Category Archives: Classic denier comments

The Frontiers Recursive Fury Debacle

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/

Until Frontiers publishes the complaints it received I will not be convinced that it didn’t receive threats of legal action.

As for its alleged concern for identifiable individuals, those idiots publicly spout about conspiracies in various places such that even people with no psychology training can assess them as having certain traits.

What is more than likely going on here is the editorial team have lost face and come under fire from the journals subscribers. Weak.

Leave a comment

Filed under Classic denier comments, Uncategorized

Denier Comment of the Day March 6, 2014

I have been avoiding doing these because it really is a bit of a waste of time in that it doesn’t really educate anybody other than to reinforce our perception that a number of climate change deniers really do lack some critical thinking skills. That said, sometimes I feel compelled to do this… for reasons that I hope become obvious.

I tend to scroll through my WordPress reader a couple of times a day looking for important news on many issues including climate change, markets, politics and a few specialised blogs related to my two areas of scientific endeavour. I also have a couple of oddball denier blogs that I follow because they give me a good laugh at times. Yes, just as my favourite part of the circus is the clown act, I like to laugh at deniers too… the really silly ones of no consequence anyway. So I checked in on “Watching Those Who Watch the Deniers”. This site was set up allegedly to refute the hugely successful Watching the Deniers blog. They are both cracker blogs for completely opposite reasons.

Well it seems the author at the former site wants to be educated about global warming…or so she claims… but then sets up some conditions on the information she wants to receive. If it isn’t to her liking she plans to not publish the responses to her questions. Some of the conditions are pretty funny and designed to confirm her bias but that’s not what I plan to write about. I was having a good chuckle at what she was writing when I came across this absolute cracker.

If the oceans rose, people would move inland (they would not be refugees–sorry.)

There is no context for this comment so she wasn’t referring to any particular country or region. It was a blanket statement. Ok…..definition time. Refugees by UNHCR definitions are people outside of their own country unable to return to their country due to fear of persecution, conflict etc and it’s pretty clear on that point, so she is correct that people leaving their homes due to rising sea levels are not technically refugees, but I have to wonder if playing semantics with words for the sake of making some inane ideological point about people who are genuinely in serious need is morally acceptable? The fact is, there are plenty of people who are internally displaced in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh due to climate change induced extremes in seasonal flooding and random weather events who are effectively homeless. They have lost everything and don’t have the means to simply “move inland”. To ignore these people by hiding behind vocabulary semantics is immoral.

But let’s get to the main point of this idiotic statement, that people will simply move inland to avoid rising sea levels…if they rise. First, to question if the oceans are going to rise is to ignore the fact that they are rising currently and just through inertia in the system constrained by the laws of physics will continue to rise through thermal expansion and ice melt from projected temperature rises we have already locked in, based on our current levels of atmospheric CO2….and that’s if we were to stop increasing GHG  tomorrow. So, oceans will continue to expand. That is undeniable. What are the projections?

Anywhere from half a metre to a metre by 2100 depending on various scenarios. So, let’s go to Tuvalu. There’s not much to say here other than the inhabitants of Tuvalu can’t simply move inland as the sea level rises. It is well established in the scientific literature that a sea level rise of 40cm by 2100 will make the atolls of Tuvalu “uninhabitable”.  At least there won’t be an refugees as defined by the UNHCR.

And then there are the islands of the Maldives. The population of the Maldives currently live in the 11th highest density in the world and while a sea level rise of 1m won’t make the entire country uninhabitable, the ~300000 inhabitants will be forced to live in the 15% or so of land still inhabitable…..though I’m not sure what they will eat or do for a living? At least they won’t be refugees.

Finally, there’s Bangladesh. The 8th most populous nation and the 12th densest losing more than 10% of its habitable land….but at least they won’t be refugees, although if wars start being fought over food and water they could well become that….as defined by the UNHCR, but they could still travel inland I guess.

Many low-lying countries, particularly island nations, are at threat from rising sea levels associated with anthropogenic climate change. Many of these are 2nd and 3rd world countries, the least able to adapt technologically as they just cannot afford it. Many people from those countries will become climate refugees…not in the UNHCR mould, but just as desperate and just as homeless nonetheless. Hopefully, they will encounter people who care enough about them to take them in. That is the moral and humane thing to do. I’m not sure the people who play word games will.

Anyway, to read the whole silly blog entry, go here. Have a go at answering the questions too and let me know if you get published. The author wants to learn apparently.

