Tuesday Tantrums, I get hate mail

People send me stuff…

tong-flame-email2

Readers may recall back on May 13th of this year I posted about a change in policy related to hate mail and hateful comments that get sent our way in:

Hump day hilarity: WUWT’s new policy on hate mail – your hate mail will be published

Since then, it seems the hate mail has dialed back a bit, probably because the sort of people that hurl this dreck are cowards who don’t put their name behind their words, sort of like “Sou” at “hotwhopper”, (aka Miriam O’Brien) who prefers daily denigration from the comfort of her imagined anonymity. This person is no different, but at least he/she says it’s a fake name.

Name: Shol Vadi

Email: shol.vadi@gmail.com

Message: Do you know what astounds me the most about this world?? The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science. They are full time into it! And they are even successful in misleading people.  How do you sleep at night knowing that you are abetting in such a farce crime?

Anyways, I don’t have much about denier mentality. Do you get sleep at night?

But who cares. Deniers are loosing heavily. For decades you have succeeded, but the downfall was inevitable.

Leave the science to the scientist, will you?

Faux Name

Time: August 18, 2015 at 11:20 am

IP Address: 50.65.104.139

It seems this “faux” person is from Edmonton, Alberta Canada. It seems English isn’t their primary language, or they are simply poorly educated. It is hard to tell from the broken writing.

You know what astounds me in this world? That there are people with so little moral character that they have to hurl insults about scientific integrity from behind faux names.

Advertisements

242 thoughts on “Tuesday Tantrums, I get hate mail

  1. This just echos the political meme that when you can’t support your case with objective truth, you resort to denigrating your opponent. More evidence that as it relates to climate science, the scientific method was long ago replaced by conformance to a political narrative. Consider the insults a badge of honor. It means that the opponents have run out of truth.

    • Don’t know for sure, of course, but I’m more inclined to think the above, “hate” e-mail is more along the lines of another one of those sad tragedies, that we see far too often now-a-days, where some socially-incompetent, trophy-magnet, bratty “dumb-kid”, gets into the matriarchal brandy-flask on the sly and then tries a little too hard to do his unsteady-at-the-keyboard best to make his smothering, overly-protective, perpetually-disappointed hive-mummy proud.

      • I surely hope I can sneak this comment in, before this post drops off the “front page”. But Hotwhopper has a post on her blog about this thread and–CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!!–her disapproving little, school-marm-booger, finger-wagging screed didn’t even make mention of my comment, above.
        I mean, like, that really burns my Hibernian, Kelly-green butt and makes me doubt the widely reported, but dubious, “fact” that “Hotwhopper” sports an Irish surname, in real life–unless, of course, she’s hiding behind a “maiden” name, or even worse, her favorite color is–the HORROR!!!–sell-out “ORANGE!!!”

      • The IPCC is what ran out of truth, virtually from its inception, and has been aggressively promoting its false reality because without CAGW, it has no reason to exist. It’s unfortunate that this conflict of interest was permitted to drive climate science into the most ill conceived science of the scientific age and will be very difficult to unravel.

      • Lysenkoism fell quite quickly, if I’m not mistaken, once the right man (khrushchev) became aware of the political masqueradeing of nature/reality-falsified science under his jurisdiction. I think most people will see the failure of the predictions eventually (solar cycles 25 and 26) but will it be soon enough to stop a “global governing body” from forming?

      • “Climate scientist” My thoughts exactly as the complaint sounds like it does apply to that group:
        “The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science. They are full time into it! And they are even successful in misleading people. How do you sleep at night knowing that you are abetting in such a farce crime?”

      • looks very similar to the posting style ,complete with similar spelling errors to a poster on a well known arctic sea ice blog. i could well be wrong though.

    • If you replace the words “denier” and “deniers” (I think those are the only two) with “warmists” the guy isn’t far from the truth.

