At 10:07 on 24 May, <b>A fan of [suppressing] discourse</b> continues his pseudopsychological ranting about this, your humble respondent, to appeal for the censorship of what he is terrified to address, whining: <blockquote>Judith, please let suggest that you (and Climate Etc. readers) review the scientific literature realting to violent fantasy and dangerousness.
Summary: Homicidal fantasies, repeatedly and publicly expressed, are reasonable grounds for serious concern. </blockquote>
The fact that no "Liberal" fascist wants to confront in open discourse is that everything he and his co-conspirators wish to do to inoffensive, innocent people desirous only of living their lives in peace and freedom is fundamentally and inescapably <b>violently aggressive</b>.
Every "There Oughtta Be a Law!" impulse on the part of these vicious meddlers relies upon government employees - in one way or another - pointing guns at people and killing as many of them as necessary <i>pour encourager les autres</i>.
Remember that quote from one of the "Liberals'" great heroes - Mao Zedong: <blockquote><b>"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."</b></blockquote>
<b>A fan of [suppressing] discourse</b> not only wants political power, for himself and his faction but he wants the muzzle of that gun pointed at <b><i>you</i></b> personally, reader, at your peaceable neighbors, at your children and other relatives, at the folks who grow your food and serve your other needs, at inoffensive complete strangers, and at generations yet to come.
Who's the guy sweating and straining to make his <i>"violent fantasy"</i> a reality?
The fellow speaking to the individual human being's right to self-defense in the face of arbitrary and unlawful authority, or the clown that's pushing a scheme of aggressive violence made pervasive and utterly tyrannical?
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Tucci78
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by stefanthedenier
Beth Cooper | Thanks for pointing to me about Tony. About the English win-yards and lots of other silly proofs, I have made comments on my blog; long before I knew that Tony exist. Those win-yards were the second most stupid proofs. I can smell a rat; people like Tony are responsible for all crimes in progress, regarding the phony GLOBAL warming. Not the Warmist; Warmist are just opportunist – Tony’s lying is a ”compulsive addiction”.
If you have time, go to my blog – is only 7-8 posts of real solid proofs. First time today I was reading a Tony’s old post… Proving those fairy-tales completely WRONG about his theology has being on my blog for long time. If he had any shame, he wouldn’t go out of his house without brown paper bag over his head. I was blushing, because of his lies, when was reading it. Looks like he has being misleading for too long – it’s as his second nature – he doesn’t see anything wrong with telling harmful / destructive lies, as factual…
Pity, he is very articulate, could have used his talent for good; instead of being big part of the biggest ever lies and destructions on the planet…
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by HR
The world of politics is a strange and dangerous place to be. Recently a senior British MP saw career disappear when it was revealed she’d claimed her telecom bill on expanses but unfortunately it also included the cost of two PPV porn movies (watched by her hubby, ouch). Forget the 20+ years she’d put into it.
Heartland occupy (occupied) this world. It seems these sorts of organisations exist because there are donor individuals or organisations that want to support this work while remaining at a distance from the fight. The downfall came when Heartland handed over the donor list to it’s enemies thus placing the donors exactly where they didn’t want to be. I suspect they were after another big splash following Fakegate to cement them as leaders in the debate. Instead it just highlighted them as a lose canon in the eyes of their donors. Hindsight suggests they misread the importance of Fakegate.
And thus the world of politics takes another scalp.
There is a certain amount of Schadenfreude to see these falls from grace so it seems foolish to deny the warmists their fun but the whole episode, Fakegate and The Billboard, seem peripheral to the real debate.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Tucci78
Incapable of substantive reply (how surprising!), at 11:40 PM on 24 May we have JayTee resorting to equally pointless literary criticism, fumbling:
Tucci78′s pompous and nearly unreadable prose does nothing to advance arguments on either side of the question. They just serve to inflame ,although I don’t think there is enough logic or sanity there to worry about. I wonder… Is Tucci78 channeling Glen Beck?
Aw, ain’t that cute? The pitiful little Watermelon is obsessed with Glen Beck. Yet another leftie-luser who thinks I’m a “conservative.” Tsk.
You can tell when a “Liberal” fascist comes as close to honesty as he’s capable, and that’s when he runs squealing for the exit, all pretenses of “logic or sanity” – much less literacy – abandoned at last in the light of his exposure.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Quinn the Eskimo
If there’s no intellectual kinship, why are passages from the Unabomber Manifesto indistinguishable from Earth in The Balance?
