tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5061699658933684137..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: The world domination ultra-paranoid conspiracy theory at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18700789299111182512014-06-03T23:58:43.479+10:002014-06-03T23:58:43.479+10:00Yay I can do that, too :)Yay I can do that, too :)cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17712107700380416932014-06-03T23:58:09.273+10:002014-06-03T23:58:09.273+10:00Or even
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM
And ...Or even<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM<br /><br />And if that doesn't work, it's Kaa from the Jungle Book.<br /><br />You have to admire Lord M's chutzpah. The little Witless are indeed seeing the rights and freedoms and livelihoods eroded - by the increasing power and influence of the corporate lobbyists, the super-rich and massive Wall Street investors such as the Saudi Royal family.<br /><br />Monckton is employed by the above to redirect the anger of the Witless at the very institutions that have a rapidly diminishing chance of exerting some restraining influence on the market forces that are intent on permanently ruining the Witless and their world.<br /><br />Essentially, he's a spokesman for the "Joy of Christmas" party, adressing his high-falutin demagoguery to a bunch of Witless turkeys.<br /><br />idunnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76439864331958438732014-06-03T23:28:57.345+10:002014-06-03T23:28:57.345+10:00I like your post a lot. You shouold write more on ...I like your post a lot. You shouold write more on this. Great job coming up with succh terrific post.<br /><br />I have conspirissy theeries of my own. Surely there is something of the reptile about Monckton? Specifically, he always reminds me of this one...<br /><br />ww.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaMidunnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39356405575768668772014-06-03T22:58:16.374+10:002014-06-03T22:58:16.374+10:00Reckon you might have Karen MackSpot from Deltoid ...Reckon you might have Karen MackSpot from Deltoid there! The smileys'll start any minute now...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71450137365819374262014-06-03T22:52:59.606+10:002014-06-03T22:52:59.606+10:00Oh bugger, you've consigned me to the Hot Whop...Oh bugger, you've consigned me to the Hot Whoppery already. Still it's not too bad. I envisiged some form of pergatory with a good Hot Wopping.Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79034269618243924552014-06-03T22:45:04.128+10:002014-06-03T22:45:04.128+10:00"...video explaining why "CO2 is plant f...<i><b>"...video explaining why "CO2 is plant food" is not a reasonable rejoinder to global warming."</b></i><br /><br />Ah, good way of putting it. <br /><br />Andreas - it is not a good rejoinder to global warming. Read. Contemplate. Meditate on this. When you have reached enlightenment please come back and discuss it.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30806525761610962682014-06-03T20:48:16.036+10:002014-06-03T20:48:16.036+10:00So, Andreas: imagine two groups of people - a larg...So, Andreas: imagine two groups of people - a large one accepting the evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, and a vocal, noisy minority that insist the answer is 5.<br /><br />All the smart, disinterested, 'above-the-fray', independent, free-thinking, far-seeing, Solomonic money's on the answer really being 4.5, right? <br /><br />Oh one 'who understands well', your claiming that <i>others</i> are lost in a 'Holy War' is what's called 'projecting like a firehose!'<br /><br />I repeat; the flip side of the same shopworn coin...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83039692274064383862014-06-03T19:41:36.876+10:002014-06-03T19:41:36.876+10:00@Andreas
"It is a process, one I understand ...@Andreas<br /><br /><b><i>"It is a process, one I understand well, and one I don't think you understand at all.</i></b><br /><br />Oh dear. <br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55023725367124633322014-06-03T19:38:41.804+10:002014-06-03T19:38:41.804+10:00DENIER TROLLING 101
For anyone new to climate blo...<b>DENIER TROLLING 101</b><br /><br />For anyone new to climate blogs, Andreas provided a lesson in fairly conventional denier trolling.<br /><br /><b>STEP 1: AGGRESSIVE NITPICK</b><br /><br />The first step is to find a minor detail, preferably misrepresenting it, and complain long and loud about. Andreas picked a line out of the middle of the article, decided that Monckton meant something different to what he wrote and therefore was able to point the finger and accuse me of writing a falsehood.<br /><br /><b>STEP 2: GO ON THE DEFENSIVE</b><br /><br />When the flaws are pointed out, the denier's first reaction is to go on the defensive. In this case Andreas rejected the actual meaning of the words again and decided that Monckton must have meant something else because Andreas mistakenly thought the British monarchy still wielded the sort of power it did a few centuries ago.