is that my simply pointing out the taunts, namecalling, and general nastiness directed at me, (in response to my simply stating an opinion or belief free of invective),

by noting the irony of the “tolerance” the left claims to uphold,

is viewed as “trolling”.

In other words, I’m not permitted to state my views in the first place,

and if I point out the intolerant ridicule,

others, and most notably Paul Wells, calls me a “cry baby.”

Sorry Paul, I won’t allow bully tactics and mischaracterizations (pointing out intolerance isn’t “crying”), to disuade my thinking.

Paul Wells,

today’s tolerant progressive media,

shouting down, and name calling, one dissenter at a time.

My goodnes, how…………..pursuasive.

Your lefty friends here will eat it up of course.

But in the end, base name calling and smearing, does nothing but reflect very, very poorly on you.

Indeed, I predict that, having let your emotions get the better of you,

you regret writing that comment. Not for any high minded reason of it being wrong or anything like that. But for the base, self interested reason that calling someone a “cry baby” smacks of school yard taunting.

I’ve come full circle on kody, whom I now understand as a great artist working in a demanding medium. In terms of the risks he’s willing to run with his talent, I would compare him to Tristan Tzara.

For a while, though, and even on this thread, he was ending every comment with “I give you today’s progressive tolerant left.” If that’s not trolling, what is? It’s true he seldom attacks one personally — he writes more in sorrow than in anger — but, for those who deny Dada, that can seem like a pose, given how vehement he is.

Also, he didn’t respond to my poem, which he requested. Not innovative enough. Perhaps if I recited it while tied up in a sack inside a trunk . . .

He’s not sycophantic enough and that seems to be where the problem lies.

But to PW’s credit, he still let’s him phone in, which is a good thing.

Personally, and apparently contrary to many readers here, I wish we’d hear from him more often, he seems to have cut back on his posting quite a bit lately.

He’s not sycophantic enough and that seems to be where the problem lies.

But to PW’s credit, he still let’s him phone in, which is a good thing.

Personally, and apparently contrary to many readers here, I wish we’d hear from him more often, he seems to have cut back on his posting quite a bit lately.

Get a life. Teach your children to respect all things. Get off this mass consumption threadmill and see what really counts. Then come back and see if you have anything to say for yourself.

Of course China has to be included, should always have been included and the U.S. leadership understands this, the Conservative leadership has always understood that as well.

I most certainly call hypocrisy on the Tories for feeling they need to embrace the global-warming-oops-let’s-cover-our-butts-and-call-it-climate-change-instead religion. They learned from the Chretien/Martin masters on this, but it is no less worthy of defence. “Talk a good game and do nothing” has been the bipartisan Canadian plan since a ways back. And that has mirrored the hypocritical mood of the country. The alleged concern for allegedly disappearing icecaps has been easily dwarfed by the howls of outrage when the prices at the gas pumps skyrocketed.

Personally, not yet a full-patch member of Gore’s cult, I would be far happier with the Tories saying “the science is nowhere near proven on global warming, but let’s be more efficient and pollute less and have cleaner air anyways.” I can imagine the howls from all the “proper and correct” know-it-all crowd, and I can imagine the political hit for being honest (I suspect “talk a good game and do nothing” is the Canadian population’s desired strategy), but I for one would appreciate the honesty.

I think Wells is focusing on the number of posts, not the content. But on the other hand, there are others who post a lot more comments than he does.

What the heck, I don’t know what Wells means exactly, it’s hard to tell what “Poor little cowardly anonymous troll baby” is supposed to mean.

The one short point I will make, is that computer models are no substitute for real science, and in reality the only real non-correlative evidence there is for the AGW proponents is computer models.

Or even better, just check out what was written by John Theon, one of us crazy skeptics.

I find it hilarious that those people that claim to be free thinkers are the ones who try to paint the skeptics as lunatics. The free-thinkers are in reality the bandwagon-jumpers.

But you don’t need a Harperite to figure things out. The Harper government put out the clean-air environmental bill soon after they were elected the first time. It was lambasted by the opposition because it was not a Kyoto bill.

