Tuesday, 9 July 2013

This post's for you

Sayeth a WUWT poster:
klem says:
“I’m sure the greenies will be following this closely, rooting for a hurricane to hit that nearby oil platform or coal power plant onshore.”
Actually they root for any kind of destruction, whether its an oil platform or anything else. I remember hurricane Irene a couple of years ago, it was barreling toward the east coast and then it fizzled when it hit the shore. The disappointment on the tv reporters faces was clear, the disappointment from the greenies was obvious as well. Irene demonstrated that these people actually hope and pray that a storm will cause huge destruction like Sandy did last fall. Somehow it makes them feel good, perhaps even happy. Wow.
I don’t know how greenies can look themselves in the mirror each day, I really don’t.
It's easy to do, Klem.  You just look.  You don't have anything to be ashamed of because you don't want those oil platforms or coal plants to be hit by a hurricane because you know that real people work there, real people who have to make a living somehow and don't live in a fantasy world of fake science and cherry picked graphs.  You know that the world is not as you would like it to be but if you could make it a little bit better, then you would.  And you certainly don't make sweeping generalisations that, if you changed the word greenies for, let say, any religious group or ethnic identity, you would feel ashamed to type.

Klem, basically, you don't know what you are talking about.  That's because you seem to swallow the denier brand, hook, line and sinker. 

I could not let this comment go because it is just so stupid.  But I won't comment on WUWT because that would give Klem's friends a piece of meat to have a feeding frenzy on.  You know those sharks that go mad at the dead fish on a rope that lure in the sharks for the cameras.  That's not for me.  Trolls shouldn't feed the sharks.
Is this the sort of TV weather reporter that gets upset when hurricanes don't wipe out whole towns on mainland USA (let's ignore those pesky islands in the Caribbean)?


  1. I'm glad you picked up on this. It was a truly awful thing for Anthony to write and for Klem to expand upon.

    You don't have to have survived a disaster or to have had a near miss or to have lost family and friends to wildfire or flood to have empathy. If you have had losses or near misses you know what it's like and wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.

    What Anthony and Klem don't, can't or won't accept is that many people who care about the planet also care about their fellow human beings, including the Klems and the Anthonys. And not caring about fellow human beings is distinct and separate from caring or not caring about the planet.

    On an Australian discussion board I used to frequent, I once voiced my sympathy to people who were suffering the fury of a cyclone in Australia. The message I wrote was short and devoid of any reference to climate change. (I had some inkling of what they were going through having been through natural disasters myself, and having lost family/friends in a wildfire. Though I didn't mention any of that.)

    Nonetheless, it was tossed back in my face by one person who didn't accept climate science and couldn't fathom that I sincerely meant what I wrote.

    I believe it's called the halo effect. A particular form of stereotyping.

  2. Luckily here in the UK we don't have too many disasters of any kind (except as I write, hurricane Siddle is causing a bit of distress - five casualties definitely caused by it) so I have been immune from them. But you have to be a particularly hard hearted person not to feel for anyone who has been caught in a disaster. Those commenters at WUWT that post the sort of comment that I picked up on must have an especially strange psychology. I don't understand it. It's something like, but not the same as, the way some children on the autistic spectrum act - an imagined lack of empathy in others because they can't understand empathy themselves. I don't know enough about ASD to be able to say anything for certain - it's just what the comments remind me of.

    I challenged a similar comment on an earlier thread at WUWT (under an assumed name) and had a link to Green Agenda, a front for a strange religious sect. I was told I would find my evidence there that greens really didn't want humans to survive. I looked. I couldn't find anything there that supported that view. And, as Sagan and others tell me, check those quotes before believing them.

    Needless to say, my challenge was met with abuse, insults and slurs. No one seemed interested in seeking the truth. Not the objective truth anyway. A twisted, contorted version of the truth. There's a bit of Streisand effect going on now - more and more refugees from WUWT are posting their comments on their own blogs. You never know, it might be effective.

    Anyway, I must get back to hurricane Siddle for the post tea session. Been an interesting day so far. Hubris for the English.

    1. Might be time to express my sincere condolences - but that would be fake :D

      (This Australian side surprises me. I thought we were in the doldrums.)

    2. I'd love a series like 2005, every session a contest. If that is the case, my ticker and my cat won't be able to take it. But if it is, it will be worthy and Ian Botham's big mouth might be stuffed full of humble pie (5-0 to England just isn't going to happen).

      Looking forward to day two.

      PS I hope some denier stumbles this way, gets the wrong message from Hurricane Siddle causing damage in England and alerts Anthony Watts. That'd be fun.

  3. Wow, I'm honoured that you devoted an entire blog page to a minor comment I made on WUWT a few days ago, and your readers actually responded to it. I spent all of one minute on my original comment, but you folks have spent significant time rebutting it and somehow managed to link my remark to Anthony Watts himself. Lol!

    Jeeze, get a life ladies. Seriously.

    Actually I'm not entirely clear what your point is in your post Catmando. Surely you don't find the term 'greenies' offensive, since you frequently use the denier term elsewhere on this site. Perhaps you might state your opinions in point form. For someone who loves science, you seem imprecise.

    Notwithstanding all of the time and consideration you folks have spent on my comments above, I thank you for that, but my opinion remains unaffected.



