Berg’s Seventh Law – when liberals defame conservatives, they’re projecting – just keeps gaining evidence.
Remember three years ago, when the wahabbi global warmingists were demanding “scientific Nuremberg trials” for global warming skeptics – as if belief in sound science were akin to a war crime?
Yep. Unethical. And it should be investigated. Not as a war crime, naturally; more like fraud, with the complicity of vast swathes of government, academia, the media and the UN:
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
To be serious for a moment, I’m not sure Algore’s little flight of fancy – as damaging as it was – deserves criminal investigation. Ignominy will do.
But for a bunch of “scientists” and politicians who tried to gin up a worldwide fraud to bring money and political power to themselves (allegedly)?
I think it’s worth a look.
Al Gores push for AGW was to bring him political power which thankfully failed. Since he has no chance to return to a political life he has used the same issue to advance his wallet. He should be brought onto the carpet to explain his fraud.
Mitch, it’s all in how you package it. A large, left wing Lutheran church has, for their lent theme, coined the term “Climate Justice”. Now, how can you be against climate justice.
“Remember three years ago, when the wahabbi global warmingists were demanding “scientific Nuremberg trials” for global warming skeptics – as if belief in sound science were akin to a war crime?”
REALLY? People asking that your psuedo-scientists actually account for their reasons for their skepticism are the equivilants of people who fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people?
Hyperbole, spin, lies and crap. If you want to have a serious discussion, have a serious approach. This kind of garbage, putrid, staged, fetid, and framed, is less than worthlesss. I think you’ve just defiled the people who died on 9/11 by trivializing that event and their loss by equating the murderers involved in those heinous acts to people who are demanding intellectual honesty (akin to the Dover Trial on Intelligent Design – you remember that one, the one where you ID zealots were laughed out of the room?) – it’s disgusting Mitch. If you were joking, fine, if not, shameless isn’t even close to enough of an admonishment.
You are going to pay a tax. A tax to pay for the non-creation of an odorless, tasteless invisible gas by people on the other side of the world.
Who imposes this tax? The political class. Who will collect it? Big investment houses. Who will benefit from it? The political class and big investment houses.
God help them if people begin to pay attention to their common sense.
Pen,
Take a deep breath. Count to 10. Get some perspective.
“Wahabbi” does not equal “Terrorist”. Not all Wahabbi are terrorist, any more than all Southern Baptists are Klansmen or snake-handlers. They are fairly rigid fundamentalists (just like Global Warmingists), part of a sect that doesn’t put a lot of stock in “tolerance” or “accomodation” (also like Global Warmingists).
Now, I could do what you just did; bellow that “you’re a racist” (because what you just said was incredibly culturally ignorant). But I’ll just let that statement out there, in all of its petulant flagrancy.
You’re welcome.
Miss Penigma,
Which tires you out more? Carrying water for your far-left masters or retaining water?
Jeeeesus Keeriiist.
Penigma, you ignorant slut.
Then again, I guess I should just be grateful you didn’t mistake “Wahabbi” for how Elmer Fudd says “rabbit.”
after many years of being on the edge Pen has finally snapped and succumbed to the voices in his/her head. Get on some meds and come back when you can become coherent, or just go over to Kos or DU and join along your crazy group. Shit I wouldn’t be surprised if pen is a closet truther.
Peni, please tell the SitD readers, like you did on A-Boy’s blog, about your claim that MMGW is better understood than gravity.
The logic and pure reasoning power of Penigma remains a thing terrible to behold!
penigma Says: “Hyperbole, spin, lies and crap. If you want to have a serious discussion, have a serious approach.”
I don’t know if there is much more serious approach than sworn testimony in front of Congress. Gore goes about the world preaching AGW B.S. but refuses and dodges any challenge to debate the issue. Unlike Mitch I do believe Gore should be criminally investigated, if…err…WHEN found guilty of his frauds he should be punished severely. Dangling from the end of a rope seems appropriate enough punishment if one were to ask me.
Senator Inhofe’s call for an investigation now will make for some interesting discussion with regard to AGW treaties, cap and trade legislation, and potential EPA regulations going into this falls elections. Jim Inhofe is not fooling around or saber rattling, he’s deadly serious about this.
Peev bravely declared “People asking that your psuedo-scientists actually account for their reasons for their skepticism”.
