Sigh….. Stop Doing That You Idiots


Okay, I’m bit disturbed, but not surprised, by the vile intolerant hate demonstrated by the obnoxious same-sex marriage advocates.  They are a particularly vile group of people.  And, by many statements, pretty hypocritical, as well.  This post doesn’t excuse their behavior.  Threatening children’s’ lives, even if one doesn’t mean it, should not be tolerated. 

OTOH, we should be mindful of the uselessness of childrens’ insights.  THEY’RE CHILDREN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

To let readers know what I’m on about, ……

In the past two months, in attempts to offer an argument against same-sex marriage, two children have testified before their state legislators, countering other children who have been testifying for it. The two children testifying against it have either been crudely insulted or received death threats.

Yes, it’s clever to counter the sophist idiots thinking a child has anything useful to say in regards to this matter.  They don’t.  They will parrot what they’ve been told.  But, it isn’t clever enough to justify exposing your children to this vile hate. 

Let’s review.  Children don’t know anything which can possibly contribute to the discussion.  One of the jobs of a parent’s job is to protect their children.  If you don’t want them exposed to threats and insults, stop putting them out in the public discourse.

For one of those girls who gave testimony….

TFP Student Action, a Roman Catholic organization, recorded some of the threats on the YouTube video of Sarah’s speech went viral on homosexual websites. Some of them read:

 If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.

Her parents should be exterminated.

Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

I hope you? get raped by your married parents.—madisonen;

Stupid bi**h – I? hope you die on your Bday!!!!!—geminiboi007;

A dumb way for a dumb bi**h to? do dumb things. Stop talking nonsense that your Christian, Anti-Gay parents are force-feeding you through a thin straw, and learn to accept other people. Now shut up bi**h, before I smack you.—123adbnvcs

It’s always refreshing to see the acceptance of others and tolerance of the pro gay-marriage group. 

Still, we have enough underdeveloped minds in our legislatures already.  We don’t need anymore. 

You can read more here and here

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Sigh….. Stop Doing That You Idiots

  1. Latitude says:

    nut jobs are every where…..

    Where the gays lost the argument….was by letting a handful of radical hate filled nubnuts take over the conversation… it’s turned into something no one wants

  2. Latitude says:

    I’m 100% for gay marriage…but I define marriage as that legal contract two people get at the court house…

    What people do after that, I call a wedding….it can be religious, or not….it can be in the church of your choice, any religion….you can have a wedding or not

    There’s plenty of gay churches out there, and gay friendly churches….where they can do step two….just like anyone else does

    I don’t think it’s fair for two people to put their property, money, savings, jobs, lives, etc together…and not have right of survivorship, health rights, and all that other stuff…. 😉

    Where they’ve lost the argument is letting these nubnuts try to change a religion….even straight people don’t do that….that’s why we have so many different religions….you just go to another church

  3. ThePhDScientist says:

    LOL I love how you take a moment to point out the needle in a haystack when some bible thumpers are harassed but never comment on the daily abuse of gays/lesbians by the bible thumpers. I guess, like the mainstream, media you need to blow up these rare events when you have the limited opportunity to do so! 😉

    • suyts says:

      Ph, I think you missed the point of the post. I was telling the parents of those children to stop doing that. But, as far as that being an isolated incident, it isn’t.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        You didn’t answer my question. Why never any reporting on all of the crimes against gays/lesbians committed by presumably straight God fearing men? Is it because you have a specific one-sided agenda you’re trying to advance.

        For instance I see no mention of the two recent oil spills that we’ve had. Those are pretty huge as they’re likely to throw some very cold water on that fiery Keystone Pipeline. Particularly in light of the fact that our friends in BIG OIL are so inept at being able to cleanup these spills when they do happen. Often taking years…

        • Bruce says:

          PhDS. A couple things. First its quite possible some Christians are human and are as thick as humans tend to be. Christ was very egalitarian, since he’d eat with all kinds of people, even Roman tax collectors. The nerve of the guy!

          It was interesting this morning that an article in our left aligned SMH completely misread the comments of a local conservative pollie. Which they interpreted as a gay slur, when it was criticising the local gay organisations for straight slurs, especially in discriminating against hetero HIV sufferers. In other words people are human, no matter what their political or sexual persuasion. Gays can be just as stupidly insensitive as anyone.

