Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Cock



I shouldn't let this cunt make me angry, but he does.

This bloke is a climate change sceptic. He refutes the position of the vast majority of climate scientists who agree that the earth is warming, and that it is caused my man. Apparently it's some sort of conspiracy by communists.

Incidentally, he's not a climate scientist. Instead, he's a quack.

He's entitled to his opinion, however misguided - in my opinion - it is. So, actually, it's his followers that annoy me (e.g. the hundred 'retirees' that attended his South Yarra speech). If 99% of scientists agree on something, based on sound, logical investigation and analysis, then that's what evidence is.

49 comments:

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

The same Lord Monckton The Mad Monk has has just agreed to meet?

Sweet Jesus!

Alex said...

Wasn't Nick Minchin spouting off about global warming being a communist conspiracy on 4-Corners last year? I wonder if there's a connection?

I liked this bit:

He described government attempts to tackle climate change as ''a plot by the rich against the poor'' that would ''kill 5 billion, 6 billion people''.

So, wealthy communists are plotting to wipe out most of the people on Earth? I wonder what they hope to gain?

Though not a climate scientist, he said he had uncovered flaws through his understanding of mathematics - ''the language of science''.

I wish they'd elaborated on that one. Then again, who am I to question someone who's invented a drug that can cure HIV, multiple sclerosis and who knows what else.

patchouligirl said...

A few close friends and family are climate change sceptics and there have been some heated debates over it. One of them quotes Ian Plimer frequently and another is excited that Lord Monckton is in town.

Like most folks I don't have all the scientific facts at my disposal but it seems simple that unless these sceptics are 100% certain that they are right (and they can't be) we have to reduce carbon emissions because if they are wrong it will pretty much be the end of everything. Not a gamble we should take really, regardless of the price. In 'an inconvenient truth' the carbon in Earth's atmosphere was shown (I think) to be over any other levels in the last 65 000 years so its pretty serious. Has anyone here not seen 'an inconvenient truth'?

Mr E Discharge said...

That fucking lunatic just finished a tour of the talk show circuit in the US in the leadup to Copenhagen.

The story then was that the Copenhagen Conference was organised by the Bilderberg Group to sign an international treaty ushering in new World Government. And guess what? It didn't happen.

I saw him interviewed on the Glenn Beck Show and they treeted him like an idiot. How fucked up do you have to be when even Glenn Beck thinks you're a whackjob?

Having a peerage certainly open doors. pity it's not a trap door.

CuntCunt!

Alex said...

I tend to think there's a bit of a difference between being sceptical about something and espousing conspiracy theories and quackery.

Sometimes I wonder how cynical some of these people are. After all, most of them have something to sell, don't they?

RandomGit said...

Did you watch the interview video from that link? What a patronising, parochial twat! I could swear I could see the laser scar from his "Born To Rule" tattoo removal.

kitten said...

"If 99% of scientists agree on something, based on sound, logical investigation and analysis, then that's what evidence is"

I would agree. However, in the case of climate change evidence there appears to be very little sound, logical investigation and analysis.

It has been shown now that there has been data manipulation, straight out lies, and serious mistakes. Data that should be analysed by other scientists has conveniently been "lost". UN reports that people are relying on have been proven to contain incorrect and overstated conclusions. People have been instructed to make things up to support conclusions.

There hasn't been any "reasoned" debate, one side has presented its argument and anyone who disagrees or questions it is shouted down and labelled in a denigating manner.

The job of science is to prove or disprove all the evidence. That involves asking questions and proposing alternative theories to test, and either prove or disprove those alternatives. If people are prevented from getting access to, discussing, or analysing the "evidence" for political convenience and expediency, then you cannot rely on that evidence to sustain a single, one-sided argument.

kitten said...

And what kind of an idiot relies on a Hollywood movie to get their facts on climate change? I mean really!

For the record, a UK court has ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contains nine "statements unsupported by mainstream scientific consensus" and that to show the movie in schools without pointing out the serious errors in it would constitute a breach of the UK Education Act.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Kitten, the vast majority of the body of scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change. The only talking point is the extent to which humans are responsible.

To deny this is to willfully deny the overwhelming body of evidence.