It’s not necessarily politically incorrect domestically or environmentally, polls show that a large percentage of people, maybe half, do not want Kyoto bills or the like. But in a minority, you gotta get support from the opposition as well.

Without the votes in the House, what can you do? You go back and try to write another environmental bill, the one you did not want to write the first time, but you don’t want to stop writing environmental bills altogether, so you try to find something that the opposition and the government can both support. Despite that, the opposition sneaks in a bill that tries to ram Kyoto down your throat anyway, even though the opposition is not supposed to table spending bills.

Whatcha gonna do?

1. Global Warming isn’t happening
2. Is it happening, but it’s not anthropogenic.
3. It’s anthropogenic, but it’s no big deal
4. It’s a big deal, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
5. We can do something about it, but it’ll be too expensive.
6. It’ll be less expensive than doing nothing, but the shift should be market driven.
7. The market has failed, so this isn’t the time to do anything.

Maybe Kody and Jarrid’s official position is that the Harper government really doesn’t believe Global Warming is real, but to say so would be politically incorrect both internationally and domestically… so that’s why they give them a pass.

(It wouldn’t surprise me one bit actually if that was the unofficial view of the Harperites. This government’s ideological leanings, like their recently departed Bush allies, heaps scorn on actual science and facts and research that doesn’t jive with their personal beliefs).

This is not the business community, where every little event or finding is spun positively as “progress” to extract more money from shareholders and investors.

So tell me, sf, can you give me factual evidence that backs up the following claims you’ve made:
1. There are likely more scientists that do not believe AGW theory than those that believe.
2. empirical evidence is not there
3. mountain of conjectures

Irony, that.

Austin

And here you are, still waving it around like it’s gospel.

Inhofe’s master work of bullshit is just like the “analysis” produced by Intelligent Design Creationist “scientists”: it exists to feed people like you what you want to hear, so that you’ll go around spreading the bullshit like so many poisonous seeds.

Grow up kody – apply just a tiny bit of skepticism to things that tell you what you want to hear. Stop being used by people with an agenda and think for yourself.

Eg. kody’s like to the story about James Hansen’s boss. See here for enough debunking to throw its credibility into serious question: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

Took me 8 seconds using a tool called “Google”.

This is why I call the anti-global warming people “deniers”, not “skeptics”. An actual skeptic would hold their own sources to a higher standard than this. Deniers just glom onto stories that tell them what they want to hear. Not surprisingly, deniers are almost universally conservatives – I think this trait is a necessity for both.

All I can say is that he and Jarrid clearly have pretty big bones to pick with the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, in which three successive environment ministers of progressively increasing political clout have sworn up and down their belief in the climate science kody has mustered all the awesome powers of Google to refute.

Let me put that in one- and two- syllable words, in the doomed hope that kody will get my point: if you don’t believe climate science then your fight is with Stephen Harper. Have at ‘er, babe.

Here’s John Baird:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/02/canada-climate-070202.html

And here’s the Prime Minister of all the Canadians:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1681

Now if I were an anonymous coward with endless hours to spare filling up the comment boards of a blog and then whining when people complained about it, I might decide that now is an excellent time to shift gears and say that the REAL problem is that the Harper government gets castigated for doing nothing on climate change while the Chrétien and Martin governments were cheered even though they did nothing on climate change. Unfortunately for kody’s profoundly hypertrophied martyr complex, if he tries that around here, he’ll get pointed to the half chapter I wrote in Right Side Up that makes precisely that point in excruciating detail.

I’m done, kody. Come on back here and cry like the little baby you are.

The fortunate thing is, the truth will come out, as it has been coming out the past 10 years while warming has not been occuring.

Touché!

You forgot the…LIES!

…that one’s for the Kodster.

The most straight-up, honest question I can think of and — zilch. You denialists really don’t have a leg to stand on, just links to wacko sites, misquotations, and “Al Gore sucks.” It’s almost like you deserve to be treated like . . . clowns, genus scary.

Way

too

funny.