 

 

 

16 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Climate Change, Rogue's Gallery

When religion and ecology meet…

I bang my head on the desk. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Tony Abbott in Canberra last night…

“Man and the environment are meant for each other. The last thing we do – the last thing we should want – if we want to genuinely improve our environment is to want to ban men and women from enjoying it, is to ban men and women from making the most of it and that’s what you do. You intelligently make the most of the good things that God has given us.”

Allow me to translate…

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

I think the key here is the final sentence, “You intelligently make the most of the good things that God has given us.” The problem is, Tony Abbott is not an intelligent man. Relying on the Bible to inform you about decisions that should be soundly informed by science is not intelligent. Presumably, if Tony Abbott was intelligent, he would recognise the contradiction between what he says and what he does and he would certainly understand the inference in the first sentence of this excerpt. He basically states that man and the environment depend on each other for survival and he absolutely correct…but not in the way that he probably thinks.

While we exist, we do indeed need the environment for our survival, and while we exist, the environment needs us for its survival in that it needs us to look after it and not over-exploit it for resources or damage it. I am 100% confident that if humans disappeared tomorrow, the environment and every living thing in it would breathe a collective sigh of relief and just get on with living and under a lot less pressure. What Tony Abbott doesn’t seem to understand is that it we are more than capable of damaging the environment to the point that it can no longer sustain human life on it. As most of my readers are intelligent, there is no need for me to go beyond referring to the end-Permian extinction that resulted in no land animal bigger than about 10kg surviving and 90% of living things disappearing. Tony Abbott doesn’t get it. It is beyond his abilities and highlights the lies in his speech.

More and more I am convinced that Tony Abbott is cut from exactly the same cloth as a large number of the loony far right Republicans in the USA, the hypocritical Bible literalists, who use their faith to justify pretty much any decisions they make no matter how wrong or stupid.

So, what does Tony Abbott view as intelligently making “the most of the good things that God has given us”? In the case of Tasmanian forests where he wants to liberate the trees, it is less of this…

and more of this…

Less of these…

and more of these…

To read all of Tony Abbott’s speech, put on your headgear, keep a bucket handy and go here.

6 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Climate Change, denier contradictions, idiot politicians, Rogue's Gallery

Going for the youth vote…inadvertantly

I promised myself I would ignore the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party (CSP) because quite frankly I found them to be so far on the right hand fringe of Australian politics, they have a tiny tiny following and so are really of no consequence and very little interest except in a kind of old school, circus freak show kind of way. No offence meant to any circus freaks by the way.

I used to write about the CSP a fair bit, mostly focussing on the dishonesty of a few of their hierarchy. Nothing too serious of course, just making up grossly exaggerating professional credentials, misrepresenting blog comments and lying about stuff including their nonsense claim that they are a centrist party. Their position on climate change is out there with the wackiest of the wacky as evidenced by their devotion to the ever loopy Christopher Monckton and their endless spouting of just about every denier canard ever uttered. You will notice I’m not providing any links to anything I’ve written about them because it’s easy enough to find. Just search my blog for “CSP” and you’ll have plenty to read.

Anyway, I was sent an email today by a colleague pointing me to the AEC website and this announcement…

regI was wondering why they changed their name? Not catchy? Perhaps they realised that it’s a bit too prescriptive? Maybe a name change will result in a better result at the next election? Maybe it’s all three. In the last election they saw their vote for the Senate positions drop from 0.2% in 2010 to 0.13% in 2013. They could do worse I guess. Anyway, given the timing it’s clear they have seen how easy it was for a couple of morons from other fringe parties to get elected by vote harvesting and they want to try to get their own moron elected in the rerun for the WA Senate spots next month. They even admit as much….not the moron part but the rest, in their own Press Release. Try and ignore the spelling and grammatical errors and poor setting out.  Whoever wrote it was probably a bit excited. Link here.

Nice logo…very American looking and the Party name also has a very American feel about it. I’m almost inclined to think whomever came up with both has been spending a lot of time visiting The American GOP sites and watching Glen Beck or Sean Hannity videos on YouTube. They are always carrying on about attacks on their freedom and future prosperity. You could have gone all out and whacked “liberty” in there somewhere. The Freedom, Liberty and Prosperity Party (FLAP) Now, before anyone discounts FLAP and says that’s a bit silly, what was pointed out to me in the email, was this part…

FAP

Oh dear….. Anthony, you are either completely out of touch or a bloody genius! Even I, in my 40′s, know enough about youth culture to know there is an internet meme attached to the word FAP. Fap is…..ummmmm. Well according to the Urban Dictionary…

ud

 

