Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Infidel Dog

  1. No sense in pretending this isn't partisan. It is and over on the right wing we hear this complaint all the time - "If this story had been happening the other way around it would be top of the news on all major media."

    There should be a place to archive these untold tales. What this phenomena says about the MSM being partisan to the left (I would say Marxists) should be made so clear it can't be denied.

    The story type that's being ignored lately (or at least that's what I'm noticing) are gun offences by the left (I would say Marxists.)

    Remember when there was a rally on the steps of Michigan's state building against Governor Half-Whitmer's excessive and hypocritical 'let them eat cake' covid controls? A collection of clowns from some gun group gathered with the protesters displaying their rifles. There was no violence. One got the feeling they did it just to show they could. Yet the MSM tore their hair out and peed their pants over that one. The story was everywhere. I'll wager you heard about it.

    Here's some you may not have heard about.

    Heavily Armed “Black Militia” Swarms Stone Mountain on Independence Day

    8-year-old girl killed after shots fired into car, Atlanta police say

    Las Vegas officer shot at protest paralyzed from neck down

    Shootings in New York City up 205% since Socialist Bill de Blasio Took Over

    VIDEO: Rioter Shoots 60-Year-Old Motorist During Utah Anti-Police Protest

    Protesting Lawyer Shoots Innocent Motorist in Head During George Floyd Protest in Colorado

    There's more but that should be good enough for now. It's getting to be almost like the Marxists have declared a shooting war on the streets and we're not supposed to know about it.

    But that's just one category of the problem of stories the MSM won't let you know about. If the strange topic posting rules (unwritten but enforced) at this site allow it I'm going to archive more here.



    The biggest problem with pouring money into mitigation though is it's money better spent on adaptation.

    Do you know who Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is? He's the most well known champion of adaptation over mitigation.

    But he may be talking about something like what you're talking about when he talks about adapting to climate change by financing research over alternatives that at present seem ineffective.



  3. Show me an example of Mitigation working.

    I can show you all kinds of examples of Adaptation working. We can start with Holland if you like.

    With Mitigation - so far and most often - the cure seems worse than the disease. We can talk bat and rare bird choppers or friars and rare earth metal mining environmental disaster. wood fuel pollutants as alternative energy and so on...

  4. 17 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

    There seem to be two debates here:

    1. Is AGW happening? 

    2. What should we (individuals, provinces, countries) do about it? 

    Not exactly. The real debate would be on the idea that humans are causing an eventual catastrophe of warming. Also, even if you want to suggest a precautionary principle of doing something about possible crises of warming as an insurance policy what would the best way be to handle it - Mitigation or Adaptation?

    Pretty much all skeptics agree some warming has happened since the end of little ice age. Almost all agree humans could have some affect on climate. They don't agree that anybody knows how much or that models can predict this proposed catastrophe of warming. There is no scientific consensus on that. Fear of Warmageddon and the proposition of global management of a proposed problem that has yet to been shown to exist is political not scientific. It's not the warming it's the imagined apocalypse of nice weather that's the debate.

  5. Quote

    SEATTLE — Seattle police cleared protesters from the six-block CHOP zone after Mayor Jenny Durkan issued a 48-hour executive order to vacate the area early Wednesday.

    Police are holding a perimeter in the area while city workers clean up the streets and offer services.

    The order declares gathering in and around the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct and Cal Anderson Park as “unlawful assembly” requiring immediate action from Seattle police and other city agencies.

    The move comes after weeks of violence in the area, where emergency response times in the area more than tripled, according to police.

    Dozens of officers arrived around 5 a.m. and announced that people had 5 minutes to clear the area.

    Officers enforcing today's order are wearing a higher-level of protective gear. Police are utilizing this equipment because individuals associated w/the CHOP are known to be armed and dangerous/may be associated with shootings, homicides, robberies, assaults &other violent crimes

    — Seattle Police Dept. (@SeattlePD) July 1, 2020

    The borders of the CHOP area are lined with police, and protesters who refused to leave were arrested. Investigators say 31 people were taken into custody, including a 29-year-old man who had a large pipe and kitchen knife,


    The mob made the mistake of marching on their Marxist-friendly mayor's house so that was the end of that nonsense. That's the trick to getting the Marxists under control, I think. Entice BLM and Antifa to march on Democrat safe-zones.

  6. And in Canada the slave trade was abolished in 1793. And in America they fought a war. All kinds of reasons and methods everywhere it was being stopped.

    For Britain the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans between 1808 and 1860.

