Friday
Dec312010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Veiled threats of violence
Dec 31, 2010 Blogs According to a commenter on the Skeptical Science website, I permit veiled threats of violence by my commenters.
Anyone know what they're talking about?
Reader Comments (44)
Ya got nuttin' on me coppers! NUTTIN!
PS: re the apparently common misconception over there that "many people still deny that warming is happening" (may not be an exact quote) - not that it's happening, so much as caused by humans that I don't buy. The planet has obviously been warming, off and on, since the start of this interglacial.
The "Human-caused warming" hypothesis, however, is completely unproven.
Comment #1 on that thread (by Anoneumouse) would seem a plausible candidate?
On the other hand some of the commenters on that blog site are really scary people with minds surrounded by solid walls that don't see no chink of light from anywhere except their myopic prism as far as AGW is concerned. Really mental stuff. Shocking. You could be at a Plymouth Brethren religious meeting, or at a political rally of the faithful. Quite remarkable state of mind - and we think humans are a higher life form. Not on that evidence.
Could it be Ben Santer? "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." Or "I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. ..."
Oops, no, Ben's threats weren't on a climate skeptic blog. Nor were they veiled.
The irony of that site is that the comment is passed by one and accepted by another commenter (without any reference), yet elsewhere the thrust is to examine source evidence because "denialist" blog sites are not to be trusted. Hilarious!
What an outrageous and ridiculous accusation. Tell me who said it and I'll break their hockey stick! Oh wait it's already been broken though.....
Here is some 'incitement to violence', from Mark Steyn, referring to Ed Begley.
Archiesteel and Albatrosss are candidates for "cultism" as far as I can see... and they house trained PaulPS in double quick time...
There is "our" science... anything else is anti-science... and the Guardian keep on promoting that site as a "balanced" one...
archiesteel at 10:52 AM on 31 December, 2010
@PaulPS: "If you shelter yourself to just blogs that agree with your present view, how will you ever know if you have the whole picture, or challenge thought with opposing views?"
Who said I sheltered myself? I know exactly where to go if I want to hear different opinions. The problem is that science isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Powerful economic interests may have turned it into a political issue, but in the end the question remains a scientific one, and the amount of evidence supporting AGW leaves little room for doubt.
Contrarians and deniers already get much more exposure than their relatively small numbers (and dubious logic) would normally get them. They have transformed an old journalistic concept - there's two sides to every story - into a way to manipulate the scientific discourse to their advantage.
The reality is that, in science, there is only one side to every story. Sure, sometimes it's inaccurate, or false, but science has a way of correcting itself (publication in peer-reviewed journals, for example).
The romantic idea that deniers are underdogs are rightly fighting for what they believe is a mirage. Deniers oppose AGW theory on principle, because it disagrees with their political position.
Now, I want to apologize if I came down a bit hard...this site is attracting an ever greater number of anti-science trolls, and it can sometimes cause some of us to jump the gun a bit. I encourage you to continue reading the articles on this site, and to make your own judgement. Just remember this isn't a debate between two equally valid ideas, but of current science vs. theories that aren't supported by evidence or observations.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/12/30/a-hundred-years-of-freezing.html
As Jonathan said, the first comment on this thread is probably the one they are referring to.
Typically one-eyed example of comments in the thread:
Albatross at 10:15 AM on 31 December, 2010
PaulPS,
"There is no alterior motive, but to learn and understand with inputs from both sides of the climate debate"
The scientific debate/questioning surrounding anthropogenic climate change/disruption happens daily at conferences, in a myriad of journals, and amongst academics, and has been happening for many, many decades. Framing this issue as a "debate" between two equally valid/qualified/credible "sides" is highly misleading and just plain wrong. The situation with anthropogenic global warming is in many ways similar to that endured in the faux "debates" fabricated surrounding issues such as evolution and tobacco. The 'skeptics' camp is a mire of misinformation, distortion and politics, with little or no interest in the science or advancing of science per se, if anything they seem to be largely preoccupied with being obstructionist and attacking the science and scientists. There are plenty of examples to support that statement.
As for the 'veiled threats' accusation, it is a typical straw man side-stepping the topic raised by PaulPS, without substantiation and without any credibility. Perhaps you could ask charliesteel for evidence?
@ Jonathan
My threat wasnt vailed
A veiled threat is when you are threatened without the person actually saying threatening things, but it can be understood what they really mean.
I said what I meant and I know what I said I meant and that's (said I meant) and not sediment at the bottom of some f***wits Ice core.