      • Asybot,
        Who’s denying anything, except for those who consistently deny the laws of physics? It’s important not to conflate denying the conclusions of the IPCC with scientific disagreement arising from applying the physical laws they deby The net result may be the same, but the motivation is quite different. The process of pruning away invalid hypotheses is called the scientific method, but the power of this is also consistently denied by the IPCC and its self serving consensus.
        In case you are unaware, the laws being denied by the ‘consensus’ are Conservation of Energy (feedback can’t create energy), the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (the Earth actually does behave like an ideal gray body) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the heat engine driving weather can’t further warm the surface).
        Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW alone (note the emphasis on LAW) is sufficient to falsify the entire range of climate sensitivity claimed by the IPCC.
        http://www.palisad.com/co2/docs/latestproof.pdf
        This describes the other violations of physical laws and explains how consensus climate science got to be as wrong as it is and why the many errors are so persistent.
        http://www.palisad.com/co2/docs/top5.pdf

    • This is the same old Marxist-Leninist tactic with a twist. Their maxim is “Never admit anything, deny everything, and counterattack with false and personal accusations.” The twist is we know this came from Marx and Lenin. But when a person uses a false screen name instead of their real name, are they trying to improve on Marx and Lenin? Or are they just afraid to use their own name because they intend slander and personal attacks?

    • “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

    • If not Ms Notley, then at least one of her supporters. There has been a bit of a shake-up in Canada’s bluest conservative province — or reddest for my American friends. As usual the “babes in the woods” think they won as a result of increased support, when in fact they simply rode a wave of Tory disgust with close to half of all PC (Progressive Conservative) party voters staying home on election day in protest. The “Orange Crush” has already gone flat and the NDP will soon find itself so low in the polls that they will not be able to do anything besides call an early election. I give them 4 to 6 months ’til the folks with pitchforks show up.
      What is truly funny is how leftists all across Canada think the Alberta win means they are poised to assume power in Ottawa! Silly kids. I expect your Canadian hate-mail will drop off precipitously in exactly 2 months time. The federal election happens on October 19th and it looks like another majority for Mr Harper.

  2. Despite claims to the contrary, I find most leftists and eco-extremists to be a poorly educated lot. This letter simply endorses the results of my “unscientific” poll.

    • No, a lot are very educated, educated to the point they actually think they know better, if not know best, but their education is not of the ‘work it out from first principles’ variety: It is the collection and assimilation of other people’s received wisdom.
      The are the ‘Useful idiots’ of Marxism.

      • Actually there are 3 levels of the Marxist left. The elite intellectuals who were like the priests in the fuedal system who garnered favor from power by providing credence to the divine rights of the monarchy. Then you have the king’s court the nobles, etc who got to share in the plunder who today are the government bureacrats and other leaches in the government. Neither of these groups actually believe their rhectoric that they use to brainwash the ignorant masses that support them by a promise of a share of the spoils in a future utopia that never comes.

  3. To be fair that wasn’t very insulting and had a sort of tragedy to it. Religous fanatics of all stripes write like this, the losing heavily bit is pure desperation, hope and perhaps even belief/faith that it’s true.
    The fact that governments are rolling back subsidies all over the world apart from obarmy, look at our new cameron government. I just managed to scrape the 5k free money towards my C350e hybrid which thankfully still gets amazing company car tax rates meanig I save a fortune, but the money almost didn’t come because they’re seeing sense and wasting less money on green nonsense.
    Keep up the good work Antony and let’s hope it continues to help the world to salvation from Big Green!

    • I think you will find that it’s not just religious fanatics. Ask anybody who runs a religious blog about all the hate stuff they get from atheists.

      • I’m an atheist but you wouldn’t see me dead on a religious blog site. I have no axe to grind there.
        Presumably those that have axes to grind are not just atheists, but an axe grinding subset.

