*with apologies to Josh
Normally I don’t go with a Godwins Law parody but…
- The Skeptical Science Kidz made it a front page issue
- It’s darn funny!
h/t to “Foxgoose” who made the parody.
*with apologies to Josh
Normally I don’t go with a Godwins Law parody but…
h/t to “Foxgoose” who made the parody.
Every now and then I run into a person so freaked out by the “unprecedented” population of our beautiful planet that they, quite sincerely and in all honesty, say this world would be better off with five or six billion dead. I can only shake my head, and say that they, in all their sincerity and honesty, make Hit–r look like chump change. They always seem surprised, and then offended by the line I always follow with, when dealing with people freaked out by the idea of “too many humans,” “The more the merrier.”
The odd thing about such people is that often they live, or at least grew up, in mansions with plenty of elbow room. Even when they step down from Mom’s mansion to a hovel, they usually live alone. They know next to nothing about living in close quarters with others, and how people lacking elbow room can still laugh and overcome and progress. Their entire concept of “over-population” is a dream divorced from reality.
Or perhaps a nightmare. You see, a population is a fact, a reality. However as soon as you put the word “over” in front of “population,” you are stepping out into quicksand, because you must say which persons are the “over,” and which persons are not. Is that so different from Hit–r?
Cook and his crowd don’t strike me as particularly spiritual or wise, and I consider them but useful idiots for an idea I find repulsive: The idea that six or seven or eight or nine out every ten people you see is a person who is “over,” and the world would be a better place without them.
People need to awake to the fact this concept is vile. Comparisons with Hit–r are allowed.
Awesome. ROFLMFAO
TinyCO2 says: August 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm
…
ROTFLMAO … THAT is funny 🙂
One could cast them as Eugenics advocates, I suppose; not a camp I would like to be in … -cough- -cough- I didn’t mean it to sound the way that it did, but that is the way that it came out and onto the keyboard …
.
Brilliant!
That was too funny.
Very good!
“TinyCO2 says:
August 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm”
Main actors are David Mitchell and Robert Web. Possibly the best comedians the UK has on offer. Unfortunately, Mitchell (The “Chubbier” one of the two), although quite smart and informed, is a rabid believer in CAGW.
Hitler’s bike, now that was funny.
That is Gold. Well done “Foxgoose” – magic.
The funnier thing is the ‘parody’ or play on words, actually translates 100% true!
LOL
Christoph Dollis says:
August 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I’m in the unwanted position of being sympathetic to much of what Skeptical Science had to say about that article as are several of your commenters.
Totally agree Chris, it demeaned the good and really useful service this site can provide. Having said that, I just laughed and laughed at the video, not good for a man with a weak bladder!
Classy – completely fail to take someone’s concern about a previous posting seriously, and go on the attack like a rabid dog. Have you considered writing for Sks at all?
Don’t think the Guardian will dump Skeptical Science. Its basically turned its environment pages over to it. Its not really a UK paper any more – its become the London office of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
lol Gareth.
Hilarious!
A couple of extra lines could have been…
and we’ve parachuted Stephan behind enemy lines, into Bristol university no less!
Those of you who have never read the Guardian can leave the room now!
Plus, if there was any concern over fair use of the Hitler clip for satire, why would YouTube host literally thousands of them. Those of you conflating linking to this clip with the activities of sites like pirate bay really need to get a grip on reality.
I laughed until I cried – this is the funniest video on CAGW I have ever watched – by the end tears were streaming down my eyes. Usually these comedies go over the top, but this one is just well acted and holds back, letting the viewer make up their own mind about what is funny and what is not.
It is true that the Guardian is taken seriously and more respected than the Mail, but the Mail has more influence and gets its message out more strongly.
This blog is continuing to ignore the fact that the tweet by Skeptical Science was on point. That post by Willis was creepy and misogynistic, especially the parts about her being too good looking to have ever been contradicted. It was way creepy.
I wish that this blog could accept editorial responsibility and apologize for the ugly tone of that post rather than simply trying to up the ante of confrontation with Skeptical Science. Just pointing out that Skeptical Science is equally/more ‘creepy’ doesn’t absolve WUWT from having posted a weird and ugly post of its own.
HaHAAA!
ELLOL! That parody is truly golden.
{:oD
– – – – – – – –
Charlie Z,
I appears to me that Cook has been reluctantly forced to address WUWT’s articles. The level of his argumentation is pretty low if it is limited to using the word creepy in a tweet.
I had the embarrassment (for him) of hearing Cook speak in public about climate science communication. The message and his delivery style was approximately the same level of argumentation and style as his tweet a la creepiness.
John
But Charlie Z is right.
The post by Willis was creepy.
The facts were sound but the tone was unfit for a professional discourse or a public letter.
It would do no harm to acknowledge fallibility.
John Whitman,
My point was that REGARDLESS of Cook’s behavior or the hidden oddities of Skeptical Science’s website and forums, the post by Willis was not appropriate and should be independently addressed by WUWT.
As M Courtney says, there is no harm in publicly acknowledging that the post was inappropriate. In fact, I think it adds credibility to admit failures and correct them – much more credibility than the current method of addressing the issue which amounts to nothing more than some blog roll version of “I know you are but what am I?”.
Regards
Quite.
I wouldn’t necessarily go that far, but I’m with you up until condescending, unprofessional, and subject to incredibly-predictable misinterpretation, and that’s being charitable.
It was certainly implausible to the point of being bizarre.
Hear, hear. That’s essentially why I placed my first comment on this thread, although you better put it into words.
This.
– – – – – – – –
Charlie Z,
Thanks for extending the dialog.
My comment to you at John Whitman on August 8, 2013 at 7:19 am was not about what you stated in your reply to me; it wasn’t about your point on comparative creepiness discussions {which, by-the-way, I find your point on that misleading}.
My comment to you was that Cook makes no arguments in his ‘creepy’ name calling tweet / taunt.
I was implying that he was an intellectual coward for neither taking on Willis directly in the comment section of Willis’ post nor separately explaining why he made an accusation of creepiness. He is a drive by name caller without substantiation in this case. N’est ce pas?
John
It’s a tweet subject to a 140-character limit. I wasn’t expecting a developed argument. Point being that’s irrelevant. It was an impression, an opinion. Cook probably considered it so obvious that not much more needed to be said.
His opinion is similar to what many WUWT commenters were coming to on their own. I don’t think any of us are basing our discomfort with Willis’s open letter on John Cook’s tweet.
– – – – – – – –
Christoph Dollis,
Thanks for entering my dialog with Charlie Z.
So it seems that you are making a case that Cook (of the Skeptical[-less] Science site) does not need to make any argument or substantiation about his basis for an accusation of creepiness.
Because you and / or others independently of Cook have? Are you really maintaining that?
From your comment I get the impression of Cook as a authoritative figure above the need for argumentation / substantiation to support his tweeted taunt. Did you mean to give that impression that it is appropriate for him to merely accuse then to leave it to other intellects to make his case for him?
John
Christoph et al are correct: Willis’ post was creepy. It put my teeth on edge.
A (female) friend of mine read Willis’ letter and said his comments were, “pathetic”. Harsh words, I know, but I feel they’re warranted.
SkS would never admit they were wrong about anything because they’re zealots, so WUWT needs to show the zealots how true gentleman behave and apologise for Willis’ mistake.