    For America Thomas Jefferson created the United States Marines and with France put a stop to the North African slave trade. (They were enslaving whites. Millions of them.)  

    Since the beginning of civilization there have been slaves. Then it was for the most part stopped worldwide. Who was responsible? Hint: It wasn't the Muslims.

    You can lasso one of the many motivating factors as to why the abolishers of slavery might have done it if you like. Go ahead, blow that factor up and present it as the only thing that matters to you but it won't change the answer to the question. It was the white Christian West that brought an end to slavery after so many millenia.

    • Like 1
  7. 4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

    The Brits did have the workforce of India to cut their sugar cane. Once they abolished slavery in their own empire, it was to their advantage to discourage it elsewhere. 

    Let's say you were a fly on the wall in the British parliamentary backrooms and the financial board rooms of the 19th century. Let's say as a mind-reading fly you read the minds of the movers and shakers of the British Empire. So now you know for a fact that after the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 all efforts to stop slavery were purely mercenary.

    That wouldn't explain the decades of effort by William Wilberforce and the other Christian abolitionists leading to the passage of the Act.

    So efforts of the white Christian west both altruistic and utilitarian led to the global abolition of slavery. I'd still be fine with that. Are you saying there's a problem?

  8. 34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    I like taxes. 

    Well my first impulse is to insult you, of course, but that would make me the even bigger dick, so I read on. Overall you seem willing to be reasonable. Wish I was so rich that i wanted to pay more taxes to accomplish nothing though. Glad you agree that's what often happens. Now we just have to show why that's what happens with a carbon tax.


  9. 24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    You can try globalization and increased government control if you want.  It won't help.

    Me? I'm vocal, even loud, against it. It's the priority of what I'm against. What language would you like me to speak to communicate that to you.

    If you're against it too,  yipee. How can we stop it? Let's start by stopping the carbon tax. International conferences and accords to put a global governing body in charge of supposedly stopping the imagined apocalypse of nice weather are dumb, right? How about some pipelines, BCsapper?

  10. 1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

    Sane proposal.

    The world is warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases and that is causing the climate to change.  More change than would be happening if the world were not warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases.

    That's not just a sane proposal it rises above the category of simple hypothesis into the more respected realm of theory.

    It's supportable by the scientific method.

    What isn't is if you leap from that to suggesting you know how large the effect is, that it necessitates a catastrophe that has to be stopped and you know how to stop it.

    Globalization and increased government control.

  11. Interesting proposal: That as an invented term or definition of a term "Climate Change" is more reasonable than "Warmageddon." 

    Doesn't have much to do with the larger debate but it does sound like fun.

    So as I remember it we used to call the issue "global warming." But the world wasn't warming at the rate it was supposed to, to authorize the scare. So they changed the name to "climate change." Then it was more like climate end times is coming but it doesn't really matter when, cause, you know, climate. Climate is slower. Here's the thing that those of us who dare to notice can't help noticing about the term "climate change" though. Climate is always changing. It's kind of what makes climate. The change. But the new definition infers a necessary fear of it. Kind of bogus if you ask me.

    "Warmageddon" on the other hand has no pretense. It is what the term suggests it is - a silly end-times slogan of almost religious fear perpetrated on the masses. Oh, and no, I didn't invent the term.

  12. And 

    7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    I thought "warmagedon" was your construct?

    And "Denier" is yours. 

    Whatever you're calling this proposed coming of a global warming apocalypse if it actually is a concern the current proposed solutions would be useless against what's being hypothesized. The human species has had better luck adapting to the climate. We've never been better equipped to do so than we are presently with modern technology.

  13. And again if all you've got is name-calling you've got nothing.

    If you actually have what you're calling a "preponderance of evidence" that warmagedon is coming and the only way to stop it is with increased government and  global management, produce it.

    If that's not what you're arguing for then as MH says what are you arguing about? Because that's what I'm arguing against.

  14. 14 hours ago, Abies said:

    The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers. They aren't interested in coming to a consensus academically. They simply want a platform to disseminate their lies as widely as possible to convince as many people as possible. It's political not scientific.

    If all you got is an insult term, appeals to the authority of an imagined consensus, and the ignorance of science that challenges your hypotheses you've got nothing.