    • That spelling error hurt like a dart to the eye.
      But it may be that this fanmail came from a non-English speaker. It’s not to be judged. Just take the pain.
      And why worry about someone who can see that the past has been a string of victories for the Sceptic side (“For decades you have succeeded,”)?
      They may hope that tomorrow will go their way. They may think they only need to be lucky once.
      But in the end the victories do take the ground. In the end we will have won.
      And we’ll be surprised when we realise it.

      • MCourtney says:
        August 18, 2015 at 1:26 pm
        … They may think they only need to be lucky once.

        You seem to be quoting the following:

        Mrs. Thatcher will now realise that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it. Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war.

        Ouch!

      • commieBob, as it seems you’re spelling things out it also seems I was actually too subtle.
        The line “They may hope that tomorrow will go their way” was paraphrasing a song from Cabaret.

  4. You know what astounds me in this world? That there are people with so little moral character that they have to hurl insults about scientific integrity from behind faux names.
    Astounded you may be, but you still permit it every single day on your blog. Clearly low moral characters are welcome at WUWT.

  5. I cannot express to you, Mr. Watts, the depth and extent of my gratitude for this website.
    You are performing an immensely important and desperately necessary public service.

  6. Poorly educated? My other interest is photography and Canon actually published a review of their 5Ds wherein the reviewer said that the Canon 5Ds was “probberly” the best camera he had ever used.
    My opinion is that those who believe Co2 is the anti Christ and wind and solar the solution are “probberly” barking mad.

  7. The sender says: “But who cares. Deniers are loosing heavily.”
    No, Science will prevail.
    This is not a debate club or boxing match, real science is about finding the truth and we all win when we find it.

    • AMEN!!! Science will prevail, if you define science as a focus on Truth. In the end Truth is the goal of both the artist and the scientist, but perhaps known best by the engineer.
      The engineer knows he had better darn well not ignore the Truth, or else what he builds will fall down.
      This is actually an ancient idea, and in the Bible one sees people warned against “building on sand,” (which proves that the prophets were actually engineers).
      A lot of people deem themselves “social engineers”, but are so out-of-touch with the Truth that what they build is a shambles even before it is completed. (Among these arrogant social-engineering do-gooders I include a certain president who’s ego I will not inflate by using his name.)
      The people I feel most sorry for are the school teachers of the more stupid sort. They get handed a textbook and teach what they are paid to teach, naive about the fact they teach balderdash. Then, when their students turn out bad, guess who gets the blame? Guess who gets the ax? The writers of the textbooks? Or the naive teachers?
      Judging from the history of China, when a stupid bit of social engineering like The Great Leap Forward goes down in flames, the politicians don’t confess they are to blame, but rather blame the teachers and make them an endangered species with a Cultural Revolution. (Cambodia saw the worst, so far.)
      I think the person who wrote the above email was just such a naive teacher.
      It rakes a special outreach to get Truth across to such people, because they begin with the premise they know and you are the stupid one. I confess I’m not good at such outreach. All I seem to do is make schoolmarms mad. I did it at age six and I still do it past age sixty.

    • real science is about finding the truth and we all win when we find it.
      Er, no, its not.
      Its about taking as read the truth (of the data measured in phenomena) and concocting a formula that accurately predicts future data (from future phenomena).
      Whether you consider force, mass and acceleration to be mystical qualities of paranormal entities, or god given natural rights of substance, is irrelevant: So long as F=ma, Newton’s proposition holds sway.
      The frightening thing is that the truth content of science is in fact zero, or in-decidable., depending on how you understand those terms.
      Gravity could indeed be god’s little angels trying to stick the big bang back together. We can’t say. All we have is a formula showing how effective they are..;-)
      Science expresses a relationship between the present and the past and the future: In a (material) world of change Natural laws and their concomitant attributes of Causality are presupposed to be ‘Veritas aeternas’ – Eternal unchanging truths, that govern the evolution of the nature of the world as it appears to us, in Time.
      Science however does not discover them: It invents them. And the only indicator of their validity, let alone truth content, is that they work. Or have worked, so far. Tomorrow is always another day.
      Truth can be shown to be only possible within an already established context.
      IF the world is like science says it is THEN certain truths can be deduced, but the way science says the world is – essentially a modified Materialism, – is simply a priori of science itself. And science is in fact not deductible from the tenets of materialism itself, either.
      Materialism sets the nature of what constitutes an observable fact – Materialism defines what phenomena consist of. Materialism presupposes causality and natural law to explain the orderliness of experience. Within that general context Science itself presupposes causal mathematical links between subsets of phenomena, and the suppositions are called hypotheses, and if they work well they are called theories.
      The only thing that separates science from arbitrary fanciful notions is its ability to predict the future, more or less accurately.
      When it fails to do that, it ain’t science. Cf the Pause…

