, you pretend there are only two options. I reject that.

    I was watching an old Doctor Who recently where the Doctor and his companion for some reason land on an unknown planet. They exit the Tardis and are standing in the middle of a city when the woman (i forget her name) takes out a telescope to look at the stars and determine where they are. An armed guard appears and takes the telescope off her, he says:

    That is an illegal object.

    She says: Why?

    He replies: That is an illegal question.

    This is what you are trying to do with your theory, protect it from examination. You treat the scientific method like the telescope in the show, think about it. Anyone can apply the scientific method, they don’t have to have the magical labels ‘scientist’ or ‘expert’ or ‘peer reviewed’. These words only have the power we give them, until a person realises that for themselves, Its all just mass hypnosis.

    As long as you try to stop people appearing on t.v. or accuse people of mental illness or insult and make fun of people who disagree with you, you are looking like the guards and Nova like the star gazer.

    • With all due respect, your assertion that anyone can do science is garbage. With that kind of flippant disregard for convention you end up with Anthony Watts’ seriously flawed blog-reviewed “paper”. I can list for you hundreds of seriously flawed and debunked “papers” put forward by people who think they know what they’re doing but seriously overestimate their abilities, but I won’t.

      Instead, I’ll put forward some other analogies.

      I’m not a mechanic, but I read a book or two. I also cleaned the carburettor of my mower and put it back together. I am therefore qualified to strip your car’s motor. Trust me, I can put it back together.

      I’m not a lawyer, but I did watch quite a few episodes of Boston Legal and To Kill a Mockingbird is my favourite book. I also frequent an online legal blog regularly. I am completely qualified to represent you in this complex property dispute.

      I’m not a doctor, but I’ve been advising my neighbours on their various illnesses for decades. I also have senior first aid, visit medical websites all the time and have read quite a few medical textbooks. I have subscriptions to various medical journals and I blog about them all the time. I am more than qualified to perform a heart transplant for your family member.

      I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m really really good with Microsoft Excel………..

      There are scientific conventions in place for a reason. It is to weed out those who don’t know what they are doing. It is to weed out those who lack the necessary skills, knowledge and abilities to provide accurate evidence for whatever they are studying. It also prevents unskilled people with ulterior motives from corrupting information. Here’s the thing. When you actually have proper scientific training and pure motives to search for the truth in regard to climate science, you can only ever reach the conclusion of the consensus position, just as water is wet and the sky blue, and its not because of sociopolitical biases as deniers would have you believe, but because those are the facts. I am yet to meet a scientist who wishes for climate change. In fact every scientist I have met wishes it wasn’t happening.

      Anyway, your flippant disregard for the complexity of science and the skills needed to specialise in all its disciplines is a major insult to those of us who have done the years and years of university and post university training. But you are right, anybody can do the scientific method. My 12 year old daughter completed an awesome science experiment the other day studying plant growth. She knows all about controlling variables, having adequate replication, adhering to methodology, accurately recording data and with a bit of help from me, performing some simple ANOVA. She then wrote up a little report. Is she now a plant physiologist? No.