Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 29 - Harry Kevin
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Apr 29 - Gorgia
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (75)
I still find it surprising that obviously intelligent commenters on here still politely try to engage with Zed'sDeadHead although it must be absolutely obvious that the only reason she shows up on here pretty much on a daily basis (and even managing to be first commenter) is to irritate, nit pick, send debate off topic and vomit out the most pathetic and unpleasant drivel. She barefacedly admits (above) to using various ISPs and aliases.
It is quite clear that she is not only incapable but completely resistant to any logical argument. Indeed you would be more likely to get the Pope to admit that the concept of immaculate conception posed some scientific and logical difficulties.
Other blogs have their share of annoying trolls. WUWT has some warmists who occasionally drop in and who at least make intelligent and even credible comments, even if you disagree. (R.Gates and Joel Shore for two.)
The next time Zed'sDeadHead make an intelligent comment will be a first. So why does she come on here to sneer and mislead quite so often? Most of us check out Real Climate and Climate Progress from time to time. But commenting almost every day and several times? I doubt it.
Most likely she is signed up as one of the Great Moonbat's rapid response team and gets extra Brownie points every time she posts.
Contemptible.
@Jun 7, 2011 at 7:48 PM | simpleseekeraftertruth
"Take Caroline Lucas (please) at the hay festival where she called for a return to a more simple life when we made do with old clothes, shared baths and grew our own vegetables and stated “we need to stop writing books and get on with it!”"
Its a hairshirt thing with added zealots.
Nastier, I'm afraid.
The Khlima Rouge at work.
Martin
Khlima Vert?
Khlima Pastèques, perhaps
Martin Brumby +1
Don't feed the Troll, this is from a past feeder but now I know better ;) .
Martin Brumby was she making this call in-between flying off around the world to attend green conferences or events ? Of course when she said 'we' and really meant 'you', for the green leaders its always 'different'
@ Stonyground - the graph is very well supported from the Vostok ice core data, though the previous 4 interglacials tended to be every c. 120k rather than every 90k. And they tended to be of much shorter duration that the one we have been fortunate enough to enjoy':
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png
source page - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Interesting comment about cloud cover for the time - 10% increase could start an ice age. It wasn't until the very end of the nineties that it was reasonably clear that cumulous clouds had a net cooling effect.It is the formation of these clouds that Svensmark's work investigates: it is the increase in cosmic rays that can cause ice ages. CO2 has, as usual, nothing much to do with it.
Martin Brumby
"Indeed you would be more likely to get the Pope to admit that the concept of immaculate conception posed some scientific and logical difficulties."
Sorry to nitpick, but I think you mean the virgin birth? The doctrine of the immaculate conception is the belief that the virgin Mary was herself conceived without 'original sin', but otherwise 'in the usual way'.
However maybe Caroline Lucas thinks she was similarly born quite free from the sin that troubles the rest of us poor mortals?
I think we should all appreciate ZBD's postings because she (a consensus opinion) demonstrates the mental capabilities of those who champion global warming and all that sort of crap.
It is no wonder that the Chinese mandarins are clamping down on democracy in China. Sad, but I do see their point.
ZED
May I respectfully suggest thst you are wasting your valuable time commenting on this blog.
We denzines of the afterworld will not change earth's history.
A greater cause is calling you.
That is the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC which is now in development.
Those foolish IPCC people whare are currently in charge, are attempting, once again I might add, to "prove that CO2 emissions raise the temperature of the good earth.
Now I see you know much better.
and that, really and truly that CO2 emissions will hasen and deepen the horrible snowball earth thing that is almost upon us, as we uselessly sit around and engage in pointless chatter and arguement.
Run along girl.
Your destiny awaits you.
Run along, there's a good girlee, while we get on and put the wrongs of the world to right.
Or at least, help to straighten out the thinking of a few crazed politicians before they destroy the wealth of nations that has taken many generationd to develop.
Les Johnson
It's pretty easy to do at any level, but that is the most comprehensive pasting I have ever seen dished out to ZBD. I presume she is now in "stunned mullet" phase, which explains her lack of keyboard activity since your intervention.
BTW - some very interesting references.
Khlima Rouge -> Khlima Vert -> Khlima Pasteques...
One of the fault lines between warmists and sceptics is in wit and humour. Yer average warmist is so gadawful joyless and po-faced. The earlier Klima exchange was so funny that I emitted an involuntary hoot of pleasure, attracting some funny looks from my family. Brilliant stuff guys. (For any non-francophones reading, pasteque = watermelon...... gerrit?!)
As for the sub-debate over ZDB'sright to voice her views on this forum, well I say that she should be made welcome. The wicked warmists have - admit it - been very successful in hijacking government policy. Baroness Worthington (of 10:10 No Pressure fame) in the House of Lords? I could cry. Ministry of Energy and Climate Change? At least Ministry of Funny Walks was just a joke, funny for its juvenile inconruity. Germany to abolish nuclear power? Oh, woe. The greenshirts are no longer a loony fringe worthy of derision: they've arrived and they're right in the establishment.
Zedsdeadbed is a useful specimen. Understand how her mind works and useful clues may emerge on how to undo their stunningly successful propaganda campaign.