Well the real “scientists” are retreating faster and faster.
http://www.anti-strib.com/myblog-admin/unsettled-science.html
Dang, don’t you just hate it when the oceans don’t rise and the “science” is fatally flawed?
Mitch, the majority of terrorists like Osama bin Laden do appear to come from the Wahhabi (two h’s, one b) sect of Islam. It is an extreme variation of that faith, one that condones violence, and has committed horrible acts of violence not only related to 9/11, but also horrific acts of violence on a massive scale against other muslim men, women, and children.
While all Wahhabi followers are not equally violent, a disproportionate number of them are when compared to other sects of Islam. It is what the sect is significantly known for advocating to a far greater degree than your analogy of Southern Baptists, KKK and snake handlers.
While only you can iknow what you sincerely meant, it is disingenuous to pretend that kind of violence is not the dominant connotation associated with the term ‘Wahhabi’, particularly when belief/disbelief about global warming is not directly Islam related. It is much like the word Thug, as it derived from connotations surrounding Thuggee. Your usage of the term wahhabi clearly appears to be intended derogatorily than simple rigidity of thought.
Would you be offended if I referred to those who don’t believe in climate change as some kind of cultist or other extremists — say, Timothy McVeigh and the movements which spawned the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma – and then tried to excuse myself by saying not everyone who was in the movement participated in that attack? Mitch, you could have found a better way to evoke rigidity of thought.
I don’t do that, and I respectfully disagree with you doing it too. It impedes any objective and factual discussion by demonizing the opposing point of view rather than focusing on factual presentation.
I trust you do not find my comment petulant, racist, or necessitating I take a deep breath before deserving your consideration. Is your interest promoting factual discussion, or expanding division over the subject?
Wow.
Whoever it is that’s supposed to put the seratonin in Flash’s and Peev’s oatmeal every morning must’ve taken the last couple days off.
I trust you do not find my comment petulant, racist, or necessitating
Nah, just bloviatingly endless, pointalistically droning and, as an added bonus, just a plain old stinking piece of crap to read.
“Would you be offended if I referred to those who don’t believe in climate change as some kind of cultist or other extremists — say, Timothy McVeigh and the movements which spawned the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma”
Not speaking for anyone else, but I wouldnt be offended. I would just mark it off as incredibly stupid.
“People asking that your psuedo-scientists actually account for their reasons for their skepticism are the equivilants of people who fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people?”
another reason you do not understand science. crazed wack job Pen says “THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING” Skeptic says ” no it isnt. dumbass. ” “crazed wack job Pen says ” oh yeah? Where’s your PROOF that the sky isnt falling? I have all this corrupt data and shoddy experiments that say it is.” Skeptic says “dumbass, the burden of proof isnt on me. Now get off my lawn.”
Mitch, the majority of terrorists like Osama bin Laden do appear to come from the Wahhabi
Right.
Similarly, 100% of Austrian Nazis were Austrian. 100% of snake handlers are Pentecostals. But when I refer to, say, a Southern Baptist who’s a Hayekian economist, that doesn’t mean I’m calling him a Nazi snake-handler.
Absurd, right?
Well, that’s what Pen just did. I said “Wahhabi” (whatever), which is broadly understood to mean “rigid Islamic fundie”. Pen seems to want to obliterate the distinction, so he can stomp his metaphorical feet in my comment section. He’s wrong. It’s really that simple.
Doggie wondered “Would you be offended if I referred to those who don’t believe in climate change as some kind of cultist or other extremists?”
How about “Global Warming Deniers”. and equating them with Holocaust deniers? How about calling for Nuremberg-type trials for “Global Warming Deniers”?
The acolytes of AGW have done both.
The comments at Shot in the Dark
Have lately been jumping the shark
Flash, Dog and Peev
Please, please, please leave
Take your annoying comments to Fark.
Hebrews 11:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
“Would you be offended if I referred to those who don’t believe in climate change as some kind of cultist or other extremists “
Bring. It. On.
Please, please, please, DG, do it; show us what you got!!!
….
“crazed wack job Pen says “THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING””
Peevish Boy also said MMGW is better understood than gravity.
….
Dog Gone, do you think Albert Gore Jr should testify in front of congress for the MMGW hoax?
Do you really think every breath you take turns into pollution?