          As to the gay marriage thing, I personally thing the word ‘marriage’ should be removed from the statues so that everyone is equal under secular law. All contracts between people for sex should be just that, a contract under the law We could all then call it whatever we liked (and importantly, pastors could not then be screwed by activists for their personal beliefs). The problem is that copyright on the word marriage is owned by the Christian and other religions, and should not be gazumped by gays to describe a union which is not according to those religious definitions. But I’m happy for them to have the exact same secular rights, just keep their progressive little hands off of our word. (Since Christ is alive its not possible for the copyright to expire, and if you disagree you can amend the legislation…if you can get the votes).

          As to the oil spills, at least one was from Warren Buffett’s rail cars. If Keystone was built you wouldn’t have had it. So now we have the hypocritical situation where the US is railing oil from Canada with additional CO2 emissions due to the relative inefficiency of trains over pipelines, AND resulting in oil spill(s). Exactly the opposite result the anti Keystone types want. Stupid. Why is it that enviros are such complete hypocrites (and I’m especially thinking of the zillions of birds they are killing each year by windmill)?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Bruce: I agree Christians do bad things. My point is those are never pointed out here in Suyts space – I just found that intriguing. It’s important to point out that some people exist in a bit of an echo chamber where they only listen to voices that sound like their own. Remember all that noise about Romney winning the election in a landslide. Why do you think some conservatives were so convinced about that? I’m betting they didn’t read or never believed Nate Silver and other sources that either had Obama up by a lot or had the race very close.

          Now to the gay marriage issue. I’m glad you support the legal argument that the state (federal) can’t discriminate against people in terms of marriage rights/tax treatment etc. But I laugh at your suggestion that Christians own marriage. I’m sure you’re aware marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity. When did you acquire that copy right. Gays and lesbians can get MARRIED. You don’t own the word nor the institution. However, your church can choose who they want to discriminate against in terms of performing the ceremony.

        • Bruce says:

          “However, your church can choose who they want to discriminate against in terms of performing the ceremony.”

          It’d be nice if that were so, but its not. I used to attend a National Trust listed church here in Oz, the pastor had a hard time telling non-Christians that he wouldn’t marry them if they didn’t believe in God. They wanted to be married in a historic sandstone church. I forget if he ever got dragged in front of antidiscrimination commission, but I would not be surprised. Some people just do not want to let people be.

          More recently we’ve seen the hassles in your country about Christian health organisations being required to pay for abortions on demand, or contraception even when it is available cheaply and easily elsewhere (eg RU 486).

          People love to make other people do what they want them to do. That is the essence of sin: power.

          As for ‘marriage’, I did say it was copyright to religions plural. 95 years after death I think your law says. Well God is not dead and I can supply about 4 billion witnesses to any court case. Get your own word for it, boyo.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          God is not alive either Bruce – so he can’t own your fictional copy right! 😉

        • kelly liddle says:

          “My point is those are never pointed out here in Suyts space – I just found that intriguing. It’s important to point out that some people exist in a bit of an echo chamber where they only listen to voices that sound like their own”

          I would dissagree with you here. You and occasionally me and some others do point these out at times. Suyts even though on certain issues is in strong dissagreement with commentors does not censor (so far as I know). Going by some comments made to some others who have just popped by, Suyts actually encouraged them to continue commenting unlike some right or left wing sites which would discourage this or just block it. So keep coming here and commenting however you want. I think for me at least it makes the blog better as I do not like the “echo chamber” as you call it even if on the particular subject I might be in strong dissagreement with you. I think Suyts thinks the same.

        • Bruce says:

          Likewise from me, Kelly. If you are polite you will almost always be allowed to post on right of centre blogs, but the amount of cencorship on left of centre blogs like Huffpo and RC is such that a conversation between different sides is nearly impossible.

          I enjoy discussing things from a right of centre perspective, especially cilmate science, since I can usually skewer left of centre people who do not do their homework. Which in climate science is all of them, given they do not have a good grounding in the data like sceptics do. Because the data does not favour their interpretation. So RC has to censor comments since that is the only way they can control the output of their site – people on their side of politics don’t seem to have what it takes to argue successfully in that space. So the only chance to have such debates is on blogs like Suyts’s. Thanks James!

      • suyts says:

        “Why never any reporting on all of the crimes against gays/lesbians committed by presumably straight God fearing men?”
        Actually Ph, I get very little information regarding such. And, they would not presumably be committed by “God fearing men”, at least in regards to Christian beliefs. It really isn’t a Christian tenet engage in such behavior.