<br /><br /><b>STEP 3: FULL ON ATTACK</b><br /><br />After the predictable response, the troll then moves into full on attack mode accusing the blog owner (or a third party) of doing something nefarious. In this case Andreas went further than accusing me of telling a lie, he claimed I often misrepresent what people write, that I play "fast and loose with the facts" and that I am untrustworthy.<br /><br /><b>STEP 4: THE BRIDGE-BUILDING PLEA</b><br /><br />The troll may at this point come out and declare their position while denying it. In this case Andreas denied denying climate science and said he was a "lukewarmer", which is just another way of claiming that the "scientists don't know nuffin'". He also indicated that he doesn't even understand simple science by video explaining why "CO2 is plant food" is not a reasonable rejoinder to global warming. At this point there may be some more passive aggressive tones along the lines of "no-one reads your blog anyway". In this case Andreas obliged by muttering something about "people losing interest".<br /><br /><b>STEP 5: THE DUMMY SPIT</b><br /><br />After a couple more predictable responses, the denier spits the dummy and declares they'll go back to some denier blog where they feel more comfortable. After falsely accusing the blog owner of all sorts of dreadful things, the troll decides they will feign offense at the predictable response. Andreas muttered a few more words, picked up his bat and ball and said he'd go back to Judith Curry's blog. He maybe felt that if he said one of the more extreme denier blogs he'd not be able to claim he wasn't a climate science denier.<br /><br /><b>STEP 6: THE RETURN</b><br /><br />More often than not the troll returns at some point, usually muttering stuff like "you're all a lot of nasty alarmists" and "nobody listens to alarmists any more" and "nobody reads your blog anyway" or similar.<br /><br /><br />As for <b>Mack</b> - well he asked "Hot Wopper, Can I make a comment? on your blog?..." and it turns out that he did have the requisite keyboard and mouse skills to make a comment. What he didn't have was spelling skills among other capabilities. If he'd asked "May I make a comment?" I'd have responded, most certainly - as long as you adhere to the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html" rel="nofollow">comment policy</a>. He didn't. So his comment has been consigned to the <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">HotWhoppery.</a><br /><br />Now it could be that Mack is not even a person. His comment is not much different to common spam - though not as ingratiating. This is the sort of blogspam that fills up the spam folder:<br /><br /><i>I like your post a lot! You should write some more on this!Great job coming with such terrific post!</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39186284435624247352014-06-03T19:11:30.521+10:002014-06-03T19:11:30.521+10:00@Andreas
"...the only reason I still think ...@Andreas <br /><br /><b><i>"...the only reason I still think your Climate Crises is even a possibility."</i></b><br /><br />Yup, all "our" Climate Crises. And we are not sharing them with you. <br /><br />Good job for you can just opt in or out. That's freedom and democracy for you. <br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75654265705046017772014-06-03T18:58:26.726+10:002014-06-03T18:58:26.726+10:00"...got the impression it was trying to prove...<br /> <b><i>"...got the impression it was trying to prove CO2 wasn't plant food."</i></b><br /><br /><i>Slap of hand to forehead.</i> Exactly. You got the "impression" that it was trying to prove something and your fellow denialist commenters reinforced that with their "impression" fuelled by the stupid plant food meme that just plays into your confirmational bias. So you got your "impression" from other sources than the video. Nowhere does the video suggest CO2 is not "plant food"!!! <br /><br />As you put your finger right on the problem I was drawing to your attention but still no self-awareness dawned and no light bulb switched on I have to conclude you are a bit blinkered and denialist. <br /><br />Good luck on your JC site. The fact you feel more comfortable there is a bit of a pointer to your state of mind. The point of being a (real) sceptic is you never feel comfortable. And you are willing to engage in debate and discussion with a view to better understanding and the possibility of changing your own position. You have shown none of these traits in your brief foray here or your critical understanding of the crock video. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59459259773225709152014-06-03T18:14:45.115+10:002014-06-03T18:14:45.115+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69045848704566873412014-06-03T16:50:53.090+10:002014-06-03T16:50:53.090+10:00Andreas:
