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)
This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there. Plus some other stuff convenient to place here. And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.
(I started off fairly bland, not wishing to hijack their nice thread)
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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”.
(I was asked to define "climate change deniers")
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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.
(then we get into moderation)
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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
(I was asked to define "climate change")
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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.
(JN replied to my "insult" one)
ReplyDeleteJoanne 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?
(and we're back to moderation)
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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.
(and another)
ReplyDeleteWilliam 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.