        As to the oil spills, I didn’t get around to checking out the details, but, I’m under the impression that they’re pretty small in scale. But, regardless, there isn’t really much to be done about them. The globe demands oil. There is no viable alternative to oil at this moment. Spills will happen. The nature of oil pretty much makes it a time consuming process.

        Should I vilify people for fulfilling an essential societal need?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          A bit of a cop out excuse. When a Christian commits a crime one can’t claim “well they’re not really Christian because a Christian wouldn’t do that.” What about all those priests raping boys? And really you don’t see anything about gay men/women getting beat up all the time because they’re gay, but you find the few rare instances when a Christian was harassed by supporters of gay marriage? Do you think that’s because what I’m talking about never happens or because you live in a bit of a conservative news media vacuum – somewhat like Fox News?

          No you should point out that are plenty of real risks inherent to oil and that a huge pipeline crossing the country poses substantial risk, especially considering the earlier route passing near a major water table.

        • suyts says:

          “What about all those priests raping boys?”
          Sigh, let me try …….
          Many profess to be Christians. Some are not. As Bruce stated above, even Christians fail. But, you’re drawing from the wrong box and making an illogical inference. Do Christians commit crimes? Well sure. Do they commit crimes because they are Christians? No. Is there anything in the tenets and teaching of Christianity which encourages criminal behavior? Nope, quite the opposite.

          As to the news vacuum…… Ph, we’ve been through this several times. Just look at my posts. A very large percentage of my posts reference left leaning news sources, such as the Huffington post. I do keep a very broad base in my reading material.

          However, not all issues occupy my mind. I didn’t say those things don’t happen. But, I don’t seek them out, either. The only reason I made this post was because I thought the parents of those children were idiotic and needed to be told not to engage in such. That said, it’s impossible to ignore death threats to children because they had the audacity to have an opinion different than what some advocates have. So, I felt compelled to address that, as well. You do agree that death threats, even in on line forums, should be called out, right?

          As to the oil. Bruce, again, beat me to it. There are risks to every thing. What’s riskier and more expensive? Moving oil by pipeline or by rail and truck? Pipelines have a tremendous record when it comes to how much volume has moved through them over a very extended period of time. You may find this hard to believe, but, oil companies don’t like to spill oil anymore than anyone else likes it.

        • cdquarles says:

          Besides, oil spills occur ‘naturally’ 24/7/365.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Or you could just try admitting you only highlight articles that advance your one sided agenda. 😉

        • suyts says:

          LOL, no way!!! In fact, you inspired me! I wrote a post quoting entirely from HuffPo!! International News!!! Luddites Block Infrastructure Upgrade!!! Cause A Couple Of Dead Ducks!!! Don’t worry, I gave you props!! ‘)

          Seriously though, I do write from my perspective. Which, I believe is infinitely better than trying to write from someone else’. OTOH, I’ve yet to see a blog out there that doesn’t present views from one perspective or another. And, I’ve got to pat myself on the back, everyone is welcome to state their views here. There are other blogs and news outfits who regularly engage in some horrid censorship. HuffPo being one of them. So, while I may have a particular slant, (we all do) I’m at least open to the exchange of ideas.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Thank you! I see you used a HuffPo article to mock or make light of an oil spill and to further advance your agenda! Of course you don’t want to admit how long it takes these guys to clean this crap up, in many cases years to decades. This was a relatively small spill, let’s wait for that deep water horizon a.k.a. keystone pipeline.

          How about a story about how Shell was actually given permission to start exploring how to drill in the Arctic. You know because oil companies said “yeah, easy! we got this! no problems drilling in arctic, safe and sound…”

          Umm nope, they’re full o $hit!

    • DirkH says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      April 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm
      “LOL I love how you take a moment to point out the needle in a haystack”

      Two words: Dan Savage.

  4. ThePhDScientist says:

    ■ Nearly half of the crimes, or 47%, were motivated by a racial bias, 21% by sexual orientation bias, 20% by a religious bias, and 12% by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for fewer than 1% of incidents. The breakdown was roughly unchanged from 2010, but there was a slight uptick in incidents involving sexual-orientation bias, pushing it into second place behind racial bias in 2011.

    ■ 4,623 of the incidents were classified as crimes against people; 2,611 were crimes against property.

    ■ The crimes against people included four murders and seven rapes. Nearly half consisted of intimidation; 35% were classified as simple assault; 19% involved aggravated assault.

    ■ More than half of the known offenders, at 59%, were white; 21% were black. The race was unknown for about 11% of the offenders.