You call yourself a lukewarmer and then ...Andreas: <br />You call yourself a lukewarmer and then attack others for taking a position which is the same as every scientific society in the world. Not one of these societies think that the IPCC reports are not a fair representation of the reams of peer reviewed literature. So who is the one here following religion rather than science?<br />JGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89724599744203284742014-06-03T16:28:07.673+10:002014-06-03T16:28:07.673+10:00he he. No-one comes to HotWhopper expecting to be ...he he. No-one comes to HotWhopper expecting to be treated with kid gloves. There are other excellent blogs where you'll get less snark and more of a <a href="http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">civil discussion</a> along with good science. But I don't think that is what Andreas is looking for either.<br /><br />Unlike HotWhopper, which demolishes disinformation, Judith <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/what-pushed-judith-curry-over-edge.html" rel="nofollow">will actively promote it</a>, which would be much more to Andreas' liking, because as a "lukewarmer" it fits his world view.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66540869253121891562014-06-03T16:20:15.537+10:002014-06-03T16:20:15.537+10:00"I don't think I'll be coming back to..."I don't think I'll be coming back to see what new ways you can call me a denier or what new putdowns you might come up with."<br /><br />Freud says there are three forms of denier: it's not happening, it's not me, and it's not so bad. You have admitted being in the third category. So blame Freud: he was obviously in the conspiracy too.<br /><br />Has anyone met a Lukewarmer who actually admitted what denial means? I can't remember doing so: again it seems that they are all singing from the same songbook.<br /><br />And grats to all those who spotted he wasn't merely a nitpicker (concern troll?). He had me fooled to start with. But he couldn't keep it going for long :)Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67598173251562240322014-06-03T15:15:05.859+10:002014-06-03T15:15:05.859+10:00You know, thinking about it, I don't think I&#...You know, thinking about it, I don't think I'll be coming back to see what new ways you can call me a denier or what new putdowns you might come up with. I don't think I need to check here anymore to get a counterpoint to any of WUWT's more 'imaginative' posts either. It's gotten so I can pretty much predict what you'll say about them.<br /><br />I'm heading back over to lurk at Judith's. Yes, I know by your definition she's a Denier too, which is Ironic as she's pretty much the only reason I still think your Climate Crises is even a possibility.<br /><br />So long, Sou. At least I know you'll still be having fun over here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03143879963428928595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21388286562859253442014-06-03T14:44:08.203+10:002014-06-03T14:44:08.203+10:00God Sou, Do you ever even read what you write?
&q...God Sou, Do you ever even read what you write?<br /><br /><i>"Your comments suggest you aren't able to understand science"</i><br /><br />Science isn't some kind of holy scripture. It isn't written on stone tablets and handed down by wise men for us to worship. It is a process, one I understand well, and one I don't think you understand at all. You write like 'Science" is some immutable law that has been handed down to you by a high priest, and anyone that disagrees, or even questions the slightest word, is a heretic damned with everyone else that doubts your one true faith.<br /><br /><i>BTW "Lukewarmer" = "Denier".</i><br /><br />I really hope you alarmist are wrong about your Climate Crises. I think you probably are, but I'm nowhere near sure. But it doesn't matter, you've already lost. There are simple not enough of you to make any long term changes, and there are fewer every year. And the people you need the most, the ones in the middle? The ones like me, who doubt there's a Crises, but would agree to work with you, just in case? <br /><br />You treat us just like you treat your most bitter foes, and label us the same. Because there's no room for doubt in a Holy War.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03143879963428928595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84422090563692293102014-06-03T13:37:11.128+10:002014-06-03T13:37:11.128+10:00Andreas, on both the ridicule and the important st...Andreas, on both the ridicule and the important stuff I almost always provide plenty of references so people can check for themselves that what I write is factual.<br /><br />Your comments suggest you aren't able to understand science, which is fine. Lots of people haven't done any science. Normally those who haven't will defer to experts. But not you, from what you say. You prefer to pick and choose what suits you.<br /><br />BTW "Lukewarmer" = "Denier". One can't be just a "little bit pregnant".<br /><br />Hard to credit the effort you're making to turn a humourous playoff between Tim Ball and Christopher Monkton arguing who is going to be the ruler of the world (Tom Wigley vs Prince Charles) into a major earth-shattering event and a "Sou can't be trusted". That of itself falls into the "utter nutter" category - even without your harping on about "CO2 is plant food".<br /><br />You don't just suffer a science deficiency - you seem to think that Prince Charles is going to "rule" (ie be a dictator) over however many countries when/if he becomes king. He won't. These days the role is largely figurehead / ambassadorial. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21209182993263049892014-06-03T13:08:35.791+10:002014-06-03T13:08:35.791+10:00Yep, His Lordy-Lordyness almost certainly meant th...Yep, His Lordy-Lordyness almost certainly meant that Charles is <i>a</i> would-be Reptilian Overlord, rather than <i>the</i> would-be Reptilian Overlord! Important distinction you raise there...