Yes yes I know that the Urban Dictionary isn’t a real dictionary but I can guarantee that if you go out into the street and ask a heap of people aged 15 to 25 what “FAP” is, most of them will give you the Urban Dictionary definition. It is of course a lot older than that and it originally was an adjective meaning drunk or befuddled. Either way, whomever came up with it, clearly didn’t think it through…. or did they? I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of apathetic politically naive young voters see FAP, have a chuckle and vote for them. No harm in that, FAP will need all the help they can get. Now that people are waking up to the wrecking ball Abbott, they are hardly likely to give their vote to a party that is even further to the right than him.  The turmoil that he has created will see voters wanting stability in the Senate and these knucklehead fringe dwellers that try to vote harvest and do shady preference swaps won’t get a look in, especially if voters go and look at the policies. Speaking of which, I’m pleased to see that FAP are continuing with all their principles, including their conspiracy ideation about “Agenda 21″. Good stuff. That’s the sort of thing the loony right- wing Tea Party in the USA carry on with. Maybe I am sensing a theme here. American looking banner and American sounding name, American culture has permeated into our youth, our youth are fairly apathetic but will find FAP funny…hmmm. Genius! Anyway, speaking of American politics…

we-choose-to-fap-not-because-it-is-easy

 

2 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, idiot politicians, Rogue's Gallery

Weakest argument ever?

I’m not going to go into too much detail here. Over at the Australian Independent Media Network blog, Kaye Lee wrote an excellent piece exposing some of the poor credentials of “experts”, deniers like Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) like to rely on. Well, I urge you to go there and read for yourself. In the comment section, Harris had a bit to say exposing his ignorance yet again and when handed his arse in his hat, mercifully didn’t return. One commentator though, in reference to a photograph of Christopher Monckton in a link (probably because he had nothing intelligent to say about the article), had this to say…

blackFrom what I can gather, the photo in question was this one…

monckton

Given that he posed for this photo…… Anyway, if the intention was to focus on the symptoms of his Graves Disease, Kaye could have used these pics…

GwdChristopherMonckton187654-20110701-lord-monckton

Personally, I think a more apt photo of Monckton that doesn’t highlight his eyes but his other disability, it would be this one….

lordmonckton

1 Comment

Filed under Classic denier comments

Heartland relying on more non-experts with vested interests to spin garbage

Normally I couldn’t care less what the privately funded (fossil fuels, pharmaceutical, tobacco etc) loony right-wing Heartland Institute have to say, but there’s only tennis on the television and I’m a little bored. Anyway, their blog, ironically called Somewhat Reasonable has a post entitled “There is no denying mother nature” written by some bloke by the name of Paul Crovo. I’m not sure I’ve ever read a larger pile of crap.

So, before we begin looking at this no doubt informative article about mother nature (biology, ecology, physics, chemistry etc) let’s check the credentials of the author.

Heartland describe Paul Crovo as “an energy analyst [working] for a major financial institution in Philadelphia. He has followed crovothe energy industry for 27 years in his line of work and over the last five years has expanded his research to include the area of climate change science. Early in his career he became an active member in the National Association of Petroleum Analysts (NAPIA) and remains part of the organization today. He is an active participant in many local Tea Party events and has written extensively for local media on issues of energy policy and climate change.”

Allow me to paraphrase…Paul Crovo is a loony tea party capitalist petroleum analyst whose job it is to make money for his bank out of fossil fuels. He has no actual climate science expertise but publishes a lot in a local paper on the subject anyway. Sounds great. This should be a blast.

He begins…

A retrospective analysis of the year 2013 reveals one humiliating defeat after another for contemporary ecotheologians as various climatic and political events served to further undermine their case for man-made climate change.

Wait! What? Political events? I thought this was about mother nature? Oh well, I’ll examine them anyway but first, let’s look at this series of defeats. From what I can make out in the whole article Mr Crovo only discusses 5 or 6 for the year. Is that it? Really? A search of scientific literature databases reveals that globally, there were more than 55000 peer-reviewed papers published on the subject of climate change covering hundreds of  different topics including atmospheric physics, ocean chemistry, cryosphere, species range shifts, hydrology, economics, disease, tropical storms, soil carbon sequestration, plant physiology. The list is extensive. For the 5 or 6 examples of these alleged defeats, Mr Crovo offers no credible references to any scientific (or political science) journals. The only credible reference he does give is to the IPCC AR5 report and I’m guessing he hasn’t actually read it. If he had, he wouldn’t be trying to use it as a discreditory tool. Instead he cites Anthony Watts, Heartland and Wikipedia. Never a good sign. Finally, the term “ecotheologians”. To be honest, I haven’t seen the word before but I have seen the pathetic attempts to paint science acceptors as religious zealots before. The irony here is that we who accept the science have overwhelming evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring but are always hopeful that it isn’t. Deniers on the other hand, believe that it isn’t happening without any evidence to support their position, much like people who choose to believe in a deity and of those, the ones who choose not to accept the Theory of Evolution.