    Here’s the full report.

    The FBI says the number of hate crimes reported to police in 2011 fell declined slightly compared with the previous year.

    Nearly half of the reported hate crimes in 2011 were motivated by racial bias, and one of every five hate crimes was motivated by a sexual orientation bias or religious bias. One in five was motivated by bias involving national origin or ethnicity.

    Nearly 60% of the people who allegedly committed hate crimes were white. Some 20% were black.

    The FBI has been collecting information on hate crimes for more than two decades. The highest-recorded number of hate crimes was in 2001, when 9,730 such crimes were reported.

    Law enforcement agencies reported 6,222 hate crimes last year, compared to 6,628 in 2010 and 6,604 in 2009.

    The 2011 FBI report documented 6,222 hate crimes, a 6 percent decrease from 2010 figures and the lowest number of reported hate crimes since 1994.

    Barry Curtiss-Lusher, Anti-Defamation League national chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, issued the following statement:

    “We welcome the decrease in hate crimes reflected in the FBI’s annual HCSA report, now the single most important snapshot of violent bigotry in America.

    “Yet, 6,222 reported hate crimes – about one every 90 minutes of every day – is far too many. The increase in the number of reported hate crimes directed against gays and lesbians, now the second most frequent category of crime, is especially disturbing.It is also troubling that Jews and Jewish institutions continued to be principal targets, accounting for 63 percent of all religion-based hate crimes in 2011 – showing, once again, that anti-Semitism is still a serious and deeply entrenched problem in America.

    • suyts says:

      Ph, I’m never impressed by the words “hate crimes” run together. Does it make it any worse or better regarding the motivation of a crime? Here’s a question for you. Can someone be guilty of a hate crime against straight white males? You know and I know these crimes are never prosecuted as such. So, the numbers are pretty meaningless.

      More than that, we should give this a point of reference. 6,222 reported hate crimes. That sounds pretty awful until you understand we’ve 300,000,000 people in this country. Looks to me like we’ve an awful low hate-crime rate. For 2010 the FBI recorded a total of 10,329,135 crimes.

      Are there nutjobs out there that need locked up? There sure are. Is battery worse if motivated by race than by some personal indifference or dislike?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Wait so there are straight men getting beat up because they look to straight or because they’re holding hands or acting affectionate toward a woman? Please explain!

        • suyts says:

          I can’t comment on that, but, it wouldn’t surprise me to see that in some circles. OTOH, there’s plenty of examples of Caucasians being targeted for crimes based solely on race.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        And yes I do see a pretty big difference in a scenario such as a drunk guy gets in a bar fight with another drunk guy because they’re proving who’s testicles are bigger versus two drunk guys jump and beating up a gay man walking home because they think he looks too gay.

        • suyts says:

          Are those the only two instances of battery? Have you never found yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time? I’ve been attacked for no reason other than I was there.

    • philjourdan says:

      Hate crimes are a useless statistic. Because they are PURELY subjective. IN other words, it is what the DA wants to throw at the perps. In actual fact, all violent crimes are hate crimes. And then your statistics go out the window.

      So have they arrested you yet for your hatred of blacks and homosexuals?

  5. David says:

    PHD, still waiting for your evidence of Christians, as a group representing Christians, committing hate crimes. Still waiting for your evidence of a group of Christian men going out and muggiing gay men. OTOH, I can show you many articles by left leaning papers portraying Christians and conservatives as bigots, race haters, women supressors, etc. I think on Easter Obama visited the church of such a bigot.

  6. David says:

    Personaly, I think each state has the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman if they choose. Saying that is not discrimination, as it applies equally to all people. It is discrimination in a positive use of the word.
    The health of the family unit is indeed the basis of a healthy society. There are intrinisic differences between men and women, and children, only the product of the union between a man and a woman, benefit from the postive attributes of both. Many studies done by groups like focus on the family, have found that children raised in such unions do better then in any other setting, either raised by single parents, or by gay/lesbian couples. Yes, of course, individually you will find exceptions. But a society has the right to promote what it considers to be the best arrangement to have the best chance to bring up happy well adjusted children. The idea of marriage, between a man and a woman, is indeed just that, the promoting of a family relationship which society considers to be the most beneficial for the society, Many studies have confirmed this, as well as systemic problems in gay relationships, particularly between men, which manifest far more often then they do in hetrosexual relationships. Society is not condeming any relationship. It is promoting what it believes, and evidence supports to be, the most healthy family unit.

