Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (83)
Tá mé Matt Ridley
Yo soy Matt Ridley.
Dear old 'Bluecloud'. I remember him vividly! He was the really nasty bastard in Guardian comments some years ago who made me take a very hard look at 'The Science' after I posted a question about data collection standards re temperatures on the.Guardian's CIF section. To say that I was savaged is putting it mildly! But once I had looked ( I'm an Arts professional, not a scientist, although I enjoy many 'sciency' interests) I became convinced that Bluecloud and his ilk were not just gratuitously nasty but scientific morons as well.
To see him become an imaginary environmental Jihadi is no surprise at all.
And this episode convinces me even more that he is a monumental plonker.
Jan 24, 2015 at 12:55 AM | Alexander K
You have just described EXACTLY what happened to me.
How juvenile and puerile these people are to think that their vicious and uncalled for vindictive nonsense is going to benefit THEM!
A good piece by Booker this evening, in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
More to the point, is the solitary comment (at the moment) by one calling himself Arthur Scargill, which reads:
"Dignitas has got a really good offer on at the moment, Christopher."
With comments like that, it's easy to see how common sense is continually hitting the wall of ignorant, vicious stupidity.
Jan 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM | Golf Charlie
Too much intercourse with one another, GC.
Streetcred, when they seek their one true love, they normally gaze in admiration at a full length mirror.
Look you deniers stop moaning : There have already two separate enquiries into this and everyone was cleared
- In the first one the Guardian investigated Greenpeace
- In the other - Greenpeace investigated the Guardian.
.. every last mann was found innocent
..... And awarded a Nobel Prize
"How juvenile and puerile these people are to think that their vicious and uncalled for vindictive nonsense is going to benefit THEM!
Jan 24, 2015 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK"
It will benefit them Doug, the ruling class loves their running dogs.
Old Goat: Re Booker's anti-fan boys at the DT: I've pretty much given up commenting there now as it just descends into an argument as to who can be nastiest. One warmist, who spends most of his/her comments slagging off 'deniers' actually took offence when someone called him/her an 'AGW fascist' and threatened to have the comment mod'ed. They don't do irony very well.
As it is, most of the pro-AGW commenters are wound up in the argument that is RSS v UAH measurements and the accuracy (!) of the models used to rationalise the readings they are getting. And all this over a difference of hundredths of a degree.
They don't want warming but they don't want cooling - they just want to argue. A pointless exercise that I'm glad not to be a part of now.
Harry (SR) - as you probably recall from posts elsewhere, the DT and Goat parted company some time ago. I just visit to read the comments on those article where comments are still allowed. As a newspaper, it's shot its bolt, so far as I'm concerned, and I hope that those of Booker's standing finally see the light and cease writing for them. he would be more than welcome at Breitbart...
OG: Thought I hadn't seen you around so much at the DT. Kind of you to recall my old nom-de-guerre (still current on DT - now and then).
I have to agree that the DT has taken a different road - more like a cul-de-sac. While it still prints rubbish from the likes of Lean I think that Booker would be well rid, which would be a shame considering the depth of his work for the title. Well, at least I no longer have to pay for it.
Look how pleasant and reasonable it is here in the BH comments section. But I shouldn't even need to mention that, it should be like that everywhere.
- @ Harry Passfield just mentioned about the Telegraph: interacting with greenleft commenters full of bile is a draining experience. They ruined the Guardian for last 10 years.
..But its their attitude rather than the topic .These green left commenters seem pumped up gung-ho looking for fight even when their isn't one. like just now in another Blog I just added some new info to a Pro-vaccination thread..I began "New stats from the pro-vaccine spokeswoman" but I failed to copy the rest other commenters sneering style. The next thimg I know I'm getting snarled at in the next 5 posts. Then I realised what was going on, they hadn't even parsed the words I began with, but just rushed on assuming I was opposition. Ugh it drained me..and made my head ache.
Those who strive to obscure the consequences of their actions>a href ="http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/01/nature-will-one-day-thank-gwpf-for-its.html"> seldom escape nature's notice in the long run.
↑ Yawn ↑ to "ambush name" in the link above using vV to try to pretend its Wattsup
Don't warmists realise these "ambush name tricks" damage their credibility
- repeated wilful deception by Ruzzel
..should earn a Ztapping
Well spotted, stewgreen.