For starters, a number of Western governments rejected United Nations climate change protocols. Australia (Tony Abbott, whose platform featured a rejection of climate change hokum, was elected prime minister), Japan (the country dramatically scaled back its 2009 carbon emissions pledges) and Poland (which fired its environmental minister just days into the COP-19/Conference of Parties climate change forum) all sent a clear message that they would not be bound to any economically destructive international agreements based on fraudulent science.

Ignoring Mr Crovo’s shift away from science (what the blog post was supposed to be about) to politics, let’s have close look at this claim. Firstly, the claim that the science is “fraudulent”. All Mr Crovo has done here is demonstrate just how ignorant he is of science. Science is an extremely competitive pursuit and there is nothing good scientists like more than to demonstrate where other scientists have erred or not completely explained some natural phenomena. It is what they do. They like to get to the bottom of things. One thing every scientist I know hates, is sloppy scientific exploration, methods or conclusions and they certainly don’t tolerate scientific fraud. The scientific literature in various fields is filled with papers that question the findings of other scientists. Some of the discussion sections can become quite heated and animated (in the usually polite and reserved manner of scientists) but those contradictory papers DO GET PUBLISHED. If climate science was filled with fraudulent papers, the climate science journals would be reporting it. Climate science is also a large umbrella term for many many scientific disciplines that deal with global systems. As such, the number of different journals involved is staggering. You would think Mr Crovo would be able to provide at least one credible example from the scientific literature to demonstrate that it is “fraudulent science”. Perhaps he can’t find one? I tried looking for papers that debunk the flat Earth hypothesis. Apart from those using flat Earth simulations to  calibrate various Earth science models and for use in mathematical theorems, there were very few that actually discuss the hypothesis. Why is that I wonder? Perhaps because we know the Earth is an obloid sphere?  Just as we know ACC is real.

Now, Mr Crovo mentions “a number of Western governments” allegedly rejecting United Nations protocols and then provides us with 3 examples, 2 of which were not actually examples of protocol rejection.

First, he mentions the Australian election. Yes, Australians elected a conservative government. Yes, that political party had removal of the carbon “tax” as one of its election commitments. Does that mean Australian voters are rejecting UN protocols? In short, no. Tony Abbott was elected by default by an electorate that had grown tired of the progressives. Most of the sentiment had to do with issues of party stability. Tony Abbott ran a negative campaign for three years, aided completely by a print media dominated by right-wing Murdoch owned newspapers and a compliant mainstream television media and right-wing shock jocks on radio. Interestingly, Abbott didn’t actually secure a majority with most of the disaffected shifting their vote not to Abbott, but to new parties and independents, with preferences getting Abbott over the line in marginal seats. In the end, it was only 30000 votes in marginal seats that decided it. He also didn’t secure a majority in the upper house of parliament either. Hardly a convincing win and definitely no mandate as he claims.

Second, he mentions Japan. Has Japan dramatically altered its emission target? Yes. does this mean they have some ideological opposition to the UN protocol as inferred by the Crovo article? No. In wake of the devastating tsunami and consequent meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, all Japan’s nuclear reactors have closed down for safety reasons and until they can be recommissioned or renewables established, the country has had to revert to thermal power production. It is unfortunate but necessary.

Finally, Poland sacked their environment minister. Ummmm, so?

In terms of COP-19 “accomplishments,” the Obama administration pledged to have U.S. carbon reduction targets in place by the 2015 Paris conference and there was a loose agreement on a “loss and damage” (a wealth redistribution scheme compensating developing countries for damages from greenhouse gas emissions with funds from developed countries) plan. Such “commitments” are best to be taken with a grain of salt, however, given the poor record of nations keeping such promises.

Wow! What  a devastating blow to the science! You show those pesky greenies Mother Nature…..oh wait. We’re still dealing with politics? *sigh* The US made a commitment and  an agreement to have something in place by 2015. Mr Crovo might be jumping the gun a bit here. He must have been hard up searching for these “humiliating defeats”. Next?

One 2013 event that held out hope for man-made climate change advocates was Typhoon Haiyan, a category 4 storm that struck the Philippines in early November. Having recast their focus on “extreme weather events” (instead of rising temperatures) as the litmus test for the existence of man-made climate change, the alarmists viewed Haiyan as a godsend.