As the English columnist Olive Kamm puts it;

"There is a principle at stake in debate with conspiracy theorists. I'd call it the principle of tolerant disrespect. Even the most pernicious of conspiracy theorists, namely Holocaust deniers, should be tolerated in the sense of having their freedom of speech and publication defended. But no one is entitled to a presumption of respect. I don't bestow respect on the conspiracy theorists, because they haven't earned it."

Lord Monckton is a crackpot.

Lewd Bob said...

in the case of climate change evidence there appears to be very little sound, logical investigation and analysis

What utter bollocks.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

there appears to be very little sound, logical investigation and analysis

Rather like Kitten's posts, when you come to think of it.

kitten said...

I dont think anyone is denying climate change - the earth's climate has always changed over time.

But anyone who dares question the "fact" that its caused by humans is labelled a "denier" - when all they are asking is that the theories be proven before taxpayers spend trillions of dollars in attempting to "fix" something that may or may not be "fixable".

Why can't people have a rational debate on the subject anymore? Why is someone who says it may not be caused by humans but by nature, labelled a crackpot?

There are many scientists out there who have alternate theories to human-based climate change, but many of them are now too scared to speak up in case they are jumped on and their reputations ruined.

I believe more debate is necessary, more analysis is necessary, and real evidence be made available, before we bankrupt the developed world in pursuit of climate change policies.

In the meantime, there is no reason why everyone can't make more of an effort to respect the planet and not abuse it. Its the taxation elements I disagree with.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

I dont think anyone is denying climate change

Lord Monckton is.

That's rather the point.

Kettle said...

I second that, Bob. I worked at the former Australian Greenhouse Office for a period during the Howard years and even then there was an overwhelming amount of evidence (local, international) available analysing humankind's influence on climate change. The bugger, as with anything, is that you've got to put in the time to read and consider it all, but it's all available.

squib said...

I think we need to terraform another planet ASAP. I fancy a place with more moons

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

And pubs, Squib.

Don't forget the pubs.

kitten said...

But Kettle, that evidence has now been proven to be false. The reports that were generated by the UN climate change scientists contained delilberate lies and mistakes. Just because there is a ton of paperwork doesnt make it all reliable. That's the problem.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

that evidence has now been proven to be false

No, it hasn't.

There was some incorrect figures in some UN reports on glaciation.

kitten said...

Monckton does not deny climate change, he simply does not believe that it is caused by humans. He believes that changes in the sun may be the reason for global warming. And that any human contribution is so miniscule that it does not make a difference.

But we'll probably never know if that's true or not because the climate change fanatics will never let anyone else speak out.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

For the umteenth time, Kitten, Lord Mockton does not believe in global warming.

From the Age this week;

Instead, a gathering of avowed ''sensible'' environmentalists listened closely in the plush surrounds of Melbourne's Park Hyatt Hotel to a speech by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton, who dismissed as ''bogus'' fears of global warming.

''Those who have been fostering what is essentially a baseless scientific scam have being trying to make the obvious sound absurd and the absurd sound obvious, and we are now going to turn the tables on them,'' Lord Monckton said.

squib said...

A planet with naturally occurring pubs?

You don't want much

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Squib, I believe in demanding the best from our scientists.

Lewd Bob said...

There was some incorrect figures in some UN reports on glaciation.

That's all some people need, unfortunately. Latching on to a skerrick of information and claiming it to be fact is extremely misleading. Andrew Bolt is good at that.

An acquaintance of mine likes to tell everyone she meets that "Berocca causes cancer."

No, it doesn't.

Berocca contains aspartame which has been shown, in some studies, in massive doses impossible to actually consume, in some rats, to possibly lead to tumours, some of which are malignant.

But of course the above person ignores these facts and claims Berocca causes cancer.

Leilani said...

Oh Kitten you are such a tease, you only come here as sport don't you?

proswet654 said...

處順境須謹慎,處逆境要忍耐。 ..................................................

Dr. Golf said...

I don't know...do we really think we can influence the temperature of the globe, considering we only inhabit 3% of its surface, and 50% of us live on less than $2.50 a day?

I guess you got to take their word for it. But im pretty certain humanity would be better served in addressing third world poverty.

Dr. Golf said...

Mind you we will have an ETS once the US gets one.

The US will need one to get more nuclear plants built, which they need to do to create jobs and to stop buying foreign oil and gas, which they need to do because China isn't going to lend them anymore cash.