DG,
Would you be offended if I referred to those who don’t believe in climate change as some kind of cultist or other extremists?
What Kerm said. That, and much worse, is exactly how we were referrred to. Parts of the movement – serious, non-trivial parts – called for a
Spanish Inquisition“Nuremberg Trial”, which let us not forget was a tribunal for war criminals that murdered millions.I referred to them as “wahhabi”, meaning “rigid, unbending fundies”. Yes, it’s a cult. No, it doesn’t mean “Terrorist”, in and of itself (Pen’s little tantrum notwithstanding). And he (and whomever) can keep chanting “yes, it does” until their throats go raw, and it won’t change that.
Mitch wrote: ” I said “Wahhabi” (whatever), which is broadly understood to mean “rigid Islamic fundie”.
Mitch, the adherents of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab are famous – or if you prefer, broadly understood / known – for pursuing the violent purging of what they deem the impurities of other forms of Islam, as well as his followers believing they have permission to kill or enslave non-muslims, not for being non-violent ‘rigid Islamic fundies’. The followers of that sect themselves consider the term Wahhabist an insult. When you use the term ‘global warmingists‘ it has a similar tone to the term jihadists or terrorists.
I credit you Mitch with an expressive, persuasive, and precise use of language; you generally very deftly achieve exactly the impression you intend to accomplish. Therefore if all you meant was rigid, I would have expected you to have used terms which more clearly conveyed that meaning and only that meaning. That is the crux of your term being taken as offensive, an observation I offer to you constructively, not insultingly. If that was not your meaning, then I think you could have clarified that better than you did.
Scott Hughes wrote:”Senator Inhofe’s call for an investigation now will make for some interesting discussion with regard to AGW treaties, cap and trade legislation, and potential EPA regulations going into this falls elections. Jim Inhofe is not fooling around or saber rattling, he’s deadly serious about this.”
Inhofe was ‘deadly serious’ about going to Copenhage with his three or more Senator /Congressman member Truth Squad, which ended up being just Inhofe and a staffer or two. They attended nothing, had trouble finding any media that didn’t laugh at them instead of giving them credence (the reporters from the German press were particularly insulting to Inhofe). And then Inhofe, tail between his legs, flew home after only a few hours in Denmark. Inhofe has appeared pretty impotent up to this point, and I don’t see him being otherwise any time soon.
Yossarian wrote a cute limerick, but as this is Mitch’s blog, and Mitch is an old friend, I’ll accept an invitation to leave from him and only him. Both Mitch and Pen are friends to whom I feel loyalty; when they are at odds, it feels a bit like walking into the middle of a dog fight to break it up. I trust both of them not to redirect their hostilities towards me, because I treat both of them with respect and courtesy, regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with them on any specific subject. The involvement of anyone else is more like the other pack dogs circling, and grumbling.
broadly understood / known – for pursuing the violent purging of what they deem the impurities of other forms of Islam, as well as his followers believing they have permission to kill or enslave non-muslims, not for being non-violent ‘rigid Islamic fundies’.
By “broadly understood / known – ” you mean “this what I have chosen it to mean”, Dog Gone. There is no consensus that wahhabist=terrorist. There is a consensus that wahhabist=religious fundamentalist. Draw a venn diagram with wahhabis represented by one circle, terrorists by another, and religious fundamentalists by a third if that will make you understand the concept better. Or you may continue to spin your wheels defending a position that has no merit.
Mitch, the adherents of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab are famous – or if you prefer, broadly understood / known – for pursuing the violent purging of what they deem the impurities of other forms of Islam, as well as his followers believing they have permission to kill or enslave non-muslims, not for being non-violent ‘rigid Islamic fundies’.
DG, you are both correct and incorrect.
Wahhabism preaches a pretty apocalyptic form of Islam. Troublingly so, in many ways. And Wahhabi mosques and institutions have been linked to terror. True enough.
But not every Wahhabi is a terrorist. Most are not; they may have varying range of sympathy for them. But Wahhabi mosques exist throughout the Moslem world, including places like Turkey. There, they live on the fringe of society – more or less like ultra-radical environmentalists do here.
And it’s irrelevant; Pens point – and yours, too, I guess – is tendentious, and amounts to trolling for a reason to throw (in Pen’s case) a tantrum. My meaning was the “militant fundamentalist” sense of the term, which is both perfectly valid AND the only intent I had. To try to turn it into something else using reasoning that is both theologically stretchy and intended merely to inflame needlessly clouds the discussion (unless ones’ only “need” IS to cloud the discussion).