    1. Thank you for finding me. The term greenies is not offensive to me. What is offensive is the stereotyping you use - that greenies root for any kind of destruction. If you change greenies to any other colour you could think of, would you use the same words you did? I doubt it.

      You are entitled to your opinion but an opinion is of only limited value if it is unsupported by evidence. That it is an opinion I have seen written by others suggests it is less an opinion and more a group-think exercise. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I devoted a page to it because it is an unsubstantiated slur, or the kind that is prevalent at WUWT. If you have something to support your opinion then please let me know. As a skeptic in the normal sense of the word, I shall check out your evidence, as is my right.

      I spent time on your comment because it needs to be challenged. To allow it to go unchallenged lends your comment a credence that it does not deserve. If you were to spend more than a minute on it, you might have spent some time thinking about whether it is true or not. For my part, I do not spend much time with greenies, I do not consider myself particularly green and I have arrived at the climate science pseudo-debate having spent time studying the similar pseudo-debates around evolution and vaccination. I use the term denier entirely because that is the clearest, most sensible description of the tactics on display at so-called skeptical sites. As for my use of language, that is my prerogative. If I may make an observation, the world's best (TM) science blog carries more than its fair share of vague and imprecise language, as well as more than its fair share of vituperative comments.

      So to clarify my point for you: your sterotyping of greenies being unconcerned about human life is, I contend, false and insulting to those that actually do try to make the planet a better place for those of us who are forced to inhabit it. Perhaps speaking to some greenies might encourage you to change your mind. In fact, you might have already done so without noticing. In the meantime, Klem, please consider whether your opinion has any justification before repeating it.

    2. I thought I'd add something since you don't seem to understand why I linked Willard Anthony Watts to your comment. Firstly, his is the bit you quoted which talks about greenies rooting for an oil rig or two to be wiped out. Secondly, you talk about TV reporters being disappointed when Irene didn't live up to expectations and cause devastation. Was Willard not himself a weather man on TV? I made a satirical point. Perhaps you are American, one of those with a humour by-pass. Willard certainly doesn't see the funny side very often and those of us with an ounce of intelligence (though I do say so myself) don't find his supposed jokes funny.

      I had a bit of a look around on the Net and found that you have a habit of dropping by to furnish a site with some fragrant droppings devoid mostly of content. I chose to trash your climate science is religion belief as well, though that's something I've been thinking about doing for a while. It is astonishing that you choose to spread your unintelligent opinions. I'd keep them to myself. Since you claim two science degrees (any chance of letting us know what they are and which university issued them)I would expect something a little more considered.

      No, sorry, from a denier, I don't expect anything of the sort. The tropes that you use are from the same playbook as the evolution, vaccine and who knows what else deniers.

  4. "Perhaps speaking to some greenies might encourage you to change your mind. In fact, you might have already done so without noticing. "

    Um, I've already done that. I was a greenie for 30 years, I used to protest clearcut forests, river and lake pollution, and lobbied governments for years with my greenie friends. I know exactly what they think and how they think because I was one of them, I was a vocal activist. When I say they root for any kind of destruction, particularly when it involves an approaching hurricane, I speak from 30 years of direct observational evidence. Sorry to burst you bubble ol' man, but my opinion is completely justified, substantiated and remains unchanged.

    And guess what Catmando, it was the 2007 IPCC AR4 report that flipped me from a clean and pure climate alarmist to a sinful and evil denier. It was the AR4 assessment that opened my eyes back in 2007. Unlike almost every greenie I knew at the time, I took the time to actually download and read it while they merely accepted the word of the IPCC mouthpieces. It required at least 6 months of research but I finally had to admit defeat, that I was not an alarmist greenie anymore, that I was now a denier. It wasn't long before my greenie friends were suggesting that I was on the big oil payroll, I kid you not. And so my journey began in 2007. There were very few deniers at the time. People forget that back then, if you were a denier you could lose your job, your family, you could be directly persecuted and it was all ok because you had openly declared yourself wicked. It was like declaring oneself a Jew at a Palestinian riot. Suddenly you had few friends. I don't forget those days.

    BTW, in my opinion evolution is correct and vaccines are good. However I consider climate alarmists to be the true science deniers, and I place them with UFO and 911 conspiracists.

    If you consumed even two minutes of your day investigating my past comments on the net, I must have really gotton under your skin. Lol!

    Move on with your life Catmando, its time to let it go.



    1. I have moved on. I have better things to do. I spent time checking that I had not misrepresented what you were saying. I suspect, deep down, you don't really believe what you initially said because it is an oft-repeated comment devoid of content or substantiation. One of my aims here is to educate myself. I've spent thirty years on a sceptical trajectory and feel I can spot BS fairly well. But I also recognise that I live in an imperfect world populated by humans who lie, cheat, defraud, cherry puck and so on.

      You tell me that to deny climate change in 2007 could lose you your job, family, etc. I don't believe you. It has been a common trope since well before 2007 amongst many walks of life. I think you overstate yourself there. But then again, that is not something you have trouble doing. I think it is you who deny the science so perhaps you can tell me which bit of the science is actually demonstrable empirically wrong. For my part, I am content to know that nothing in "warmist" climate science goes beyond empirical.