    Basically all you've got is what the side pushing the fear has always got. This:


  15. 21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. Cite please.  Cite something that says overwhelming preponderance of studies says that MWP global temperatures were as warm as today.
    2. Then for God's sake let's stop talking.
    3.  Danger ?  Do you mean risk ?  Danger sounds too subjective a word for science.
    4. There are lots of reasons to worry.
    5. No - just that your 20-years-old-and-looks-it website is the result of oil companies fomenting a political movement, not any kind of scientific groundswell.
    6. Oh, here we go.  Next you will tell me that The Rebel has the objective word on this.
    7. I'm asking for a wider view of what is happening with the study, but again - from #2... I absolutely don't want to talk about this if you already agree in anthropogenic warming.
    8. I happen to like the topic and when I saw another blocked zombie posting it I thought there was new information.  Lo and behold you are posting web pages from the days of MySpace and flip phones.  You are finding new ways to disapoint and bore me, which is paradoxically ... interesting.

    9. Ad hominem on Mann... ok

    Listen - I have spent the better part of an hour on this - are you going to pay me back by answering my question from above (Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.)  or are you going to just ignore it and copy/paste more websites from 2003.  Say - are you a time traveler ?


    1. Already did.

    2. You first. Stop trying to scare people. Warmageddon isn't coming.

    3. Semantics.

    If there is no danger why do you need a special tax. Why do special government organizations need to be formed that are starting to look more and more like a push for global government. Explain the push to subsidize rare bird choppers in the form or wind turbines or to fry them with solar banks. What's with the dirty throngs Progs have scared into rioting on the streets to stop the coming apocalypse of nice weather. If there's no danger why is it so important to support of the climate scare? And what's with all this frightening of children. Stay out of schools. Leave poor Greta alone.

    4.If you need to be worried why this one? Why not worry about the coming Yellowstone super-volcano, Niburu or an alien invasion. There's about as much evidence for those as there is of a coming Warmageddon.

    5. Most oil Companies claim to support the movement you call "climate change". Support they might give to any opposition is mostly, extinct and even when it was present it was comparatively tiny compared to the money put out pushing the fear.

    6.  Nonsense.

    7. There's no secret what almost all skeptics support.

    There has been some warming since the end of the little ice age. Humans can have some effect on climate. Nobody knows how much or if it's a problem but any possible problem could be better dealt with through adaptation rather than mitigation. If you don't already know this why are you pushing so hard to display your naivety?

    And Buddy, it was you who wanted to present Michael Mann as your hero. I'm only saying if that's the case you have some pretty pathetic heroes. 

  16. 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    1. It's disputed by bloggers and internet gnomes.  There's no significant opposition to Climate Change theory in the science.
    2. The MWP period's size and significance is still being looked at in climate science, and doesn't really have an impact on the overall assertion that human generated CO2 is causing warming.
    3. Yeah... the very old look of that page was a dead giveaway.  A lot of such pages were funded by the oil lobby and probably whoever funded the email hack.  The most recent study I saw cited was 2003 and that was Mann.  Anyway, like I said this is all old news.  See here for newer research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#Initial_research And like I said it's still in dispute.
    4. Because those are older studies, and the MWP doesn't matter in the big picture of human generated CO2 increasing temperatures.  There was an increase in temperatures (maybe - some scientists dispute that it was global) possibly in the recent past.  They don't know exactly if or why.  And this means what for today exactly ?
    5.  I have been stating the reasons since the start.  You are parroting denier pages from 2003.


    Let's just NOT rehash arguments I had at nauseum with posters more intellectually honest than you - who conceded points and worked with me to build an understanding of problems with climate science.  Those were good back-and-forth discussions, not like this.

    Just cite me some recent and significant studies that bring doubt to the prevailing theory of climate change.


    1. You don't know what you're talking about.

    2. Overwhelming preponderance of studies say the MWP existed as warm or warmer than today. There are some who try to argue it might have been more a northern hemisphere thing. Skepticism of the global warming hypothesis isn't directed so much at the idea man can affect climate and perhaps cause some warming. It questions how much and is there any danger. If what we're experiencing today happened before less than a millennium ago and mankind did just fine with it, why worry?

    3. The studies linked there are peer reviewed. Why would it matter who found them? What? You think you use the magic word "oil lobby" and you prove something? 

    But if you really want to get an overly biased view of issues like Global Warming just go to Wikipedia. Even the creator of the online encyclopedia complains how the left has taken it over and challenged its credibility.

    4. When I click on the links at the interactive map I see studies from 3 or 4 years ago so I'm not sure what your complaining about or why. Are you aware of more recent studies that contradict the idea of a warm MWP? I'll answer that question for you. You're not.

    5. Well we already know you're a liar because you're lying  right now by talking to me. You promised not to bother me anymore.

