2011-07-28 09:04:23Eric the Red
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

It's time to knee-cap him/her.

2011-07-28 10:41:16Tiresome for all
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

It is indeed a "him". 

As far as holding him to an even higher standard, now that he is committing PRATT, I'm in favor of that.

2011-07-28 11:59:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

GuysBadger,

I share your frustration, really I do.  But "Knee-capping"?! 

Did we learn nothing from Climategate? This forum may be private, but it is not Fort Knox.   The above exchange could with little effort be (at best)  framed as "warmists" conspiring to censor or suppress dissenting views, and at worst be framed to suggest that we are willing to be violent. Ridiculous I know, but we have to try (and I realise my own failings in this regard) and avoid such rhetoric.

I think we need to choose our words more carefully regardless of the fact that Eric is guilty of trolling and is repeatedly flirting with breaking the house rules.

2011-07-28 12:32:31
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I just advocated holding him to a higher standard, as he doesn't seem to be able to meet those of the regular Comments Policy and standard internet good manners.

2011-07-28 13:01:54
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Daniel,

Right you are-- I have updated my above post accordingly.  Sorry.

I'm I also perhaps misunderstanding the meaning of 'knee capping' as it applies in this context?

2011-07-28 13:20:38
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I believe it may be the colloquial version of "putting a muzzle on" someone.

As opposed to "double-tapping", which involves putting a round through the brain pan in addition to the one in the heart.

(my conservative denialist friends are fond of this one...yes, they listen to Rush Limbaugh)

...

and lest anyone asks, http://bible.cc/matthew/13-57.htm

2011-07-28 14:18:36
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks for explaining Dan.

Yikes, you have some scary connections...

2011-07-28 15:48:29
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Card-carrying TeaPartyistas, some of them.

I try to make a difference; I'd like to believe I've given some of them cause to think...

...for the first time in over 20 years.

 

Buncha Chicken-Little "the sky is not falling, pay no attention to that man behind the mirror, we control the horizontal and the vertical" denialistas.  Indoctrinated since birth, generations in a row, to not think for themselves.  Lemmings.  Sheeple.  My friends, neighbors and childhood schoolmates.  The hand I was dealt sucks, guys.  I want a re-deal.

2011-07-29 02:27:06
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good for you Daniel....you are a brave man.

"Indoctrinated since birth, generations in a row, to not think for themselves."

Sad to day this, but that sounds like your average (conservative) Albertan...we have had the same conservative provincial government for 40 years and counting.

2011-07-29 02:35:23
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.51.236

Having a bad day are we, Daniel?  :-)

 

The facts behind recurrent climate change have been discussed now for almost 200 years*.  It took almost 50 years to achieve a scientific consensus that the climate has always changed.  Now, almost 200 years on, deniers present the fact of recurrent change as if it was a refutation of the facts behind current climate changes.  Hilarious !

The history of climate science shows that the climate variables due to sun, axial tilt, orbit cycles, land upheaval, sea level changes, dust, volcanos - and others still being dredged up over and over again by deniers - were all discussed, and, as of the year before Arrhenius published his excellent paper, it had been determined that none of these factors, singly or collectively, could have accounted for any past changes of climate.

 

I sometimes feel that some people, with their mind-set-in-concrete attitude, will never accept anything that conflicts with their personal world view - ever.  And sometimes I think that it will be 50 years after the last Arctic summer ice melts before other dyed in the wool deniers will accept that - perhaps - our planet is warming.

 

As to 'knee-capping' - surely that was a typo ?  I am confident that a more whimsical idea was intended: knee-napping - the pulling out one by one of the hairs on a denier's knee caps; and trust me - those kneecaps are extremely hairy.  Did you never see an orangutan ?  Those babies have got nothing on a denier.  :-)

 

[*]  Plug: I have just finished my 3 part article on the first person to write a scientific paper on recurrent climate change: Ignaz Venetz, 1821.  I am now working on a transcription and translation of his 2nd paper, which was never finished and which was published posthumously.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/ignaz_venetz_climate_change_pioneer-80968

2011-07-30 07:08:58
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
68.109.193.174

@Albatross, indeed if climategate proved anything it is that the skeptics are humourless, for instance the comment about redefining peer-review is so obviously hyperbole as humour that the skeptics look (to my English eyes) rather ridiculous for taking it literally!

I don't think ETR should be held to higher standards, he just needs to start meeting the current ones and where he doesn't his posts should be deleted.  He needs to be given a formal warning though that reposting messages that have been deleted by moderators is not acceptable behavour.

2011-07-30 09:35:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Agreed Dikran.

BP has been behaving badly too--  the threads always go downhill when he arrives.  Thoughts?

2011-07-31 15:18:16
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
203.173.156.40

BP is prepared to do more work than other pseudo-skeptics and I think frankly he had made some good points. I would agree that he is hard core denier but surely that isnt a reason to ban if he is complying with rules.

2011-08-30 05:53:55Dum-de-dum-dum...
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

After yet another drive-by accusation of the IPCC of scientific misconduct, I have given him his Final Warning here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=959#61359

 

Then he plunged full-bore across the line.  Predictable.

 


Eric the Red at 23:34 PM on 1 September 2011

 

The moderators response to Jodeph does explain a lot. I was also under the false impression that site was designed to deabte the issues. I see that this site is similar to the other warmist/denier sites that only want to impart their own opinions on others.


Walking papers served.