    • suyts says:

      I think the SC will decide it is a state’s rights issue, but one never knows.

    • Bruce says:

      I should’ve mentioned this too myself. Where you have a steady committed marriage the kids tend to thrive. A hard thing to measure in a double blind study, nevertheless they do. I see it in the families in our church, the kids fight amongst themselves to sit next to Dad! The reverse is often true to. This is from yesterday:

      With Bega killer Leslie Alfred Camilleri, we got only dot-points: No father at home. Dysfunctional mother. On the streets of Kings Cross at 10. Add drugs, and what did you expect from him? Kindness? And what do we expect from so many children now similarly betrayed?

      I am sad that especially amongst African Americans the institution of marriage is failing. So many kids now don’t have a loving family life with a father example and a nurturing mother – sure a mother but harried and poor. People, or society, seems to forget that marriage is a useful economic unit as well as a socially stabilising one. Especially now in the days of Obamacare driven part time jobs.

      • cdquarles says:

        Speaking of that, Marriage, in the Christian sense, survived slavery; but didn’t survive the welfare state. Think on that a minute and add in the eugenics aspect of the ‘secular’ religious left.

        • Bruce says:

          Sort of. My slave owning great-to-the-fifth grandfather ‘married’ my great-5 grandmother, who was one of his slaves. There is no marriage certificate. I suspect social pressuure was more important than it is now, so they were regarded as ‘married’. Happily by the accounts, they had 7 or 8 children.

          Slightly ironically I have more African slave heritage than Obama. Which is not bad for an Aussie.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Actually Bruce according to HuffPo and the US census Bureau caucasians are getting divorced nearly as much as African Americans. And if kids thrive in a steady committed marriage shouldn’t we want to encourage this amongst gay couples? Even better if the gay couples can’t have their own children – there’s truck loads of children, born from heterosexuals, who are waiting for a permanent home.

        • suyts says:

          Well, sadly, I think it’s gotten to the point where many African Americans just don’t marry much anymore, so their divorce rate would be lower than otherwise.

          28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.

          You can see it broke down here….

          28% is way too high. 72% is mind-boggling. .

        • Bruce says:

          PhDS – African Americans aren’t bothering to marry in the first place, so that statistic is less meaningful than it otherwise might be. About 70% of African American children are born to unmarried mothers.

          I do suspect the Caucasians will catch up once they ditch their quaint attachment to religion and embrace the ultimate philosophy of progressive socialism. (I could be being slightly ironic here.)

    • ThePhDScientist says:

      LOL Focus on the family funded studies are what you use to justify bigotry. David let me give you a little hint about how to assess a scientific study. First look and see who’s funding/commissioning it. If Marlboro tells you smoking doesn’t cause cancer, do you believe them?

      Your studies are purely wishful thinking, or more accurately they’re crap studies attempting to advance a conservative political agenda. Non-biased studies from the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association have found ZERO evidence that kids raised by gay or lesbian couples have any worse out comes than kids raised by two straight parents. And in many cases these kids do better than those raised by a single mother.

      Stop getting your science from conservative websites. It’s pathetic…

      • suyts says:

        LOL, just as good as the science you’re quoting. You’re going to tell me the APA and the AMA conducted “science” for their findings? Tell me, how good can their studies be? We’re talking outcomes of children raised by homosexuals vs straight. What representation could we possibly have for the children raised by homosexuals?

        So, let’s calculate. At what point could we determine that the child raised by the homosexuals reached the age we designate as “outcome” age? 20 y/o seems pretty young. 30 y/o? Maybe. How many openly gay couples were raising children in 1983? Do you think this can in anyway be representative of what would happen today? But, probably we should designate the age to about 50 y/o. If we determine outcome by financial success, home life, education, careers, criminal past, drug use, etc….. Well, now we’re back into the 60s. So what did the APA and the AMA do? Track down the whole dozen or so kids raised by openly gay couples from the 60s and made a determination from that?

        Of course, then there’s the problem with determining what is representative of children raised by straight people, and single vs couples for both sets….. From that we can absolutely know there were an abundance of subjective choices that probably deserve a lot of scrutiny before anyone starts quoting any of that work.

        Maybe conservative websites know a bit about science.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          LOL. Oh no you’re not going into crazy territory are you? Where the APA and AMA have gay agenda to advance?

          No conservatives only know how to subvert science and how to lamely argue that the main stream media and scientific establishment are somehow biased against them.