I really have had enough these so call climate scientist are saying its warm when its cold
DR - I don't think that could be described as a 'veiled threat'. It was a generalized vent at "a**holes", detailing what the author thinks should happen to them. If I was to make a veiled threat, it would go something like "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."
In psychological terms, seeing violent tendencies in others can be an outward projection of an unconscious desire to perform similar acts of mayhem. If you want to see where the sickness truly resides, note, for example, Ben Santer's fantasy: "I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley," or the 10:10 snuff video showing school children being blown to bits, or the terrorist "we know where you live" statement of Greenpeace.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/
"Skeptical" "Science" is acrawl with ad hominems, appeals to authority, strawmen, question begging, etc. Most unpleasant, not scientific at all.
My candidate is this from Pops:
"Hello, Zeds"
Just two words, but larded with *such* emotion ... a comment that evokes images of Eastwood-style gritted teeth and the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
(Although that interpretation probably says much more about me than about Pops' intentions! :-)
I use to post @ SS, but after one of my questions was denied publication, (coz I actually refrenced some peer reviewed literature me thinks) I turned my back on that site and until today had not returned since then.
oh well....
Well. I guess there has been the odd joke about 10:10 buttons! I wonder where the idea for explosions came from?
I've given the offending comment some thought. In particular I was reminded of similar messages from the other side over recent years, which I think I criticised at the time. It would therefore be remiss of me not to treat this similarly. I have therefore snipped.
I cannot think of any real incidence of veiled threats in this blog but given the level of intelligence (or lack of) on that blog, For example Albatross states:
"there is really three 'holy grails' left in the science of anthropogenic warming and they are (1) equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling (or more of CO2), and even the current best estimate of +3C was derived over the course of many decades using multiple, independent lines of evidence. It is not a question of when or if it will warm, but rather of how much and in what time frame, and what the impacts will be; (2) Sea level rise; and (3) Improving regional impacts."
Not only am I amazed at the latent stupidity but the mindless acceptance of pseudo-science is a sight to behold. CLEARLY, this is not a scientist writing but one of the many non-Scientists preaching rather than understanding
Oh dear...............and now we know. It really is getting warm...but hey Bish its cold outside
They should have left a thumbprint on that sketch.
Anoneumouse et al., note that I'm not claiming that this was a veiled threat; it's just a good candidate for what they were referring to. In threats, as in most things, your mileage may vary.
I can't even log into that site now, much less post.
Got frozen out after I posted peer-reviewed data refuting some claims by the site owner about the MWP.
My candidate is JOSH 63. Clearly the threat of being blown up by a smiling elf saying "no pressure" MUST be what they are upset about. Imagine your kiddies see it -- oh, wait, didn't I see that somewhere else? Let me think -- I must have seen that somewhere.
You mean like any of the comments I have complained about on every CIF green post? Threats of violence and death are commonplace there.
No, no idea. And if anyone says any different, then they'd better watch out >>WINK<<
It's skepticalscience, nuff said. Neither truth nor accuracy are their focus. The site's perversely deft use of straight-faced distortions evidently rubs off on the clientèle in their comments.
I have participated in skepticalscience.com discussions. Super headache.
Daniel Bailey, moderator of SS, at the bottom:
The science has accepted the world is warming with a greater than 90% likelihood that manmade CO2 releases are its causative factor. Feel free to deny that attribution all you want. But the science has moved on past the denial (which, really, is all that it is: denial).
So the IPCC makes an editorial subjective assessment over the likelihood of AGW being "greater" than 90%, therefore we must accept that such a thing is 100% true, or else?
We await climate hysterics' bleats and squeaks to effect that, "Hate is what we say it is! We know what you're thinking, and we resent it. How can we lose when we're so sincere?"
Marionettes, all a-twitch on dangling PCBS strings.
I have an alibi, Your Worship. At the time of the said offence, I was in my garden doing some gardening and mourning the passage of Bobby Farrell.
One of the mistakes the CAGW movement makes is that they assume climate catastrophe skeptics are as uniform and cult-like as their own. They are unaware, or deliberately ignore the diversity, of opinion among the skeptics.
For example, they still assume that 'deniers' are all in denial about everything that passes for scientific evidence nowadays, such as the warming signal or the somewhat receding Arctic ice cap or CO2 physics and what not.
They think skeptics disagree with all basic facts, not how those facts have been arrived at, or how they may be interpreted for the future.
This must be the case because why else would they produce inane illustrations like that "Indicators of a Warming World" and follow it up with the typical 'skeptics are anti-science' drivel?