In the wake of the storm, the main stream media and climate change alarmists trumpeted their message of linkage between climate change and the storm’s intensity. Following the hyperbole emanating from these messengers of doom, however, a number of scientific analyses and historical hurricane records were published that conclusively debunked any such linkage. In fact, claims of causality between purported climate change and Haiyan’s intensity carried about as much water as similar calls linking “super storm” Sandy and climate change the year before.

The typhoon was the highlight of a normally active Pacific hurricane season, but the Atlantic Basin was quite tranquil with the region experiencing the fewest number of hurricanes in 30 years. Of thirteen named storms, only two became hurricanes and only one of these made landfall in the U.S. Mexico experienced a total of eight storms, with three making landfall as hurricanes. Of greater significance, however is the long-term record that shows no trend of increase in the number or severity of U.S. hurricanes since 1990 (2013: Slowest Hurricane Season in 30 Years, Anthony Watts, November 25, 2013).

Hooray! Finally something to do with Mother Nature albeit cheapened with a citing of Anthony Watts.

The first paragraph is so offensive I have only repeated it here, to show just how shallow deniers like Mr Crovo can be. To suggest that science acceptors would view a hurricane that took many lives and displaced hundreds of thousands as a “Godsend” is even more offensive (not to mention childishly stupid) as the Unabomber billboard that even Heartland’s major sponsors thought was offensive enough to withdraw funding.

Leo-blog-The-Heartland-I-007-480x330

So, was rising temperatures the “litmus test” for ACC and did scientists switch to extreme events? No and no. I’m going to sound like a broken record here but climate science is made up of many disciplines. All of these disciplines contribute to the understanding of ACC in varying amounts. I have to wonder if the deniers’ own obsession with temperature (the ‘pause’) has led them to believe that that is all there is to climate science or that it is the most important? Perhaps keeping it simple is all they can handle?

Now I am more than happy to concede that the mainstream media and the untrained blogosphere may have “trumpeted their message of linkage between climate change and the storm’s intensity” to some degree, but I can’t seem to recall reading any scientific papers that made the link. Perhaps it’s too soon. I’m sure I did hear (and read) a number of scientists saying that they are starting to see trends in many different types of extreme weather events but that no single event (as yet) can be attributed directly to ACC although the damage caused by the storm surge associated with Hurricane Sandy was exacerbated by higher sea levels, which is a result of ACC.  Crovo however, fails to provide any links to the “scientific analyses” he mentions. Shame.

Finally, and this is another example of narrow thinking, Crovo focuses in on hurricanes as though they are the only type of weather extreme and worse, he focuses only on the US record. Given he has cited Watts, I’m not even going to bother checking the source. It’s late and facepalming hurts. The reason for focusing only on hurricanes is because deniers like Mr Crovo knows this category is one that says what he wants to say. From what I have seen, tropical cyclone numbers around the world have been fairly steady. North Atlantic hurricanes are up. But of course, this is just one type of extreme event. What about droughts, bushfires, tornadoes, floods, single day rain events, maximum hot temperatures and numerous others? A good indicator of frequency of extreme events in the USA is the number of disaster declarations for natural events.

Federal-Disaster-Declarations-1953-2011

And what about those global sea ice trends? Perhaps one should ask those aboard the MV Akademik Scholkalskiy, the misfit bunch of researchers and tourists who went venturing off to the Antarctic to see how climate change was affecting sea ice. Well, to paraphrase a famous play, a funny thing happened on the way to the Douglas Mawson base camp (the researchers mission was to recreate the 1912 exploits of the Australian scientist).

The latest news was that the ship was stuck in ice 15-feet thick with attempts by several other ships to rescue the crew members rendered unsuccessful due to similarly poor seafaring conditions. In fact, the latest satellite data shows that Antarctic sea ice is at record highs while Arctic sea ice is up 35% or more from last year’s low levels. Translation: global sea ice is now well above the historical average.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Like all the denier bloggers, Crovo here wants to try to paint a picture first, that this was some sort of important scientific expedition. It wasn’t and in fact, any of the “research” done on the vessel wasn’t going to contribute a great deal to what is already known about Antarctic ice and that is that it is declining.

Second, he tries to suggest that the boat became stuck because of “record highs” of Antarctic sea ice. Wrong again. For a start, and I know this can be very confusing for some Americans, it is Summer down here in the southern hemisphere and at the moment, much of the sea ice is melting. The boat became stuck when it was pinned in by windblown pack ice that had broken off as a 20km chunk from an ice shelf.

