tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1727494376044016235..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: More of David Siegel's climate lies and conspiracy theoriesSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73420579654041654822020-03-04T06:52:51.036+11:002020-03-04T06:52:51.036+11:00Oh I so wish I had seen this article before! Full ...Oh I so wish I had seen this article before! Full of answers and simply explained. Instead I went down the rabbit hole into the phenomenal amount of information available on climate change searching for scientific facts to respond to the "gish gallop" of climate denialism tripe from one of our own senators! Thank you Sou!indidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01188529856205550715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69841698729363485602018-12-12T21:11:26.392+11:002018-12-12T21:11:26.392+11:00Anonymous just reproached Dagwood (for something w...Anonymous just reproached Dagwood (for something written three years ago). Does that mean Anonymous is a "sick person"?<br /><br />P'raps Anonymous doesn't know the meaning of the words "reproach" and "punish" -ie they're ignorant rather than sick, or they're both.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91060407957693104872018-12-12T20:27:04.003+11:002018-12-12T20:27:04.003+11:00"Siegel and his ilk have no reasonable expect..."Siegel and his ilk have no reasonable expectation of courtesy or care. They deserve our reproaches; they should suffer them more often." <br /><br />These are words of a sick person. Nobody deserves to be punished just because of their views. I suggest you realize that people don't have to agree with your world view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88278113016380160712015-11-05T16:12:19.712+11:002015-11-05T16:12:19.712+11:00The anger isn't misdirected. It's correct...The anger isn't misdirected. It's correctly directed. Presenting the science in response to crap like Siegel's is appropriate, in and of itself. But Siegel isn't debating science, and science can't ever be a full response. He doesn't seem stupid enough to believe that the sources he provides support his thesis. Many of them plainly contradict him. He must know that. He apparently also knows that his target market won't check his sources. Sou is right: he's just a liar. This isn't a disagreement over beliefs. He isn't mistaken. He's a liar, lying for--well, only he knows for sure, but money's a good guess. If his lies were harmless, then so what? But they're not. They hurt people. They hurt you. They hurt me. Of infinitely more importance, they hurt my children. Siegel and his ilk have no reasonable expectation of courtesy or care. They deserve our reproaches; they should suffer them more often. dagwoodjonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59190194681127915602015-11-05T11:28:21.676+11:002015-11-05T11:28:21.676+11:00Do I understand what you are saying correctly?
So...Do I understand what you are saying correctly?<br /><br />Sou calling people like David Siegel out is the right thing to do. Factually errors are factual errors. Made up factual errors are even worse.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12257422485317831582015-11-04T04:17:06.843+11:002015-11-04T04:17:06.843+11:00Well, Sou, you did a great job. Keep up the fine ...Well, Sou, you did a great job. Keep up the fine work. But I do wish my colleagues would stay away from the accusations which distract, such as "you must be paid", "Koch" somethingorother, "you believe earth is only 6000 years old" and other unverifiable accusations.<br /><br />Fact is, for appropriate action we need people we don't agree with to understand it's their lives too. Telling them they have motivations they don't is not helping.Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11401979080907533472015-11-03T14:32:00.610+11:002015-11-03T14:32:00.610+11:00"Crude" would also be appropriate - but ..."Crude" would also be appropriate - but maybe I'm just hopelessly old fashioned. FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10676555225988511332015-11-03T11:25:10.815+11:002015-11-03T11:25:10.815+11:00I'll add the words "anger" and "...I'll add the words "anger" and "angry" to <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/more-of-david-siegels-climate-lies-and.html?showComment=1446509992906#c830934430565501188" rel="nofollow">the upcoming article</a>, and maybe "religion".Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8309344305655011882015-11-03T11:19:52.906+11:002015-11-03T11:19:52.906+11:00One of these days I'll write an article about ...One of these days I'll write an article about the limited vocabulary of science deniers. When someone replaces disinformation with facts, they are too often labeled "ugly", "hateful" and/or "haters" just for doing so.<br /><br />A case of ignorance and illiteracy going hand in hand.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87208273938063380992015-11-03T09:06:18.438+11:002015-11-03T09:06:18.438+11:00"Geeez talk about ugly souls."
Of cours...<b><i>"Geeez talk about ugly souls."</i></b><br /><br />Of course you are simply stating the obvious empirical evidence. You are a kindly, scientific logical type. I can see that now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84746535143614114772015-11-03T08:44:49.651+11:002015-11-03T08:44:49.651+11:00I am simple stating the obvious empirical evidence...I am simple stating the obvious empirical evidence that one finds when reading the material posted above. There is a lot of misdirected anger in the above words. Let's solve the right problem, not tear down individuals who question your beliefs. That is what happens in fanatical religion and that is what is happening here. Stick to the facts.SGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66507951995699133612015-11-03T08:38:38.653+11:002015-11-03T08:38:38.653+11:00But you are kindly and compassionate. I can see th...But you are kindly and compassionate. I can see that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79871934369019619502015-11-03T08:34:29.593+11:002015-11-03T08:34:29.593+11:00Is this a circle-jerk led by Miriam and her band o...Is this a circle-jerk led by Miriam and her band of haters. Geeez talk about ugly souls. You people have got to have some of the ugliest Karma mankind has ever seen!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15366257346075663157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83317898209009281262015-11-02T04:06:06.954+11:002015-11-02T04:06:06.954+11:00Mal Adapted.
Don't confuse deniers with logic...Mal Adapted.<br /><br />Don't confuse deniers with logic, you meany! :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73971743871020351842015-10-31T10:27:44.589+11:002015-10-31T10:27:44.589+11:00They even trust some the cherry-picked bits of cli...They even trust some the cherry-picked bits of climate scientists' papers when they quote them out of context in their blog posts. They of course prefer the quieter climate scientists who don't make a song and dance when they're misquoted.John Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610757244403601917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20466072069027983272015-10-31T08:34:25.535+11:002015-10-31T08:34:25.535+11:00Some of them with engineering or science degrees d...Some of them with engineering or science degrees do it because they think they're somehow more qualified than actual experts on their own grounds.<br /><br />But the ones without any relevant training at all, like most of the opinion writers in the WSJ, the Washington Times, Forbes, the (UK's) Telegraph or Mail, the Australian or the (Canadian) National Post? I don't have a clue.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37948855553465623252015-10-31T06:46:14.526+11:002015-10-31T06:46:14.526+11:00I've asked several AGW deniers why they trust ...I've asked several AGW deniers why they trust their own sources, if they don't trust climate scientists. I've never received a response.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32815254913316037282015-10-30T18:17:45.082+11:002015-10-30T18:17:45.082+11:00That he is a crank magnet was already obvious when...That he is a crank magnet was already obvious when he proudly informed us he was a vegan because he believed it is healthier. There is no evidence it is (it *may* be, if you are very careful in choosing exactly what you eat and make sure you supplement with essential micronutrients).Marconoreply@blogger.com