04 January 2014

Quick critique of comments from Age article

Here's a quick critique of a few comments from The Age article:
The Age is a heavily warmist Fairfax paper, with a following among the trendy latte sipping libaratchicks of inner city Melbourne.  The vast majority of comments, maybe 90%+ are warmist.

The article is by John Mclean and is critical of the IPCC.
As usual there's a lot of side issues and ad hominems, name calling etc. from the warmists. Some comments in blue, my response in black:
Chris Nimmo Broulee January 03, 2014, 12:03PM
The ICSC is a climate change denier organisation...
Well, that was quick, first comment, straight to attack the author, who dares to question the IPCC, with innuendo and insult. Never seen a warmist do that before!
...who assert there has been no global warming the past 17 years.
I assert that too, e.g. UAH:

....This is contrary to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which finds the opposite.
This is confusing, the BOM doesn't maintain a global temperature record...it's for Australia. Oh sorry, silly me, I was expecting a rational comment there, not the ravings of a greeny loony, sorry... Of course Australia's BOM records have no bearing on global temperature.
    Just_one_click Melbourne January 03, 2014, 12:26PM:
Completely agree. The real story here is how big coal / energy can secretly fund front organisations to undermine the public interest with disinformation...
It's amazing, warmists refuse to believe that there's any conspiracy from the government to corrupt climate science, yet are all too willing to believe that oil funds a denialist conspiracy. Such fanciful thinkers and trippers, in denial of their own hypocrisy.
Actually, Big Oil funds the climate change industry, e.g.:
Oil companies Shell and BP funded the CRU; they benefit from the AGW scam. "Action on climate change" bring subsidies for renewables, and it gives Big Oil a leg up on coal. AGW also benefits natural gas, which is why Chevron sponsors the AGW conferences. Natural gas produces less CO2 (the harmless plant food -- demonised by warmists) than coal.
 Conrad Darwin January 03, 2014, 12:33PM
Sadly the rightists from la la land will use this highly questionable source to deny the indisputable overwhelming scientific accord that climate change is real.... a real emergency.
Yes Conrad, climate change is real; it's been happening ever since there's been a climate. As for an emergency, why? What emergency? The world's weather is perfectly normal. The real threat appears to be from global cooling. Someone's in la la land alright.
 A country gal  January 03, 2014, 12:36PM
The Australian branch is wholly sponsored by the US arm, who in turn is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
Another ad hominem attack against the organisation of author John Mclean. Warmists are so vicious if anyone, no matter how qualified, goes against the grain. They demand conformity and hate resistance. Truly fascist.
Tony it is time to move on and leave your 19th century mentality behind.
It basically moves on to a series of comments that insult deniers, while completely side stepping the claims of the article from John Mclean, which argues that the IPCC is basically set up to find something wrong with the climate to be blamed on humans and their greenhouse gases. Not one warmist actually refutes the claim. 
The closest they come is to say that you really have to believe in wild conspiracy theories to accept that the IPCC is nothing other than the shining white castle on the hill. For example:
 Warwick January 03, 2014, 12:26PM
...and the usual UN conspiracy theories favoured by the paranoid, even referring to the discredited "climate gate" conspiracy long after the accusations have been debunked.
That's right, it's paranoid to think that a government set-up body, which has that fact in the name: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a vested interest; while imagining that Big Oil secretly funds AGW denial, is not paranoid at all, but quite reasonable. 