Third, Arctic sea ice is not currently “up 35%” from the equivalent time last year. In fact it is close to a record low for this time. If Crovo is suggesting that the September minimum was up 35% from last year’s September minimum, well two years does not a trend make. If he is saying that the ice now in January is higher than in September 2012 or 2013 levels well, no shit Sherlock. I’ll chuck a few graphs in shortly.

Finally, global sea ice is well above the historical average?Ummm, without mentioning a baseline average, this statement is utterly pointless and further demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of Crovo. But for the record, global sea ice is on a downward trend.

arctic extent BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrentBIG03-sea-ice--north-and-south.gif

Perhaps the crowning achievement of the alarmist community in 2013 was the IPCC’s release of its Fifth Assessment Report, or AR5, another IPCC publication that came up well short in the credibility column.  Most laughable among the report’s conclusions was the statement claiming improved confidence in projections of rising temperatures despite the increasingly yawning disconnect between actual global temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Thus is the logic of the IPCC. Welcome to the global warming “pause,” 17 years and counting.

In an effort to refute this widening decoupling, the “true believers” like Heidi Cullen continued to grasp for straws, claiming that the earth’s warming is taking place in the deep ocean with the effects to become more profound in the future. The problem with people like Heidi Cullen, Al Gore and NOAA’s James Hansen, is that their predicted apocalyptic events are always in the future, thus in order to avoid accountability.

Oh dear! There it is…the ‘pause’ in global land surface temperatures followed by a complete dismissal of well-documented and published evidence. First, the ‘pause’. This has been so well explained just about everywhere I feel a little embarrassed to be hashing it out here again. The global land surface temperature record is not representative of global temperatures. There is no easier way to put it. The globe is a 3 dimensional object made up of land surface, water surface, water depth and atmosphere about 100km high. The land surface temperature measurements represent less than 5% of the system. All other parts must be taken into consideration and so that does mean the ocean. This is the one that always makes me mad because even a five-year old understands it. Crovo here, disputes that the ocean is warming. Well,check out this graph.

sealevel csiroIf the ocean is NOT rising due to thermal expansion, what the hell is causing it to rise? HINT: it isn’t subsidence or underwater volcanoes or lizard men from outerspace.

In the end, what we have here is a paid shill writing garbage for more paid shills whose only goal is to misrepresent facts, lie and distort so the people who write their paycheques can continue to make money by polluting the Earth. They are unconscionable and don’t care about anyone but themselves. Well, all I can say is the title of Mr Crovo’s dodgy article is the only thing he got right. There is no denying Mother Nature and she is starting to let her fury be known. Eventually, the vast majority will know the Paul Crovo’s and his ilk for what they are and future historians will not be kind. What a legacy to leave.

16 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Uncategorized

Queensland Resources Council head goes the full…

I can’t actually think of the word, but a picture tells a thousand as they say. I’m starting to build a collection of these…

Head of the Queensland Resource Council, Michael Roche, sporting his new hat.

Head of the Queensland Resource Council, Michael Roche, sporting his new hat.

Yep, this supposedly intelligent person in a position of some influence and importance is a conspiracy nut. Now, I fully understand that he has interests to protect…like his job, and it is his job to try and ensure the continued survival of the industries that remove minerals from the ground in Queensland. What I don’t understand is why he is engaging in conspiracy ideation? Perhaps it’s because in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the industry he represents is bad for the planet and every living thing on it, he has nothing left in his arsenal except for a perceived mistrust of foreign greenies by those he represents?

From The Courier Mail

The once passive community associations or progress groups have turned aggressively anti-development and at least 40 activist groups are champing at the bit to take on the Queensland mining and resources industry, particularly coal.

But the mining industry claims the groups have been hijacked and that well-meaning residents have been manipulated by an international conspiracy to kill off Australia’s fossil fuel industry through a well co-ordinated and deeply funded green movement.

“There is no doubt the activists have had it all over industry in terms of their agility and their resourcing and also the lack of constraints on them,” Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche said.

“The activists are very good at inhabiting those groups. There’s no doubt (they are being manipulated).

“They are very good at hijacking local concerns but then very good at turning those local concerns towards the ultimate objective which is to slow down the fossil fuel.”

So there you have it, shady international forces infiltrating local groups to implement a global agenda against fossil fuels. What this sort of nonsense does though is piles disrespect on the honest, hardworking and intelligent people with genuine concerns for their agricultural croplands, water resources and ultimately planetary warming. I say to Michael Roche, these people are intelligent people. They recognise the importance of scientific expertise. They care for their fellow humans and the environment. They also understand the vested interests of the small minority of excessively wealthy individuals you represent. Casting them as ignorant and easily manipulated is extremely arrogant and reeks of desperation and dishonesty. I also put it to you that the fact you engage in conspiracy ideation says a whole lot more about you than it does them. In the meantime, you might be interested in this.

foilIt comes in a 1000ft roll!