Globalwarmists ARE intolerant, apocaloptic and (at least rhetorically and, by their own admission, legally) eliminationistic. They wanted to have Nuremberg “war crimes” trials for those who dared to oppose them
The more I think about it, the more appropriate it is to call them “terrorists”; using state power to terrorize and cow people into submission in pursuit of a self-aggrandizing fraud isn’t anything to feel morally upright about.
So no, DG. You and Pen are mistaken.
Isn’t one of the Alinsky rules that you should somehow change the subject?
Congratulations Dog and Miss Peev. You’re mission is accomplished. Now would you care to address the main point?
Wasn’t it even the Pernicious Peev who used the term “global warming deniers” and “climate change deniers”?
Oh for Gaia’s sake. The subject isn’t what Mitch called these religious extremist enviro persons. The point is their “science is not just flawed, much of it now appears to be fraudulently presented, or incompetently constructed (I’m being kind).
These people want to raise taxes on average Americans by thousands of dollars every year to solve a problem that they can’t possibly prove, let alone gaurantee the “solution” will do one damn thing.
We do know it’s made a lot of climatologists a buttload of grant money, and Al Gore has become a very rich man promoting this shell game.
Well DG, I didn’t notice Inhofe coming home with his tail between his legs. I did notice “The One” coming home with his proverbial tail between his legs though! His sales pitch(s) just don’t seem to sell in Copenhagen.
I also missed the part where the media (chuckle) laughed off Inhofe? It was very interesting to see the Indians and Chinese laughing off BO. I guess they were just laughing off the thought of committing economic suicide.
had trouble finding any media that didn’t laugh at them instead of giving them credence (the reporters from the German press were particularly insulting to Inhofe).
For starters, DG, you’ll need to be a LOT more accurate than that. European media, including that in Germany, is quite open about its ideology; one needs to take it into account when reading Euro media. For example, Die Zeit is sympathetic with the Social Democrats; Frankfurter Allgemeine with the center-right Christian Democrats.
So yeah, some Euro media gave Inhofe a hard time. They were the media that have always been in the bag for the idea of AGW and the big-government “solution” to it. The Frankfurter Allgemeine (which I read pretty regularly, in German), the Times, and other center-right outlets were a lot more reasonable in their approach to Inhofe, as they have always been to the skeptic case.
So while it can be accurate to say “the reporters from the American press”, since behind their claims of detachment they are mostly uniform, that is a HUGE mistake when referring to German or other Euro media.
Sorry, DG. Painting the Euro media with a broad brush is no more accurate than it is with Wahhabism.
Dog Gone, do you think Albert Gore Jr should testify in front of congress for the MMGW hoax?
Do you really think every breath you take turns into pollution?
Come on Dog Gone, is your Branch AlGorean faith starting to crack?
I would never expect my limerick-penning ability to somehow be capable of jettisoning you from Mitch’s blog, Dog Chow.
I just like writing limericks that make fun of people who totally deserve it.
DG,
Side issues aside (no, I did NOT accuse Globalwarmists of crashing planes into anything), here’s the real question: Do you believe that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is “settled” to a scientific certainty?
If so, why?
I would hope DG is smart enough to question the validity of MMGW, but the amount of support DG gave to Peevee’s comment should dash all hope.
Peevish Boy said MMGW is better understood than gravity.
No, I don’t believe it is an absolute scientific certainty. But like the arguments for evolution there is something there that cannot be ignored either, and which strongly tends to suggest that there is cause for concern. I don’t find it plausible that we currently have the largest population we have ever had as a species on this planet without that having a large impact; or that given what we know about even subtle changes in small ecosystems that our industrial activities are’t a significant factor, in ways we know and in ways we have yet to recognize.
I emphatically agree with a statement in the link you posted:
“So instead of heresy trials, let’s stick to scientific free speech and let scientists and policy types argue out the meaning of data, experiments and proposed programs in public. Scientific understanding advances through the application of what Brookings Institution fellow, Jonathan Rauch calls the Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
Let me underline (with a grin of mischief) those two words “Liberal Principle” (hoping I might raise a reciprocal smile out of you as well). And let me point out that at the end of the post you linked, the author of that post stipulated he also had come to believe climate change based on the evidence.