Zed, would you take issue with any of the following? (a) Covering Britain's beaty spots with windmills is a price worth paying. (b) Manufacturing industry: downsize it in favour of green jobs. (c) Reduce Britain's carbon footprint by 80%: sets a good example to BRIC countries. (d) The science is settled, and sceptics should be suppressed (e) Cooling since 1998 is merely a pause: new records will be set and even another cool decade or three won't invalidate the upward trend (f) energy price hikes hitting the less-well-off disproportionately is ultimately in their interest (g) UK's energy security is secondary to the need for carbon reduction.
I agree with the Don Pablo. Let the zebedees of this world post away. It is the best chance to observe the mindset (I use the term "mind" very loosely) of such ubergreens as Bryony Worthington, Fiona Armstrong and Caroline Lucas.
All are full of dangerous and vacuous nonsense.
Organic Bean Sprouts?
Biogas?
http://notrickszone.com/2011/06/05/germanys-biogas-bhopal-deadly-e-coli-house-made-says-expert/
At least the Khlima Rouge is more civilised than their precedents, the Khmer Rouge.
And it is less effort, I guess, than chopping up the peasants with pickaxes.
But still mired in the same faecal material, I fear.
Jun 8, 2011 at 5:28 AM | Brent Hargreaves
Brent, do you actually expect Zebedee to even try to answer your questions above?
It NEVER answers any questions put here by commenters but just carries on in disturbing the normal run of intelligent conversations for which the Bishop's blog is renowned.
Once a troll, always a troll.
Peter Walsh
What this film does more than anything is to demonstrate how easy it is to convince yourself (and others) of something by starting with the theory and then looking for the evidence.
Reminds of an example in Lomoborg's Skeptical Environmentalist book.
Peter, maybe you're right and it's pointless to debate Global Warming with a True Believer. But we're losing. The globe ain't warming; the IPCC is as bent as a nine bob note; the peer review process has descended into groupthink and suspended scientific method; the public are bored with the whole apocalyptic hoohaa. And yet.... despite the spectacular wrongness of Global Warmism, the bad guys are winning. It's a sickening triumph of lobbying and propaganda. How has such irrational bovine faecal matter taken over the cabinet's stance?
Philip Bratby writes of dangerous and vacuous nonsense. Correct. Normally we can dismiss the vacuous; not this time. I say that we must now concentrate on psychology. What drives these people? Are they sincere in their wrongheadedness, or cynically exploiting what they know to be a scare story? Can the sceptics mimic their lobbying techniques and combat the Worthington/Lucas/Armstrong team?
Here on Bishop Hill, and over on WUWT, we revel in how sane we are and how irrational the Warmists. But we concentrate so much on the facts and the physics that we're overlooking the politics, the spin, the well oiled machine that the uebergreens are running.
First understand your enemy and then destroy him.
Is it just me but the video says not available?
Lynn, works for me, you can try going to Youtube site direct and searching for
Stopping the coming ice age
If that does not work then maybe your ISP is blocking Youtube for traffic reasons.
Thanks!
It was just me, well my iPad to be precise. works on my mac.
A bit off topic -- this is about global warming -- but when I found this this morning I had to laugh.
from The Reg: FARTING DEATH CAMELS MUST DIE to save the world!
The scary thing is someone is actually serious about this. Next will be the beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, fish in the ocean and finally, us.
I think that some of the criticism of Zed is over the top. Zed often makes points that deserve a considered response. Unfortunately some people give scepticism a bad name. Recently I read somewhere that climatologists supporting the theory of AGW in Australia had received death threats. Such behaviour is utterly disgraceful.
If sceptics respond to Zed and those who share his/her opinions with abuse, how on earth do they expect politicians and orthodox climatologists to give serious consideration to sceptical questions?
Roy: your
I think that some of the criticism of Zed is over the top.
I trust you are not including me in this supposed group. My responses to her were measured and factual.
Recently I read somewhere that climatologists supporting the theory of AGW in Australia had received death threats. </I>
I totally agree. The allegations of course, are overblown and hyped. You were aware that an investigation HAS NOT been started by police, as they have not been asked by the involved scientists? Are you are also aware that investigation by ABC showed that only two; count em, two; threats have been received. One was nearly 5 years ago, and the other a year or more back, and delivered in person. For comparison, this is the equivalent to one Joe Romm blog; or one e-mail from Ben Santer; or one column from Richard Glover.
Have you also condemned these men for their words?
For clarity, this is a repost:
Roy: your
I think that some of the criticism of Zed is over the top.
I trust you are not including me in this supposed group. My responses to her were measured and factual.
Recently I read somewhere that climatologists supporting the theory of AGW in Australia had received death threats.
I totally agree. The allegations of course, are overblown and hyped. You were aware that an investigation HAS NOT been started by police, as they have not been asked by the involved scientists? Are you are also aware that investigation by ABC showed that only two; count em, two; threats have been received. One was nearly 5 years ago, and the other a year or more back, and delivered in person. For comparison, this is the equivalent to one Joe Romm blog; or one e-mail from Ben Santer; or one column from Richard Glover.
Have you also condemned these men for their words?