2 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Rogue's Gallery

morons like…

this idiot…

Thank you for the wonderful personal attack in response to a fairly innocuous reply to some one that is equally mentally delusion as what you get up finding yourself faced with every day. Tony Abbot does not know you nor does he care about your kind of people, as most of the sane world does. You are so inconsequential and delusional that the people in white coats should be just around the corner to gather you up when the carbon tax is repealed and Australians can prosper and expand their economy again with out the restrains of idiots like you and what’s her name, (edited). You are fun to poke and that I will do using your Facebook account. You should do like whatshername and cancel your account. Mike.

Okay…first, I’m going to ignore your personal attack on me complaining about personal attacks. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite.

Second, your comment wasn’t “innocuous“, it was abusive and creepy.

Third, you say “…some one that is equally mentally delusion as what you get up finding youself faced with every day.” Are you sure English is your first language? I will assume you are actually insinuating that I am “mentally delusion” here although the way it reads it could be referring to anyone…even you.

Fourth, I would certainly hope that Tony Abbot (sic) does care about my “kind of people” as he has been elected to represent all Australians, not just the loony right wingers. That’s his job. In my country, the office of Prime Minister is meant to be above politics and decisions the Prime Minister and his government make are meant to be in the national interest. While people like you bleat on about freedom, the way you act and talk is akin to that of a facist. The irony is immense. But what exactly is my “kind of people“? That would be middle class, hard working, clean living, family oriented, tax paying, law abiding, educated, generous and intelligent people. You are correct, Tony Abbott doesn’t care about my “kind of people” but you are correct when you say “most of the sane world does.

Fifth you say, “You are so inconsequential and delusional that the people in white coats should be just around the corner to gather you up…“. Gee I hope so! Since I moved to Queensland, I have found it difficult to secure a decent job in my scientific discipline due to the very right-wing, backward and loony Campbell Newman sacking environmental scientists left, right and centre. Some scientists gathering me up will be great.

Sixth, “...when the carbon tax is repealed and Australians can prosper and expand their economy again with out the restrains of idiots like you and what’s her name, (edited).” It pays to do a little bit of research before commenting so you don’t look stupid. Too late in your case. While the rest of the world really struggled over the last 5 years due to the GFC, Australia’s economy was one of the few that continued to grow. Why? Left wing government. After the introduction of the carbon “tax” the Australian economy continued to grow at a rate higher than most of the rest of the world. I guess my “restrains” were fairly innocuous.

I had to pull my secret admirer’s comment out of the spam folder where his crap ends up. Apparently he hasn’t realised that I have blocked him on Facebook and did so a long time ago. I’ve had a couple of stalkers before but they gave up long before this goose.

I know you are reading this, dopey, so go ahead, poke me on Facebook if you can. You have been blocked there. Maybe you’d like to try my email uknowispeaksense@y7mail.com although you won’t get much joy there either. Your emails will end up with the penis enlargement, internet dating, Nigeria scams and viagra emails where they belong. That’s quite apt really. Perhaps you will follow me on Twitter @uknowiSS?

So, who is my secret admirer? I guess if you are inclined to bother you could work it out from previous posts and comment history but I wouldn’t. It’s not worth your time. I did however do a short post on angry old white males once. He fits that mould with the exception that, rather than listening to Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, my secret admirer, being an American, lists the following people in his list of page likes on Facebook:

Fox and Friends: No need for any explanation however, I do recall that there was once a study that showed people who relied only on Fox news knew less about the world than people who didn’t watch any television at all….scary

The Huckabee Show: ““Huckabee” is a weekly #1 rated weekend show on Fox News which airs Saturdays & Sundays at 8PM ET.” The top rated Fox show is hardly an endorsement.

Brigitte Gabriel: President of some mob called ACT for America, a xenophobic, uber right-wing, nationalistic organisation dedicated to painting all Muslims as terrorists.

Allen West for President: A fan page for a loony Tea Party Republican congressman

United States Senator Mike Lee: A Tea Party alligned lunatic.

Ted Cruz: Another Tea Party alligned lunatic.

Conservative Daily: “The page for conservative Americans.”

Glenn Beck: Possibly the looniest (and the loudest) of the uber right wing cable TV hosts.

Anyone seeing a pattern here? Next…

CFACT: With posts like this…With sea level, extreme weather, temperature, polar ice and evan polar bears all stable…” Say no more.

Laura Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are also in the list of pages that my secret admirer follows. It’s no wonder he is the way he is. 

