Torturing The Aussie Alarmists With Suyts Space

 

I had a bit of fun yesterday and this morning, and I thought I’d share with the readers here.  As I’ve shared before, I often read the Australian blog, “The Conversation”.  I  believe it is mostly for academics.  In the climate concern with very little interaction with skeptics, it’s typically a circle jerk of reaffirmation and a love fest for alarmists and great thoughts and comments like “deniers suck!” or something equally banal.  Well, I ran across this wonderful topic of conversation…….

Are Heartland billboards the beginning of the end for climate denial?

Given the comment thread at WUWT on the same topic, I thought I’d pop over and see what they were stating.  I wasn’t disappointed.  The post was as vacant as the premise expressed in the headline.  The content held most of the memes we’re all familiar with.  It was fascinating.  After the ad homs and absurd posits, I was able to actually engage in some of the science behind the climate change alarmism.  And, this, to me, was the interesting part. 

Nearly all of the “science” and issues discussed, I was able to reference the posts here!  I was surprised (though I’m not sure why) that they were in denial of the fossil fuel industry assisting alarmists…… Idiot Nat Gas Industry Fears Monster They Fed May Turn Against Them!!!  They also don’t seem to understand that their advocacy doesn’t effect the oil industry.  They seem to equate it with coal….. I’m not sure why, and apparently, neither are they. 

They also seemed entirely oblivious to the fact that their advocacy had led to the murder and displacement of many people. By their fruit you will recognize them.

The resiliency of our corals was a topic….. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/another-global-warming-icon-biting-the-dust/ and https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/australian-marine-scientists-discover-adaptability/ .  As was Mikey’s hockey stick.   Dividing by zero  Brain Surgeon Was His First Choice (among others) 

Polar bears were brought up Polar Bear Population Reducing?  Canadian Calls BS On Polar Bear “Doom And Gloom” and the accompanying ice extent issue.   Why Reporters Don’t Add Their Name And How To Lose All Credibility In Less Than Two Paragraphs 

I brought up the continual need to alter our historical data sets.   This Isn’t About The Climate

One thing I did learn, I do need to somehow find a way for easier reference.  The great part of this was, after supplying links, I wasn’t challenged on the information(so far).  The reason, in part, I believe, is the simple perspective I regard the various issues.  For example, compare my challenges to Mann’s hockey stick with Steve Macs.  Many get lost in Steve’s arguments.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad he does, (or did, I understand he intends to slow down on his blogging) but, mine doesn’t get mired or entangled in obscure statistical techniques.  Or, when we show that earth’s total ice extent has hardly moved from the mean.  There isn’t much to argue.  It leaves them to twist themselves into knots trying to run from the facts.  It was a lot of fun, but a bit melancholy.  If the alarmist twits don’t come up with something new, I’m going to be hard pressed to find something about our climate to write.  Well, I’m sure some bit of insipid stupidity will raise it’s head. 

Of course, none of that would have been possible had it not been for the readers and commenters here.  The clear logic and focus used by the readers and commenters is what shapes this particular style.  At any rate, I wanted to thank you guys and gals for this.  It was exactly what I needed to get back into the swing of things.  Smile

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Torturing The Aussie Alarmists With Suyts Space

  1. D. King says:

    “If the alarmist twits don’t come up with something new, I’m going to be hard pressed to find something about our climate to write.”

    Fear not James.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792

    • suyts says:

      Lol, yeh, I’ve seen that one…. I had set to write a post about it, but everyone else had already done so. So, I passed on it. Hilarious though. They say the lifespan of methane is 8 – 13 years, but I don’t think it lasts that long.

  2. DaveG says:

    James you have a great website that I always look forward too.
    A few points.
    The Heartland mistake is a storm in a teacup. The Alarmist are on the run, the Aussy government is in free fall over it’s green /Co2 agenda. Country’s and citizens around the world are preoccupied with survival, jobs and stability. The global warming /UN /EU/Democrats/Obama socialist have pushed their agenda to hard, to far and to long,(I can’t hear you) only their shrinking base is listening/ reading poorly visited Gloom and Doom websites. It’s an uphill battle but we skeptics and believers in free enterprise are winning. Sadly it takes a worldwide financial fiasco to bring it home to most people!

    • suyts says:

      Thanks Dave! Those are some kind words, but, again, I think it’s this way, in large part, because of the readers and commenters.

      You’re right, it took a recession to snap some people to their senses. And, yeh, HI’s billboard ad is easily defended.

  3. Latitude says:

    Well swing some of those things this way…….I’m loosing my head of steam!

    • suyts says:

      Hang in there….. they can’t ….. well, I used to say they can’t eat you, then along came Jeff Dahmer….. so I guess technically they can now, but you get the idea. 😀

      • Latitude says:

        jeezze….don’t let my sister in law see this!!!!!!!!

        • miked1947 says:

          ROFLMAO!
          Send wifey this way. she will not be sane after having an afternoon chat with yours truly.
          Sister-in- laws can also be handled if you have the experience.
          I just happened to have her e-mail address and I will send her a link to this thread. 😉

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Nicely done Suyts!

    I find the same thing – if you can readily link or cite to science it silences quite a few of the noisiest. Linking to scientific papers is best because they will often reject links to well-known sceptical blogs out of hand (and you don’t want to let them get away – you want to rub their noses in the science).

    Beware though of the SkS and Tamino quoters, since they will link to a post on one of those (rarely now do I see them link RC) and use that as a ‘proof’. That makes more work, since you have then to go read the Tamino post and pull it apart. Which is usually easy to do, but it takes time and effort. The plus with investing this time is then their argument is completely overturned and they either slope off in a sulk or resort to ad hom sniping. Either way the other readers of the blog quickly get the message who is being scientific and who is the dogmatic political activist.

    But I still won’t go near the Conversation, our academia was infuriating 30 years ago (which is why I went into industry) and I still can’t stand it. We all have our limits…

    • suyts says:

      Indeed, today, our friends at the Conversation have chosen the ad hom route. Which is fine. Any objective observer understands the argument is over when they resort to name calling and such.

      And true, I can only take them in small increments.

    • miked1947 says:

      Bruce:
      I found it easier just to mock their use of those web sites. Air Head Foster is almost easier to mock than SS. I do not use the “K” because that is not a proper acronym for their name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s