IS radical Islam and radical leftism have something in common?
Rustle: it’s all very good giving cryptic messages and linking (rather clumsily) to obscure sites, but what actions and what consequences are you talking about?
Stewgreen: Progressive enlightend liberalism/socialism(political propaganda) becomes less predictive if others comment?
Santa Baby: I think that Stewgreen means the opposite; “Progressive enlightend [sic] liberalism/socialism(political propaganda)” becomes more predictive should others comment – especially of those others offers views at odds with the “progressive enlightened liberals/socialists”, most of whom seem to consider that theirs is the ABSOLUTE truth.
Slightly off-topic, but this may shed some light on Green ideology...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzA7QomW4kY&x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534
...though it risks invoking Godwin's Law.
Interesting to see the “Seen elsewhere” link to the car crash interview with Natalie Bennett. It starts off with a true “Greenie”, living the Good Life, as it were, complete with 100% electric car (recharged from… where? Not explained, though you do see it being plugged in – to the mains, presumably. Surprise, surprise.). It does help if you have lots of land to waste your efforts on, of course, as this person did. Pity not all of us can afford to have such large gardens.
On the subject of trolls like Russell, it would seem, one infamous troll has been outed by Pop Tech. Seems he's from Edinburgh - http://www.populartechnology.net/2015/01/who-is-and-then-theres-physics.html?spref=tw
'IS radical Islam and radical leftism have something in common?'
Santa Baby
Well they both want to return the world to some mythic 'golden past ' when everything was so much better and they both think that their cause justifies any action they take and both show zero tolerance for anyone else's view and have a very thin skin. And lastly they both have a badly mistaken belief in their own high abilities.
Meanwhile ... out in the twitterverse, our favourite alarmist-and-oh-so-subtle-smear-artist-par-excellence - aka Richard Betts - (once again!) succeeds in missing the point by focussing on the least important thing and making a mountain out of yet another molehill:
Amazing isn't it, how frequently one can count on RB to find a molehill - hardly worth mentioning in the context of the major thrust of an article - and make a mountain out of it!
Yet, RB can rarely find the time to respond to questions here on BH that do deserve some answers (a few of of which happen to be mine!)
Those who strive to obscure the consequences of their actions seldom escape nature's notice in the long run.
Thank's to the resident rodent for the link repair- but what part of 'albedo feedback loop" doesn't he understand ?
Interesting tie in back to Green violence topic here - Green Party leader doesn't understand that free speech doesn't extend to advocating violence and cheering for groups that support extra-judicial violence.
Interesting comments below the video
"The greens think you can be a member of a terrorist organisation and not contribute to terrorism"
"the monster raving loony party for posh lefties"
"You know you've messed up when your interviewer knows more about your policies than you do."
ich bin Matt Ridley
Hilary, Betts waited over 1000 posts to reply to the comments on his Tim Ball piece, then had the temerity to whine that nobody was interested in dialog, lobbed a few more insults, and disappeared. He has no interest in answering any questions that might call into question his foregone conclusions.
A real class act that guy is.
Mark
The madness and destructive work of the greens is hard to ignore.
Sorry, Rustle, still a bit cryptic for me… Are you saying that the polar bears will be glad of no ice, or are you saying the caption was ironic, and they resent that the ice has gone (…erm, which is hasn’t, by the way, but why let simple facts get in your way)? Quite why you feel the need to have a double-link to that obscure site is also a mystery, but don’t bother trying to explain; we can all accept it’s the time of the month for you.
Out of interest, have you had a look at the Danish site, and seen that ice extent is now increasing? Or do you prefer to let your prejudices dictate what you think ought to be happening, even if it is not?
To amplify on RR's comment:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Notes:
1. As RR points out, 2013 and 2014 are both well above 2011 and 2012
2. The mean used is 1979 - 2000, which seems cherry picked to me as follows:
a. Why is the mean only 20 years? I thought climate was 30 years. How about 1979 - 2010?
b. Why do they not use the latest 20 years if they are only using 20 years.
c. If they want to use 2 calendar decades, why not 1989 - 2010?
3. The grey "normal" range is only 1 Standard Deviation. Since when is 1SD the definition of "normal"?
Shocking:
http://order-order.com/2015/01/29/anti-fracking-eco-loons-aerosol-protest/