<br /><br />And all the rest is just standard 'lukewarmer' do-nothing-ism. I.e. the flip side of the same shopworn coin...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24897570336175180592014-06-03T12:06:55.457+10:002014-06-03T12:06:55.457+10:00Damn, was just writing for an hour without saving ...Damn, was just writing for an hour without saving periodically to a word document, and it all just disappeared. Screw it, too tired to do over. cliff notes time.<br /><br />Both - Being honest on the "nitpicking" and "irrelevant" things is what convinces people they can trust you on the important stuff.<br /><br />Jammy - It was called "The CO2 Plant Food Crock". most of it was just back and forth between a Monckton soundbite saying "CO2 is plant food" and clips about "Extreme Weather". I and most of the other commenters, both for and against, got the impression it was trying to prove CO2 wasn't plant food.<br /><br />All the Ranting about "Denial" - You impress no one but other alarmist. Everyone in the middle is losing interest.<br /><br />No, I'm not a "Denier". I'm a Lukewarmer who thinks there's way to much uncertainty to know what the temp will be in a hundred years. I <b>DO NOT</b> think this means we shouldn't try to reduce CO2 production. But carbon taxes and EPA mandates will just push production to India or China or some other developing country. And when the people see they're sacrificing for nothing they'll just vote and end to it, just like Australia and most of Europe.<br /><br />What we need are Additive efforts. further support for electric vehicles, realistic renewables growth, nuclear power. Giving more, not demanding less. It won't cut CO2 as fast, but it's a hell of a lot more likely to succeed.<br /><br />And what we need most of all is for alarmist to stop acting like this is some kind of holy war. Because every time Mann, or Gleick, or Lewandowski try to 'Help' they do more damage then all the "Climate Denier Crocks" and "Denier Memes" put together.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03143879963428928595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22479037810724670852014-06-03T07:49:41.498+10:002014-06-03T07:49:41.498+10:00The Hanoverian usurpocracy is what we've got s...The Hanoverian usurpocracy is what we've got since the legitimate Stewart got chased away just for being a Taig. Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65347736024688873382014-06-03T03:59:21.493+10:002014-06-03T03:59:21.493+10:00*Ahem*
That's British Royal family; our king w...*Ahem*<br />That's British Royal family; our king went south to take over England, and the current lot are descended through one of his daughters or granddaughters, I forget which. Not to mention the fillip of Scottish blood from the queen's mother. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2724438515564318812014-06-02T20:49:48.612+10:002014-06-02T20:49:48.612+10:00"so, wait... I'm a Conspiracy Theorist be..."so, wait... I'm a Conspiracy Theorist because I DON'T accept..."<br /><br />Yes that's right. You are a conspiracy theorist because you cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. In actual fact the fossil fuel industry spends over a billion dollars a year on global warming denial.<br /><br />And as I was able to predict you'd deny the one conspiracy that is a matter of public record, Thats A Bingo!<br /><br />Will we ever get a single 'contrarian' here who doesn't just parrot from the denialist songbook as though he doesn't have a mind of his own? It is so boring when you know what their answer will be and you can actually steer them in the path of numptiism that you want them to follow.<br /><br />Would I be pushing it if I suggest you do a bit of crap about Al Gore next?<br /><br />Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50070487454337200892014-06-02T20:31:27.121+10:002014-06-02T20:31:27.121+10:00So Schitzree you think that Koch bros money has li...So Schitzree you think that Koch bros money has little influence do you? Seems there is little hope for you then. Read this article and it's sources.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers<br />Their organisations are said to have spent $86 million dollars in political contributions in 2012 alone. Is it any wonder that the Republicans have become the science denier party.<br />JGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85670436128095567292014-06-02T19:51:09.857+10:002014-06-02T19:51:09.857+10:00You are not doing very good at making a case that ...You are not doing very good at making a case that what Monckton said isn't steeped in conspiracy theory type hysteria. Perhaps you would care to tell us what he meant by Marxstream media? Which elements of the our mainstream media promote communism? <br />The fact is that every Science society in the world supports the scientific view that AGW is a threat. So where are these media organisations that only support the scientific consensus because of their marxist beliefs? Explain why the journalists of every Murdoch media outlet know that the majority scientific opinion is wrong but those few organisations willing to allow the consensus a voice do so because of some left wing conspiracy?<br />JGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com