I don't think environmentalists do mean well -- let's stop giving credit where credit is not due. I think lefties mean to be Marxist fascist dictators; they don't really care about the environment at all.
No, climategate was not "debunked" by those sympathetic internal reviews. Just because you heard it's been debunked doesn't make it true, idiot warmists; do you believe everything you hear (probably, unless it's from a skeptic)?
    TimC     Melbourne    January 03, 2014, 2:34PM
Was it the New York Times, or the Guardian, or someone else who said they were going to stop publishing letters from the same old denialists with the same old message? The Age clearly need to take their example, whoever they were.
That's right, we can all live in a harmonious world, if only we can stamp out dissenting voices.  Ignorance is strength, welcome to our Orwellian world of action on climate change! Stupid pie-in-the-sky dreamers. Oh yes, if only we could have windmills and solar panels everywhere we could be saved from rising seas! Yeah! How stupid do you have to be to believe in that stuff?
    Ben    Melbourne area    January 03, 2014, 2:42PM
I'm surprised The Age has printed this...
Yeah, who should tolerate different points of view, conform!
    Brett G    Healesville    January 03, 2014, 2:52PM
If for a moment one were to accept that the IPCC and the 97% of climate scientist who believe in anthropogenic climate change are all lying then corollary must be why? Please can one of you tin foil hat crazies give me one remotely logical reason that doesn't involve Illuminati like conspiracies?
Wow, bend over and take from your authority: the government. Accept authority now deniers! If you don't choose to conform you will be forced!!
    Curlsaugogo    Melbourne    January 03, 2014, 1:48PM
Do you have any responsibility, do you think, to avoid being misleading when noting an author's "qualifications"? Google scholar appeared to have difficulty locating his "three peer-reviewed articles"
Here's where the wackiness of the left gets bizarre. Why are the peer reviewed articles of John Mclean in quotes? They are either peer reviewed or not. And so what if his papers are peer reviewed?
Is peer review your hallowed club you don't want stained by the taint of skepticism? Science is an adversarial system, you fool! Science is advanced by debate? What the hell? Warmists don't get how science is done.  Warmies: if you don't like the criticism, rebut the points, don't just try to shut down debate! That's weak and dishonest.
Google scholar loads his papers slowly?  Hah, wow that's truly bizarre! So what?!?
..and the International Climate Science Coalition he belongs to, while sounding very impressive, is apparently not important enough to have a listing on Wikipedia.
Wow, I don't know about you, but these points get more convincing with time: not on Wikipedia! Don't listen to them then!
Please, I beg you, have some responsibility in your journalism. Please, I beg you, because some people still trust The Age.

Trust the age? What is so dangerous about alternate points of view? "Trust your newspaper" just means: only hear one point of view. Why should you trust anything on reputation? Unless you're stupid -- warmist stupid.
   Trav   Melbourne  January 03, 2014, 2:02PM
The climate sceptics and AGW deniers are curious people. They're a conservative and fearful bunch on most issues but won't agree to sufficient modification of predatory economic behaviours in the face of established and quantifiable risk of major climate downsides for future generations. Shoring up current wealth and lifestyle is all that appears to matters in their strange heads.
"Modifying predatory behaviour", sounds like a move away from the free market to Marxism.

Actually shoring up our lifestyle and economy is the best way to deal with weather disasters and a changing climate, even if CAGW were true.  Direct action on climate change with such things as solar and wind, is about the worst thing you can do to deal with AGW.
    Seriously    Melbourne    January 03, 2014, 1:54PM
I actually think climate change will be a good thing, if it rids the earth of humans.
Now we see what they really think and are all about: they are anti-human.
There were some good comments, e.g.:
   the trickster    somewhere in the universe  January 03, 2014, 1:34PM
It is very funny reading these comments which slam the author and the ICSC.
Why is it an affront that he should question the IPCC. Any why is it a problem if the Age prints this opinion piece? Indeed he knows more about it that any of the people here commenting, he is after all a author and reviewer for the latest IPCC report.?
The fairfax media has done itself a huge disservice by jumping on the global warming bandwagon over the last few years rather than searching for the truth.
Another comment:
    ningbojoe    Melton South    January 03, 2014, 1:24PM
Give me David Karoly's explanation and expertise any time over these outright Climate deniers!
Yeah that's right! Climate skeptics deny climate itself; there is no climate! Bwah hah.
    Unpaid spinner    January 03, 2014, 2:58PM
How much did you get? I'm looking for an income.
Is a single AGW person payed by Big Oil? Doubt it.
No-one rebuts the fact that the IPCC is setup to find a human-made problem and nothing else.  So...that's what it finds.  Who's really in denial here? I wish I could live in a fantasy land like the warmists.

1 comment:

  1. There's a chance you are eligible for a new government sponsored solar program.
    Click here to find out if you're eligble now!