Take the test yourself. http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
Kaczynski had a heavily annotated, underlined, dog-eared copy of EITB in his little cabin in the woods. Certainly he felt the kinship rather strongly and he is not stupid.
But if he is insane, what does this say about Al Gore? At what point did Kaczynski’s views pass from their astonishing congruence with the lucubrations of a Nobel Prize winner to those of a delusional madman? Was it only at the boundary between exposition and violence, or was it someplace earlier in the chain of “reasoning”? Prince Phillip, former president of the WWF, said “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Getting kind of crowded there in Kaczynski’s cabin.
The Alton Chase article I linked to contains an interesting and substantive discussion of whether Kaczynski was insane, and of the dilemma faced by deep-thinking environmentalists who agreed with his analysis but who were, unlike Prince Phillip, unwilling to embrace the slaughter of innocents. The article indicates they resolved the dilemma exactly like you did, by calling him a nut. Kaczynski vigorously resisted the claim that he was insane, feeling it patronized him on a matter of ultimate significance and made it too easy to disregard the substance of his views. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/kaczynski122697.htm
↧
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Stephen Rasey
<i>$20 billion / year </i>. . . . . For WHAT specifically?
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Steven Mosher
If you look up “self parody” the dictionary you’ll find pages of Tucci78′s prose. All of it incomprehensible.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Tucci78
At 11:45 PM on 24 May, Michael (whom we may safely presume is a “Liberal” and therefore an enemy of individual human rights) weasels:
Deeds are often preceeded by words. Even if the speaker isn’t the perp, there is a certain role played by making such things an acceptable part of the discourse.
A simple lesson for a manifestly simple person, Michael:
(1) Each human being is an individual entity, and survives only on the basis of action guided by reasoned thought (either his own or that of his caregivers).
(2) In order to take such action in the presence of other human beings, the guidance of “individual rights” was developed, which accords each individual the unalienable recognition of that person’s moral authority to dispose of his life, his liberties of action, and his property as he sees fit, as long as he does not infringe on the precisely equal rights of others in these same regards.
(3) To preserve these rights against violent aggression, the individual has of necessity the right in morality and law to use deadly force (and the instruments of deadly force) in defense and retaliation.
What las warmistas propose – without statistically significant evidence of actual harm caused by anthropogenic CO2, mind you – in terms of statutes and regulations limiting the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the perpetration of violent aggression under the wholly spurious guise of “law” against the property rights, the liberties, and even the lives of innocent human beings.
If the victims of this aggression respond – in self-defense – with deadly force to protect their rights against Watermelon viciousness, who initiated the violence?
Got a mirror, Michael?
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Steven Mosher
“If there is any integrity – of any kind – in “the lukewarmer constituency,” they must be appraised of the moral odiousness as well as the incontrovertible methodological rottenness of las warmistas. There is in fact nothing in “the lukewarmer constituency” to which honest human beings can appeal unless and until these willful ignoramuses get jerked into sharp confrontation with factual reality”
These sentences make no sense. Reduce the dosage.
↧
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Tucci78
At 12:16 AM on 25 May, the entity posting as “Steven Mosher” pretends that he has any familiarity at all with any product of the lexicographer’s art, burbling:
If you look up “self parody” the dictionary you’ll find pages of Tucci78′s prose. All of it incomprehensible.
…thereby with wonderful and abject gormlessness demonstrating that he’s not merely illiterate and pointless but – while posting on the World Wide Web, a portal to volumes of information previously beyond a researcher’s wildest dreams – too shiftless to simply open a browser window to a search engine when he encounters terms and concepts of which he has no understanding.
Swine, meet pearls. Pearls, prepare to be ignored.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by JayTee
Hey there Tucci78, sorry if you thought I was lumping you in with the conservatives. I don’t see where I made that statement. I also don’t see where and when I identified myself as a leftist. I did, perhaps, characterize you as a pompous propagator of purple (and poison) prose. I believe that skill is well represented across the political spectrum though.
Giving up for now and bowing to your ludicrous loquaciousness.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Captain Kangaroo
roads and bridges I presume – it allows cars and trucks to move therefore requiring fuel.
The ‘carbon cycle’ is touted as a scarce resource exactly equivalent to bandwidth. The difference is that carbon taxes are intended to force substitution for a less ‘risky’ product – although at higher prices. Any tax revenue then evaporates leaving a higher cost structure and no compensation.