The US government is carrying over $120,000 of dept per household. Its on track for bankruptcy by 2013. This will make the GFC look like a tea party.

Sorry, i went a bit Citizens Electoral Council at the end there.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Leilani, I suspect Kitten is - in fact - a 17 year old boy, living with his parents in Canberra.

Lewd Bob said...

do we really think we can influence the temperature of the globe

I've spent some time in China. Yes we can.

Kettle said...

Ramon is Canberra really the very worst place you can think of in Australia?

It's a rad place. They've got, um ... oh.

Puss In Boots said...

They've got Imelda...

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Maybe Kitten is Imelda.

Kettle, Canberra has Cockington Green!

Puss In Boots said...

If Kitten was Imelda, she would have called me autistic by now.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

And boasted about her vast quanities of "girl-cum".

Kettle said...

Good lord you two, which Imelda are you talking about? Do you mean the Imelda who was an active member of the Canberra branch of the Australian Republican movement who's now in her 70s, or the 'Imelda of the Lodge' - aka Mrs Rudd?

And Ramon, just out of curiosity, have you been anywhere else in Canberra besides Cockington Green? (Or do you just like saying 'Cockington Green'?)

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

I do like saying Cockington Green, Kettle.

Last time I was in Canberra. I went to a pub and Parliament house.

Some of us tried to burn down Parliament House.

Sorry about that.

RandomGit said...

We also have folk rock.


I'm not sure why I said that.

Melba said...

What happened to Imelda? Was she run out of town?

Also, what happened to the blogger who was dying, then was dead, then was found not to be dead?

I'm such a gossip.

ALSO I'm probably ready to put the syrup into the old limoncello. Only because I'm sick of waiting for it to be ready.

Puss In Boots said...

I'm sure Imelda is lurking around somewhere, regaling a new audience with tales of how beautiful she is and what a master in the sack, and how awful her ex-husband is for not dropping everything to babysit her son so she can go and fuck random strangers in a night club and pee all over them.

As for Hunnii, I have no idea what the latest is on her. She restricted access to her blog.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Kettle, I should say Imelda was a Canberra-based blogger we used to mock, back in the good old days of TSSH.

Lewd Bob said...

so she can go and fuck random strangers in a night club and pee all over them

Oh my God! That was Imelda?

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

Yep.

Puss In Boots said...

Melba, she has apparently unblocked her blog, if you're interested. I thought you might find this post and this post especially amusing.

Ramon Insertnamehere said...

So she's still not dead, then.

Melba said...

Are you sure that's her? Early on there are some comments from names who would have known her as Hunnii, and no one is bagging her (though there are some deleted comments in the very first post.)

Did she used to write as Epskee as well or only post-Hunnii?

Melba said...

And thanks. Very interesting. And yes. Still not dead.

Puss In Boots said...

She had everyone fooled, apparently. I don't think any of the bloggers realised it was her. Or if they did, they were under strict instructions not to mention it.

I find it immensely amusing she placed so much faith in a dream she was pregnant that she stopped having sex with her boyfriend, however.

Leilani said...

Melba-I meant to tell you this ages ago - remember when I told you I had two limoncello recipes, one chicken, one icy-pole - and you said, "oh yuck that sounds disgusting"? The recipes aren't for a chicken limoncello - which does indeed sound foul *splits sides* but a chicken recipe and an icy pole recipe both which include limoncello as an ingredient. Does that make more sense now?

And Ramon, I dunno, I reckon 17 year old boys in Canberra are too busy with porn - but you never know.

Melba said...

Porn and hydroponic, Leilani.

And thanks for that about the limoncello. Does sound interesting, especially the limoncello icy-poles.

Mmmm. Will give limoncello update soon. Probably next weekend because this weekend we have received a spontaneous invitation for tomorrow night away, on a rainforest property which has an Ottoman cottage, a Japanese cottage, two other houses, a river, an indoor heated swimming pool, which is potentially fantastic, and equally potentially disastrous. It involves an ex-husband (mine), his girlfriend (tempestuous and gorgeous gypsy-woman with wild, arching eyebrows) my blended family; my dad, his partner (female), maybe my sister and her fam, and dog. And our dog. Wow.

[brain explodes]

Happy weekend everyone.