"archiesteel" is big on "ad hominem" attacks. I am trying to find out if he has any evidence to back up his statements.
There is no need to maintain a state of breathless anticipation.
One commenter on that thread said 'contrarian sources are notorious for slicing and dicing.'
I didn't know that. Just goes to prove you can learn something new every day without really trying.
Is it possible to slice and dice videos hosted on Brightcove by Channel Four?
You ain't seen me.................Right?.........
You have to love the name of the site...
It is like having a charity shop promoting "Peace!", "Please come in - we believe in promoting universal peace"...
Those convinced leave holding Kalashnikovs...
On that site you could replace "science" and "anti-science", with "Christ" and "Anti-Christ"... and its fundamentalism would become apparent... it is like travelling back in time 900 years in Europe ...
Seems many infidels need "salvation" or "sacrificing" on this particular SkepticalScience crusade...
I think we're seeing more and more evidence of the success of Bishop Hill as a credible source of information and of the good Bish himself as a credible commentator. This has manifested itself through the recent visitations from Monbiot's attack trolls and comments such as this on warmist blogs. Look on it as a compliment; they're becoming worried!
"Is it possible to slice and dice videos hosted on Brightcove by Channel Four?" Are you talking about 4VOD, or do they play like normal YouTube videos? Can you give a link to one of them?
"Is it possible to slice and dice videos hosted on Brightcove by Channel Four?"
Plausibly. Screen capture software may let you scrape the video, but you'll still need to get the audio somehow, and lipsync back up. But really that does not get you too far on this particular piece. There's not alot you can do with a re-edit except extract information... I did notice one noddy (of the presenter) with no audio which you could conceievably shuffle around, but then your next question may not work.
I think this two-way was a pre-record. I didn't see the piece got out live, but I'm presuming it was C4's 7pm news, and Lockwood is in sunshine. To me this means that the programme editor (not the craft editor - it was vision mixed as-live) knew before hand the responses he was going to get, and sadly the C4 team didn't challenge Lockwoods past predictions with time to do it, so it was poor journalism too.
Happy New Year everyone.
As I came to this thread for the first time a few minutes ago my first two thoughts were: (1) what a wise host we have, in the way he raises it, and (2) they must be getting worried (exactly as Jockdownsouth says) to claim such an outlandish thing.
It turns out it's more interesting than that. I don't now remember Anoneumouse's first comment on that Lockwood thread but I do remember thinking on scanning it at the time that after agreeing with michel who had taken the trouble to argue "You should not get so angry ..." at some length the reaction of the first commenter was, well, pretty pathetic. Exactly the sort of thing that puts me off sceptical blogs (apart from the other, very good people).
Now I read part of a thread at Sceptical Science for the first time for ages and find myself equally disgusted by the inwardness, the partisan spirit, the lack of openness or even basic intelligence.
Maybe it's shocking (and inconsistent) to have a post on a climate blog that admits that climate blog culture, the constant echo chamber, gets very wearing. But it's time for new year resolutions. I'm feeling my way to some here.
One that is certain is to give my wholehearted support to the host here - of one the most important lights on the climate scene (as it's become, from its libertarian roots) in the darkness of the UK. Once again, I'm sure His Grace has made exactly the right call in removing the offending first post. Such decisions are never easy. There are many trade-offs, always.
And that reminds me of the recent decision to ban a 'troll' - for the very first time - and the recent interaction with Lazarus, also called a troll by some (but not by me - it seems a bit inconsistent to answer someone, in the best faith one can muster, and at the same time call them a troll).
I thought the Bishop's response in both, difficult cases spot on. I'm incredibly grateful he takes so much time to do what he does here. All strength to his mitre in 2011!
Anyone who sets any store in what Skeptical science says, needs medical help.
James Lee, was probably a avid 'reader', he was an Eco-warrior........sigh.
How about 10:10, they are a bunch of real good guys, so funny too!
When they start throwing around insults and accusations like that, we know, realists are setting the pace, because we know the truth: AGW is a scam, it's science [what little there was] is defenestrated.
Thus, we have, all the ad homs by Romm, Monbiot, Connolley and then, the lawbreakers of Kingsnorth, ask this question, just, who is on the side of the law and who isn't?
If moanbot's trollers, are off their trolley's, we cannot be responsible for mental delirium and delusional accusations, they should look to their own beliefs first and examine their cognitive balance.
Veiled threats?
That'll be Lazarus attempting to arise from the dead, again & again & again & again & again & again!