Lucia notes:
As some of you know, Dana flung the “D” word at Richard Tol. He and a sympathizer who uses the handle “@IdiotTracker” have provided interesting definitions of either “Denier” or “acting like a denier”.
For those who don’t know, Dr. Richard Tol is hardly a “denier”, having been an IPCC reviewer, and author of several papers that are supporting of the global warming issue. But, Dr. Tol knows “crap” when he sees it.
I quite enjoyed Steve Mosher’s comment at Lucia’s:
Steven Mosher (Comment #113766)
May 23rd, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I’ve explained to dana that AGU encouraged Anthony by publishing his work. They are deniers.
Josh writes:
John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli whose tweets and recent survey have been much discussed on the blogs, especially by Brandon and Lucia at The Blackboard, here, here, here, here, here and here. H/t and thanks to both of them for helping get the cartoon right 😉
And he sums up the hilarity:
Related articles
- Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: Richard Tol Calls John Cook’s Survey “Silly Idea…Poorly Implemented” (notrickszone.com)
Better a denier than a delusionist
They are Doomers, we are the Deniers of doom. Wearing it proudly.
I hope someone is keeping the bill current, for the amount wasted.
It’s like watching yet another particularly bad piece of homework, brimming with elementary errors, which is being corrected by a tired and increasingly exasperated teacher. Another score of F minus, I’m afraid. Time for a concerned word with young Jimmy’s parents.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/la-la-la-i-cant-hear-you-im-not-listening/
Pointman
Robert of Ottawa says: This example of blue-on-blue warfare perhaps suggests the end of the lie farce.
I see it as more green-on-green warfare myself. :0)
They do make a right pair of dunderheads. The consensus claim of course is not only a false one, but it is the last refuge of scoundrels. You can smell the desperation.
The only problem with this thread is that “they” seemed too damned dumb to realize what they were doing to each other and now, we’ve tipped ’em off.
An example of the depth of conviction that some warmists have:
At the Starship Century Symposium this last week, in a panel discussion of “Envisioning The Starship Era,” David Brin casually commented that Earth is near the inner edge of Sol’s habitable zone. My eyes rolled so hard at that my wife heard them clang. During the Q&A, I sarcastically commented that “Of course the Earth must be at the inner edge of the HZ, how else can you explain that we’ve been in ice ages for most of the last three million years?”
Brin smoothly replied, “Your thinking is too European and northern hemisphere centric, much of the Earth was quite habitable during those times.”
Wow. It must feel good to drink that *deeply* of the Kool aid. Alas, I didn’t think at the time to ask him just how close to the equator he’d like the ice sheets to reach….
I am a denier. No global warning PERIOD. How DID we manage to live soooooo long with out automobiles before California Air Resources Board came into existance? What WOULD we do with out them??
I am SUCH a denier. My dad was such a devout Atheist, he didn’t even believe that Catholics existed !!!!!
markstoval says:
“But sometimes I think it would take New York being under 5 km of ice to get them to cut the crap.”
………………………..
AndyG55 says:
May 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Keep watching the Sea Ice page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not have to. It was a freezing 39F (4C) the other night and I am sitting here in the sunny south (mid North Carolina) at 1:30 pm on a sunny day with a temp of 67F (19C) BRRRRrrrrr. (By now we should have had several days over 90F (32C) but we have not had ONE.) Washington DC is also 66.3 °F So now is a good time to call your Congressmen and Senators offices and say:
I want my Global Warming! snicker
Janice;
You’re too PC. Those startle-bugged eyes clearly signal that he’s just been goosed. By a rigidly extended thumb, not a moped key.
Susan Fraser says:
May 25, 2013 at 9:31 pm
They are Doomers, we are the Deniers of doom. Wearing it proudly.
_______________________
Doomsayers vs Doomnayers…
E.M.Smith pegs it, the best entertainment is yet to come, based on the collapse of past deathcults, the true believers are the most violent and when they feel themselves betrayed by their high priests all hell breaks loose.
Buy popcorn.
I haven’t worn matching socks in nearly 40 years now – in fact my nickname is ‘oddsox’. Does that make me a denier too?
Its hardly the first time for this type of approach , for like any true religions fanatics for the AGW faithful its not enough to ‘believe’ not to be attacked you must believe totally and in ‘the right way ‘ or like any ‘good religion’ be attacked has a heretic a crime often seen has worse than not believing at all .
Add to to that the comic nature of the cartoonist’s and his lapdog and much humour will be seen.
i guess there is any conclusions to be made from this survey, it is that there is a growing consensus for scientists to be seen to be not associated with dana and john cook.
Acording to our frient Mr Mosher, Richard Lindzen is a denier…
Steven Mosher says:
May 26, 2013 at 8:08 am
ruvfsy says:
May 24, 2013 at 7:50 pm
So Mosh,
Where is the fine line between denialism and lukewarmerism?
1.2 per doubling of CO2?
##################################
first principles will get you to 1.2C. I think we pu the line of demarcation at 1C. But as folks get more evidence that might be push down.
————————————————————————
Let it be recorded here, Steven Mosher considers Richard Lindzen to be a denier.
Also Mr Mosher, I notice you avoided an answer to my questions with regard to your trillion dollar per degree C statement….
David says:
May 26, 2013 at 3:17 am
Steve Mosher says, “Let me put the importance of this metric into perspective: every degree of C in uncertainty is worth about 1 trillion dollars a year if you are planning to mitigate.”
Are you saying that the “C” in CAGW will be a trillion dollars in damage per 1 degree rise, or are you claiming it will cost one trillion dollars to change the T one C. Either way I call B.S. to your numbers, so please show me your power. (I actually think a drop of one C would be far more costly, and reduced CO2 means less food, and more land and water required to produce said food.)