    You've cited me nothing that questions the existence of a warm MWP. You told me NASA GISS director James Hansen director's faulty predictions don't matter because climate clown, Michael Mann disagreed with him about how fast the ice would melt. That's the limit of any support you've offered. Oh maybe the boring insult of "denier" and some other magic words of Proggish shutuppery like "oil lobby." But other than that you've got nothing.







  17. Well if you already knew the hockey stick graph was much disputed (I would say debunked) why are you pretending people need to respect Mann as credible now.

    Are you thinking you know something new that proves that graph true now? Go ahead then show me. Show me why there was no medieval warm period. Because there have been tons of studies from all over the  globe since that time showing there was one.

    Here's a global interactive map:


    Here's links to peer reviewed studies:


    Notice that they're global?

    But go ahead show me why I should ignore all that science and find Mikey's disappearing of the MWP to be based on something more than the wishful thinking of gullible believers.

    I hope you have better evidence than 'cause you say so.'

  18. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Are you asking for studies that support the idea that the temperature is going up ?


    No. Everybody knows temperatures have been rising since the end of the little ice age, in the middle of the 19th century.

    I take it you're not up on the Hockey stick controversy or Michael Mann's general shifty behaviour.

    Basically there is an era of climate called the Medieval Warm Period. This was creating a problem for Global Warming alarmists. It was as hot or hotter than present day. This was long before any alleged problem with human caused greenhouse emissions. These hot temperatures of the MWP said modern warming was nothing special. That was a problem. They couldn't have that, so this guy who was unknown at the time named Michael Mann used some magic math, manipulated data and bogus graphing tricks to erase the MWP from the record. The hockey stick graph was a big thing for pushers of the coming Warmageddon like Al Gore and the IPCC. They jumped aboard with both feet.

    Then Canadian Scientist Dr. Ross McKitrick and Canadian geologist and fraud investigator Steve Mcintyre decided to have a look at how the fraud of the hockey stick had been perpetrated.

    One of those most fun things to ridicule was what's called "hide the decline" or "Mike's nature trick". It goes like this. If you just use the tree ring proxies the graph will flatten out and the MWP will disappear but there's a problem. As you start to reach the modern record temperatures decline. They get colder. Mike couldn't have that so for his paper in nature he just deleted the tree ring proxy temps and added Jim Hansen's NASA Giss temperature record at the end of his new invented record. And presto changeo, abracadabra - temperatures rose again.

    What Abies likes to call "denialists" got a good laugh out of that one. Would you like to see an example:


  19. Well, seeing as author/commentator Mark Steyn is one of the litigants it might be worth hearing what he has to say on the subject. I'm going to assume he knows at least as much on the subject as you do:


    Many climate scientists other than hardcore Mann-boys are embarrassed by the prominence given to the hockey stick. But Mann has to protect his increasingly flaccid stick, and so he began launching various vanity lawsuits. This last year has not gone well for him. His suit against Tim Ball was dismissed with prejudice by the British Columbia Supreme Court for failure to prosecute, with costs awarded to Dr Ball. That's to say, Mann lost - decisively. Mann denied that that was what had happened, and his halfwit groupies seemed willing to swallow that denial of reality, but the big clue to the final scorecard is the significant six-figure check he was ordered to write to Tim Ball. The dishonorable Mann has indicated he will refuse to pay, and, being resident outside Her Majesty's Dominions, he may get away with that, or at least drag it out awhile.

    [UPDATE: I speculated back in October whether Mann, a loser and a liar, would also prove a scofflaw and a deadbeat. Yes, he is. It is ten months since he lost at the BC Supreme Court and, despite Mr Justice Giaschi's order, Doctor Fraudpants has yet to pay Tim Ball a penny. So he's a fraudulent plaintiff in every respect. This scumbag has financially ruined Dr Ball, lost at trial, and refuses to pay up. Mann's conduct is appalling: it's no wonder so few climate scientists are willing to defend him.]

    However, Mann has now been ordered by the District of Columbia Superior Court to write a just-shy-of-five-figure check to my co-defendants Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - and for the same reasons as in BC: dragging things out and piling up additional costs on the defendants because (all together now) the process is the punishment.

    By the way, I love how Mann's doting fanbois react to news of his courtroom setbacks by wearily insisting that, unless you're an accredited climatologist, you have no right even to weigh in on the subject. Appeals to authority are always unbecoming to a free society (and especially so after the CDC/WHO Covid fiasco), but appeals to the wrong authority are just pathetic. This is not a tree-ring class at a Department of Atmospheric Sciences; this is a legal proceeding, where the relevant authorities are judicial - and, while I'm no QC, I do have some form with kicking the arse of litigious cockwombles.


  • Create New...