Back to that pesky side issues for a moment. I know you didn’t accuse Globalwarmists of crashing planes into anything; you accused them of extremism with overtones of violence however.
I am somewhat familiar with the precepts of Wahhabism; those precepts are decidely violent in their enforcement of conformity on both believers and non-believers. That someone in a small mosque on the fringes of Turkey may practice a more dilute version doesn’t change those precepts, nor are there very many of those individuals. The vastly overwhelming majority of Wahhabists are in a part of Saudi Arabia, and they tend pretty emphatically to practice the more mainstream forms of Wahhabism. That there are lapsed Catholics in the world does not make those individuals representative of the core beliefs of Catholicism or the formal church clerical hierarchy. Given those stipulations, will you at least consider that your words could have been reasonably understood to refer to the stated precepts and majority mainstream Saudi practices of the Wahhabi, rather than in the most dilute and least classic / least typical generic sense of rigid fundamentalism?
Thanks Mitch for not growling at me too much, LOL! You have again proven that trust justified.
Mitch’s post: 229 words.
Dog’s last two comments to the 229-word post: 444 and 429 words, respectively.
This is why people growl at you, Dog.
“No, I don’t believe it is an absolute scientific certainty.”
Only 99.99% certain you say? Hmmmmm
.
“there is something there that cannot be ignored either”
Like what, other than the flawed hockey stick graph and the dog eaten data that you seem soooo easily able to ignore.
In your heart you know I am right regarding the farce of MMGW, but you just can’t get yourself to admit it.
Your support of Peevish Boy claiming MMGW is better understood than gravity is enough to tell us you are indeed one of the Branch AlGoreans.
do you think Albert Gore Jr should testify in front of congress for the MMGW hoax?
Sure. Just long enough to share his original scientific research. So, actually, no.
The scientists who are doing the research can testify in front of Congress.
No, I don’t believe it is an absolute scientific certainty. But like the arguments for evolution there is something there that cannot be ignored either, and which strongly tends to suggest that there is cause for concern.
Well, I have no problem there. The Earth’s climate changes constantly, and always has. As a militantly moderate Christian, I take seriously the ideal that we were put here to be steward’s of Gods creation. My faith – and my Scandinavian/Scottish anscestry – eschews waste. Which is why I chuckle at the intent of things like “Carbon Belch Day” and “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, but keep ’em at arms length. It just ain’t me.
But my post wasn’t about the Earth’s climate. It was about the increasingly likely eventuality that a whole bunch of “scientists” and politicians colluded to try to defraud the world – for money, power and control.
And when science (along with journalism) gets perverted to serve the wants of a corrupt few – as it seems increasingly likely has happened – then we’ve got an even bigger problem; if there is a problem to be dealt with, we may have just wasted ten years and tens of billions of dollars on a fraudulent mirage.
Fraud to enrich ones’ self – as Algore may well have done – should be punished with ignominy at the very least, if true.
Fraud to enslave whole nations? I’ll leave it to your imagination the fury this should inspire in the hearts of everyone who values both freedom and the clarity of true science.
“Bernie Sanders compares climate skeptics to Nazi deniers”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html#ixzz0gPDIeWiO
Bernie Sanders is not a scientist. He has a degree in the liberal arts from the University of Chicago.
To Penguin and Dog- We`ve had climate change for 4 billion years, but now apparently there is an ideal state of temperature that has to be maintained?
One of the things that shows the astounding stupidity of the Left is their belief that politics — a locus of irrational thought and wishful thinking — is a sound arena for determining scientific truth and evaluating cost/benefit scenarios.
If they have their way they will leave us freezing and starving in the dark
But they’ll still have their mansions and jets. Just ask Al Gore.
Dog Gone said:
“I don’t find it plausible that we currently have the largest population we have ever had as a species on this planet without that having a large impact”
I understand your want for our lives to be meaningful. That does not mean we huff and puff out enough CO2 to place the planet in peril. What percentage of the world is solid? And what percentage of that is populated?
From a Google search- 90% of the population covers 3% of the land. Land covers 29% of the globe. .03 x .29 = .87% Humans occupy about 1% of the globe.
Only rich people care for the environment. The Democrats want to keep people poor.
