Monday 9 June 2014

JoNova

JoNova: Green climate pornography — cheer for the deaths of the heretics! (cite)

Well, this is a little sad: my comments at JoNova are now dropping into moderation instead of just appearing. Looks like I'm becoming dangerous there, too.

(turned out to be a temporary blip, or fright, or whatever. We're all lovely again, now)

7 comments:

  1. (I started off fairly bland, not wishing to hijack their nice thread)

    William Connolley
    June 9, 2014 at 6:03 am · Reply
    > don’t let those skeptics speak

    No-one is stopping you speak. Unlike WUWT. As to the cartoon, meh, I think you’re going out of your way to be insulted. Although is it about you? I thought you thought you weren’t “deniers”.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (I was asked to define "climate change deniers")

    William Connolley
    June 9, 2014 at 6:38 am · Reply
    There’s no clear definition. Its a label for an attitude, rather than a group (wiki has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial, rather than _denier; but that page says “a set of organized attempts” which I think isn’t right). To me, its the attitude that IPCC is wrong, without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says, or to propose any coherent theory. Like the people that harp on about the 2035 Himalayan glaciers, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (then we get into moderation)

    William Connolley
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 9, 2014 at 5:46 pm · Reply
    > talk of “disappearing” glaciers is ridiculous

    Got any data? Lots of nice pics at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

    ReplyDelete
  4. (I was asked to define "climate change")

    William Connolley
    June 9, 2014 at 8:37 am · Reply
    People tend to use the IPCC defn (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf):

    Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

    Don’t forget to read on for the note re the UNFCCC defn. And note how weirdly prescient my “without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says” was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (JN replied to my "insult" one)

    Joanne Nova
    June 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm · Reply
    Connolley, who said I was insulted? It’s all your own fantasy. I am quite happy mocking the “intellectual” depth of arguments put out by a green cartoonist.

    And obviously we are not deniers of anything, but that doesn’t stop you using the term all the time, even though you admit you can’t define it in accurate English. Do you apply it me? I assumed you did, because you apply it to WUWT, you talk of “denier blogs” and allow its use all over your comments. But hey, correct me if I’m wrong. Do you think I’m a denier?

    ReplyDelete
  6. (and we're back to moderation)

    William Connolley
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 9, 2014 at 5:50 pm · Reply
    > Do you apply it me?

    As far as I’m aware, I haven’t.

    > you apply it to WUWT

    Yeah, but they’re nutters, barely coherent enough to even apply a label like “denial” to. If we’re in a questioning mood, permit me to ask you if you’re happy with the censorship at WUWT (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wuwt-why-climate-change-doesnt-scare-me.html)?

    > you talk of “denier blogs” and allow its use all over your comments

    Yes, that’s true. I don’t censor my comments, except for extremes of rudeness (neither do you). I appreciate that you, and yours here, don’t like the D-word, so I don’t use it here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (and another)

    William Connolley
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm · Reply
    > CAGW on the other hand…

    Is a strawman you’ve made up. Since you’ve invented it, you’re responsible for it. Don’t ask me to defend it.

    > coherent theory… “natural variation”.

    Natural variation definitely exists, and the IPCC reports discuss it, as does the usual scientific literature. But its not a plausible theory for recent temperature change, which goes outside the likely bounds of natural variation.

    ReplyDelete