At first, I figured the only thing he had to gain with his idiotic comments was getting his loony message out there but now that I have banned him, he seems to gain some weird satisfaction in being banned and ridiculed, almost as though my kicking him to the curb vindicates his whacky position. Sad, weird and….well….sad.

In the bigger picture, the one thing that those of us who accept the expert consensus on the climate can take heart from, is knowing that in 20 years, the vast majority of the angry old white males, the science denying right wing retards, like my secret admirer, will be dead or infirm. By then, the ever-shrinking voice of dissent, ignorance and scientific illiteracy will be nothing more than a quaint curiosity, like flat Earthers, moon-landing hoaxers, 9-11 truthers and various other conspiracy theorists, and the rest of us will be able to get on and do what needs to be done to fight and adapt to climate change, unimpeded. Hopefully by then it won’t be too late.

14 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Rogue's Gallery

Stressed emus?

Relax – wind farms aren’t stressing out your emus

3 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Rogue's Gallery, Uncategorized

Conservative nutcase.

I occasionally get the odd slightly weird commentator coming here and venting their spleen at me, trying to be funny or threatening or whatever because they don’t like what I have written. Most of them go away once they realise my comment rules negate their ability to have their scientifically inaccurate, whacky or abusive garbage published.

Now, normally, I would just ignore these people but last night, I had a rather special visitor and I think his comments need to published. To protect his identity I have changed his screen name to “Dopey” in the following comments. Take note of the time.

So, here we go…

Submitted by Dopey on 2013/11/05 at 2:32 am

You see I don’t care if the comment was posted… I only care that you read it…. thanks for that!!!! Tony Abbott is Prime Minister…. Tony Abbott is Prime Minister…. Tony Abbott is Prime Minister…. And you are nothing but a failed activist pretending to be a scientist…. failed… failed… failed…. You are simply incapable of understanding the rational and nuanced arguments of the “sceptics”… because you are… well… a loser… you played politics and you lost… because…. Tony Abbott is Prime Minister…. My God you are so stupid and predictable… I just won $50… THANKS!!!!!! Don’t worry… I wont be posting to this blog again… It’s like shooting fish in a barrel… Psychologists have a theory about people like you being sexual inadequate…. It must be true…. 97% of people who read The Conversation agree…. Maybe Lewandowsky could write a paper… But Tony Abbott is still Prime Minister… enjoy the next 6 years… because you have sown the wind and you will reap the whirlwind…

“Here in Australia, in some circles, the Senator would likely be given the nickname “Shitfer” which is short for “Shit for brains”. ” WOW Ja’mie… you should contact Chris Lilley… you are a genius writer…. Bitch Private School Girl who is “So Quiche”…. or “Angry Boy” who needs a testicle transplant… wow… what a range…Shitfer… S.Mouse could write a song about that…

You see in Physics… Newton proposed three laws in what he considered to be the “successive approximation” of the laws of motion (actually he would have said “Natural Philosophie” or something similar). Being an Environmental Scientist you probably don’t know what Physics is… you should check it out… it’s really instructive… Physics explains why water is wet and why the sky is blue…

Anyway, his second law was that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction… He was talking about Physics…. you are going to learn about Society… you see… in Society for every action there is a opposite reaction… but it is not always equal… actually… it tends to be disproportionate…

BTW… are you sucking [name removed] membership… or are you just good friends

Phew, he won’t be posting to this blog again. That’s a relief….oh wait….

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!!

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!!

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!!

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!!

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!! Well said

Great comment Dopey…. you are a genius!!!!! I think that 97% of the Dopey’s agree… it’s a consensus!!! Only a denier would disagree with Dopey!!!

Thanks Dopey…. You Know I make Sense!!!!

Dopey… don’t you think that people may be put off by your Dopey genius?

Are you a Dopey sceptic or something… I bet you are paid by the Dopey Institute for seal clubbing…. Based on your comment I can tell you are not a real Dopey… You’re a pretend Dopey… sent here to troll….

You should read “Merchants of doubting Dopey” by Dopey… he shows how evil Dopey Corporations sow seeds of doubt with the average Dopey in an attempt to con the average Dopey!

Oh Dopey… you should be nominated for a Nobel prize!!!

Thanks Dopey but I don’t need accolades… Being a good Dopey is reward enough….

Dopey then changed his email address (to something quite disgusting) and his handle

Now why would I do this??? You just have a sleep on that….

I guess that means I can expect more of the same filling this blog’s “pending” folder when this bloke wakes up. Oh, did I say “pending”? I meant “trash”.

12 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments, Rogue's Gallery