          The argument that the focus on the family study is as good as APA or AMA commissioned and conducted studies are laughable at best! BTW We can determine outcomes with relatively small sample size, you’ve heard of statistical power – it’s not that hard to calculate.

          Furthermore one is not required to simply wait 50 years to look at outcomes. That’s a ridiculous notion. We can study kids at all age levels and find out their performance and well being over short periods and see how it compares to kids being raised by straight parents (the mythical ideal for conservative thumpers). We can follow these kids over time to see if after doing well throughout childhood that they magically go crazy at 21, 30, 40 because of those oh so negative effects of being raised by loving gay parents!

          OH SO SILLY! I can’t even type it without laughing!

        • suyts says:

          I guess we’re even then. I’m quietly giggling at the notion that you think people can know the outcomes of people without actually, well, looking at their outcomes. So, did they just have a good feeling about them? Read their palms? Feel for the lumps on their heads?

          And no, I wasn’t ascribing an agenda to those groups, just noting the shoddy state of science isn’t confined to climate. Emphatic statements based on intuition. Beautiful.

        • philjourdan says:

          Interesting, so “subverting” science is now defined as using the scientific method. I wonder what the next revelation will be. That one must PROVE the null hypothesis in order to DISPROVE a flaky hypothesis? Seems like a natural extension.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          No Dirk there’s a scientific consensus among scientists that citing anti-gay studies performed by a vocal anti-gay group is probably not reliable.

          If conservative science wannabes can’t understand that, it only proves to further my point about their commitment to advancing a political agenda (not to actually looking for good science).

          Conservative science is merely a tool to combat real science. You can’t argue data with emotional bible-based appeals so you’ve got to make up your own data with groups like focus on the family. Unfortunately it’s all bull-$hit science and every real scientist knows it! If it wasn’t so insidious we’d all be laughing more about it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry phd, there is no “conservative” science. There is science, and then there is “liberal pseudo science”. The talking points talk about a “conservative” science because they cannot stand the thought that some people actually do real science. instead of using mass hysteria to further a cause with absolutely no proof of that cause. But it is a fast way to make a buck (Algore) or extort more money from the sheep (carbon taxes).

          On another note, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that phd disappeared after the election (campaign staff let go) and reappears when Obama ramps up his election campaign again (purportedly to advance his agenda despite the lack of evidence it does a diddly damn)?

          Give it to phd! He is a very ethical bot. He will not work if not paid.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Philly boy take a science class first and then I might listen to you. You know nothing of the scientific method – proven by your words time and again. You’re a goofy shill for conservative science and it’s sole mission of advancing a political agenda without answering any scientific questions – a bit like climate science denialism, eh!?! 😉

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry, phd, but I am a scientist. and have probably had more science classes than you. At least the evidence of your writing clearly indicates that I have. That you think there is something called “conservative science” shows that if you have had any classes, you have long forgotten their content. Or flunked them. You can tell us which it is.

          And while you continue to play your childish word games, they do not reflect any level of maturity on your part. But then I do not guess your handlers are smart enough to pay for quality trolling.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          BTW Phil some people have jobs and thus we can’t blog all day! But thanks for the warm welcome back 😀

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes, some people do have jobs. And then there is you. So you are either saying you had no job before the election, and then had one for a few months afterwards, or that trolling is your job (which is the same thing I said).

          You do not think before you post do you?

      • Bruce says:

        “First look and see who’s funding/commissioning it.”

        Well that does for CAGW then. Overwhelmingly CAGW researchers are funded by lefty governments and cashed up NGO’s like WWF and Greenpeace. David Karoly has been in the news here in Oz this week (he was a coauthor of the Gergis et al hockey stick paper). And don’tcha know he is a WWF aligned IPCC lead author. So amazingly amazing. And then there is our Tim-the-coprolite-expert Flannery, who is a Climate Commissioner on $195,000 a year for 3 days a week of extreme effort. The Opposition Leader today noted this:

        Abbott forecasts Flannery job loss

        “When the carbon tax goes, all of those bureaucracies will go and I suspect we might find that the particular position you refer to goes with them,” he told broadcaster Ray Hadley.

        “It does sound like an unnecessary position given that the gentleman in question gives us the benefit of his views without needing taxpayer funding,” Mr Abbott said.

        I suspect that Mr Abbott’s prediction will be a whole lot more accurate than any of Prof Flannery’s have been.

  7. Pingback: They Should Have Asked Suyts First ….. Idiots | suyts space

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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