Troy, I am a bit tired of hearing the reasoning that because CO2 occurs in nature, any quantity of CO2 is safe. There are lots of things that occur in nature that are safe in the right proportions, but unsafe in excess.
To assume that the only factor is how much CO2 we humans exhale is simplistic. We have an affect on not only the land we directly inhabit, but also land we directly use for other purposes, and many of our activities appear to have affects on land far beyond where you live.
jimf your statistics are not a fair or objective reflection of impact.
Would you seriously try to assert that just as an example, we have not caused a major transformation of the continent of North America in the past 300 years? Can you point to any other continent that has not changed significantly, other than – maybe – Antarctica?
Mr. D Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“Mitch’s post: 229 words.
Dog’s last two comments to the 229-word post: 444 and 429 words, respectively.
This is why people growl at you, Dog.”
The growls seem to be over content, not length D.
You should deduct the words of other people in the quotations cut and pasted for reference and clarity, Mr. D. Especially where there are multiple comments to which I am responding in one comment rather than several shorter comments.
But ultimately, if you don’t like my writing style, respectfully – please just don’t read it, unless a comment is specifically directed to your attention. While I prefer not to offend you, I don’t require anyone else to alter their writing style to suit my preferences.
Mitch wrote (my emphasis added)”here’s the real question: Do you believe that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is “settled” to a scientific certainty?” and then wrote “But my post wasn’t about the Earth’s climate. It was about the increasingly likely eventuality that a whole bunch of “scientists” and politicians colluded to try to defraud the world – for money, power and control. ”
The latter is speculation, wholly dependent on the former assertion ‘real question’. This quote adequately addresses both the speculation and the ‘real quesion’:“So instead of heresy trials, let’s stick to scientific free speech and let scientists and policy types argue out the meaning of data, experiments and proposed programs in public…. the Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
What you wrote – the underlying climate change issue, AND the speculation of fraud and power grabbing, are in support of your opening statement Mitch “when liberals defame conservatives, they’re projecting”.
Until we have conclusive science that we do or donot have anthropgenic climate change, I would argue Mitch that you are equally projecting a similar defamation, when you call people wahhabi global warmingists. That doesn’t encourage scientific debate, it argues that there is no reason to have the debate at all.
jimf – yes, thereis a specifi range, and a limit to the amount of fluctuation in climate, that is essential to our survival, and to the survival of the other species currently on this planet.
While you are crunching statistics, jimf, you might want to check out how many species have gone extinct that appear to be at least the partial result of changes in climate. The more we learn about how all of the components in ecosystems work interdependently, the more we see how susceptible we are to the impact of change.
Dog Gone-
Salt water and Fresh water are deadly in high doses.
A pollutant is a compound whose polluting properties are well defined. The polluting properties of CO2 are not well known. No one knows what effect, if any, 450 or 500 or 750 ppm of CO2 will have on the climate.
If you have some other argument for wanting to regulate the burning fuels, please make that argument and let it stand on its own merits.
DG found a bit in a comment where I wrote a little sloppily, finding two “main points”. Of course, one “main point” (the theory of AGW seems increasingly tenuous) was aimed at DG, while the other (it appears that many scientists were trying to commit scientific fraud, by suppressing and eventually bully scientific criticism; Algore and many pols appear to be using the fraud to enrich and empower themselves) was the main point of the post.
The latter is speculation
Sure. But it’s speculation that is getting more and more evidence every day; falsified data, evidence of evidence-rigging, intimidation of criticism, inflation of evidence and other scientific frauds.
The growls seem to be over content, not length D.
Or lack thereof. You had one point to make — objecting to Mitch’s use of Wahhabism as an example. You don’t need 450 words to do it. It’s called thread-jacking, Dog.
You should deduct the words of other people in the quotations cut and pasted for reference and clarity, Mr. D. Especially where there are multiple comments to which I am responding in one comment rather than several shorter comments.
Alternatively, you could stick to the point.
But ultimately, if you don’t like my writing style, respectfully – please just don’t read it, unless a comment is specifically directed to your attention. While I prefer not to offend you, I don’t require anyone else to alter their writing style to suit my preferences.
I don’t care what you do and I’m not offended. All I would say is this — other lefty commenters here (Disco Stoo, Charlie Quimby) make their points, and do it well, in far less space. You could learn from them.