If he wants to buy the sky – he should make an offer instead of suggesting that governments legislate. A hundred trillion dollars might cover it.
↧
Comment on Copenhagen Consensus 2012 by Captain Kangaroo
your logical fallacy is … being a dickhead
↧
↧
Comment on Time varying trend in global mean surface temperature by WebHubTelescope
It does mean that the Earth is very sensitive to perturbations.
↧
Comment on CMIP5 decadal hindcasts by Willis Eschenbach
Steven Mosher | May 25, 2012 at 12:59 pm
<blockquote>read it again and see if you can comprehend. the difference is clear</blockquote>
OK, steven, I read it again. The difference is not clear. Stop with the drive-by postings, they're nothing but a pain and do not enhance your reputation, and explain yourself.
For example, you say:
<blockquote>In CRU take a cell that is half ocean and half land.
The final value will be a simple average of the SST and the Land.</blockquote>
No it won't, that's not how the averaging works at all. There is a good description of the actual procedure used in the HadCRUT dataset, as opposed to your simplistic fantasy, located <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a> on page 13:
<blockquote> <b>Blending land and marine data</b>
To make a dataset with global coverage the land and marine data must be combined. For land-only grid boxes the land value is taken, and for sea-only grid boxes the marine value; but for coastal and island grid boxes the land and marine data must be blended into a combined average.
Previous versions of HadCRUT [Jones, 1994, Jones & Moberg, 2003] blended land and sea data in coastal and island grid boxes by weighting the land and sea values by the area fraction of land and sea respectively, with a constraint that the land fraction cannot be greater than 75% or less than 25%, to prevent either data-source being swamped by the other. The aim of weighting by area was to place more weight on the more reliable data source where possible. The constraints are necessary because there are some grid boxes which are almost all sea but contain one reliable land station on a small island; and some grid boxes which are almost all land but also include a small sea area which has many marine observations. Unconstrained weighting by area would essentially discard one of the measurements, which is undesirable.
The new developments described in this paper provide measurement and sampling uncertainty estimates for each grid box in both the land and marine data sets. This means that the land and marine data can be blended in the way that minimises the uncertainty of the blended mean. That is, by scaling according to their uncertainties, so that the more reliable value has a higher weighting than the less reliable.
Tblended = ε^2_sea*Tland + ε^2_land*Tsea / ε^2_sea +ε^2_land
where Tblended is the blended average temperature anomaly, Tland and Tsea are the land and marine anomalies, ε_land is the measurement and sampling error of the land data, and ε_sea is the measurement and sampling error of the marine data.
</blockquote>
As you can see, it's not "simple averaging".
w.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Pointman
GaryM, you might be interested in this piece, which covers some of the same ground.
“All those erudite people and their studies, research and papers, lent a spurious legitimacy and authority to the whole thing and having laid that essential groundwork, facilitated what inevitably followed. They all got away with it too. Every last one of them.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/
Pointman
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Pointman
Well, someone’s colours have finally been nailed to the mast …
Pointman
↧
↧
Comment on CMIP5 decadal hindcasts by Willis Eschenbach
Steven Mosher | May 25, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Climate modelling is a boundary condition problem.
I keep reading this, but what I have never been able to get from any proponent of the idea is a complete list of what you call the “boundary conditions”. I mean it’s obvious that energy in must equal energy out … but as the existence of the “greenhouse effect” clearly demonstrates, the surface temperature is obviously not constrained by TOA energy balance.
So your claim desperately needs backup in the form of a list of all of the “boundary conditions” you are referring to, and an estimate of the values of those conditions over the 21st century. Without that, the “boundary conditions” claim is just a modeler’s security blanket.
I’ll wait for your answer … unfortunately, if your claim is like the other times I’ve asked about this, the boundary condition on how long I’ll wait for an answer may involve the temperature in the place of eternal perdition …
w.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by J Bowers
“Greenpeace, which has a combined global budget of over $100 million a year.”
Gotta pay for those thousands of staff, expeditions and field projects all around the world, I guess. No tax deductions for their lobbying, either. How many staff at Heartland?
And then you have to consider how Heartland is a part of State Policy Network with stink tanks in every state. Huge. Betcha that combined budget puts Greenpeace’s to shame. All tax deductible, and no need to get on a boat, unless it’s to “rub shoulders” with legislators and big donors, of course.
↧
Comment on Heartburn at Heartland by Bad Andrew
Never a doubt…
Andrew
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
