Today’s Friday Funny from Josh is a double feature with the SkS kidz and the Royal Society, who seem to be acting like the kids when they demanded a secret meeting with The GWPF. Shhhh.
Josh writes:
This isn’t a cartoon about this story which Nigel Lawson never talked about in the Spectator.
Glad that’s settled.
For this cartoon he quips:
In a bid to outdo the 10:10 campaign the SkS kidz have launched a Hiroshima app. What a great idea!
H/t Watts up with that. And there is a related video by Bob Tisdale here.
Josh
@Nick Stokes;
There you go again with your ridiculous, [snip] straw man argument of some giant conspiracy. [snip . . mod]
Nick the self acknowledged genius of WUWT clearly demonstrates the genius can make stupid mistakes syndrome once again.
Janice Moore says: “Hi, Mr. Kafkazar the (modest, heh) Engineer… I’ll try to decipher that message…. “Telephone before anchoring next to ‘The Button.’ Love, Starcastle.” Close? lol…”
Sometimes we see messages in random figures that aren’t really there, Janice. Glad you didn’t see a hockey stick, though.
Try here for help: http://fsymbols.com/all/
You can also simply block and copy from there. I’m running Ubuntu, so I copy from their font/symbol table.
♔♕♖♗♘♙♚♛♜♝♞♟
ʞɔıʇs ʎǝʞɔoɥ
gaelan clark says: “Nick Stokes…I do not have any suspicions. I am though, curious. Will you answer the question posed in my prior comment?”
Gaelan: There are TWO Nick Stokes. One of them has a normal IQ and is okay, if misinformed. The other often paints itself into a logical corner, then can’t answer simple questions about the reasoning that got it there. It may have something to do with cranial capacity.
Thanks, Jorge Kafkazar! lol And, this morning…. I DID see a hockey stick!!!!
LOVE your brilliant writing at 12:21am today. A ♚ing achievement.
Okay I have a baby version of a Symbol Chart in my Word software so:
Ode to Jorge
Now, I am ☺, for symbols are FUN,
to make ♫ or look ♯ or to draw a nice ҉
and a mouthful Θ of π
and a snail on the run « ﻕ
but the ♥ is for certain my favorite one.
********************
@ur momisugly Gaelen Clark, (Jorge, again), Beng, Bruce Cobb, and Mike from Carson Valley — what a witty bunch! This ended up being one of the finest threads I’ve read in awhile (so many jovially witty raconteurs) — YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST!
Well, I obviously haven’t mastered the “end bold” –sigh. Actually, it may have been my subconscious making that happen, for the bold reflects my enthusiasm for all you guys!
@Merrick Well it depends on whether he took the inductive or deductive approach to form his opinion. Extrapolate the lift equation as it was known, or simply work out the proportion of aviation pioneers turning up in the “twisted mangled corpse” cohort………..:-)
Nick Stokes
“Is there any evidence that GWPF is bound to secrecy?”
It depends what you mean by secrecy. But, certainly, the Royal Society Fellows (or their leader) required that there be substantial restrictions on reporting of the meeting. I’m not free to tell you who said what (apart, maybe, from what I said myself) or even to disclose the list of participants.
Note, incidentally, that the Royal Society Fellows were attending as independent specialists not as representatives of the Royal Society, and likewise those on the GWPF side of the table were attending as independent specialsts not as representatives of the GWPF.
So why did the RS want a “secret meeting” with their scientific opponents? Were they hoping to beguile, seduce or bribe the skeptics? In which case, their desire for secrecy is understandable. Enquiring minds want to know.
Or are the member of the RS just pompous and plain stupid; a more likely explanation.
There is only one way to resolve these burning issues.
“Note, incidentally, that the Royal Society Fellows were attending as independent specialists not as representatives of the Royal Society, and likewise those on the GWPF side of the table were attending as independent specialists not as representatives of the GWPF.”
So a group of independent specialists, who likely included Brian Hoskins, John Mitchell, Tim Palmer, John Shepherd, Eric Wolff, Lord Lawson, Richard Lindzen and Nic Lewis had a well publicised meeting and agreed to observe Chatham House rules on quoting. That’s the “sekrit meeting”?
no, nick- that’s an open meeting of the utmost transparency.
p.s. why do you have to guess who attended?
gnomish says: November 30, 2013 at 5:25 pm
“p.s. why do you have to guess who attended?”
Not guessing. Rs declared their list here. Lord L said in the Spectator that he and Lindzen were there. And Nic added himself.
nick- did you see the date on that letter? June 5, 2013 it indicates only that a meeting of some kind was discussed.
nor does it list attendees at any meeting held after that date (logically enough)
is there some relevance, then?
Go, Gnomish!
gnomish says: November 30, 2013 at 9:55 pm
“nick- did you see the date on that letter? June 5, 2013 it indicates only that a meeting of some kind was discussed.
nor does it list attendees at any meeting held after that date (logically enough)
is there some relevance, then?”
Yes. There was only one meeting (unless they had a sekrit one), and as Lord L said, it was “long discussed”. Those FRS’s were his later email list.
ok. so it’s not a list of attendees because there had been no meeting and that’s how you know who attended what hadn’t yet happened. good enough for me.
i’ll never call you McGillicutty the bridge builder. time to disengage from this tar babby.