  8. Yup. The worst insult hurlers here, also hide behind faux names.
    I say stick to facts and solid tested principles and use your real name. If you can’t say what you want with your real name, then what you say isn’t worth reading.

    • I use my pseudonym because its easier to find with google search. Of course, I use the same pseudonym everywhere, its relatively easy to find out who I am with ‘whois palisad.com’ (my domain hosts much of the data I refer to), my pseudonym at my domain works to contact me and most importantly, I don’t insult and criticise someone just for misunderstanding the science and instead, try to guide them to the flaws in their arguments.

    • If you can’t say what you want with your real name, then what you say isn’t worth reading.

      You apparently are unfamiliar with The Federalist Papers. I would submit that your argument has no merit.

      • Hello Mark W.
        I suppose if somebody wanted to cyber stalk me…stalk me online with machines I guess, then I would have to deal with that electronic presence. Should that elevate to physical threats then the FBI or police would be summoned. Machine-based threats leave tracks back to a person. This is the only blog to which I contribute. I don’t do FB, Twitter, GMail, etc or any social medial, so this would be the only venue for “stalking”. Anthony would never put up with that and would turn over to the cops anyone who stalked or threatened another person on his web site. I generally don’t worry about the cyber world since I live and breathe in the real world spending a miniscule amount of time on the web. The real world is far more interesting and bountiful. Real people are interesting. My life in the real world is abundantly fertile and rewarding. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.
        Now to the meat of the matter, I assume that your name is Mark and that your last name is started with W.
        Mark I take it you are real? If you attend one of the heartland climate conferences, how shall I address you? You can find me. I am Paul Westhaver.

  9. “Do you know what astounds me the most about this world?? The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science. They are full time into it! And they are even successful in misleading people.”
    The Royal Society?

  10. Question.
    “Message: Do you know what astounds me the most about this world??”
    Answer.
    Words cannot express how little I care about what astounds shol.vadi the most about this world.
    P

  11. “out there just to obfuscate science.”
    Haha! Like all the reference pages here that provide links to every conceivable set of relevant observational data. If our host was actually trying to obfuscate science, it would be a good idea to leave those off the reference pages!
    I suspect this person hasn’t spent more than 30 seconds at this site. Or can’t think straight.

  12. The trouble with simple people these days is that Schools no longer help them understand that they are simple. Everyone is taught that they are a winner, a genius, whatever. The Real World bewilders them and because they also have not been taught self evaluation, they arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that despite all the evidence to the contrary (which they are incapable of analysing), they are right and everyone else is wrong.

  13. @Faux Name:
    If 97% 0f the scientists support the theory that the majority of the Global warming is caused by CO2, then why have they had such a hard time convincing the other 3% for the past 50 Years? Think about that for a moment. 50 years ago a respectable astrophysicist would have been laughed out of the conference hall if he suggested that Black holes exist or that there was a black hole at the center of every galaxy. Now the person that refutes that opinion is laughed out. So, like the little old lady asked “Where is the beef?”

  14. Why do people invest so much of their inner core into something that is so uncertain ?
    I am continuously fascinated by this. Where does their certainty come from ?
    Why are they motivated to say such horrible things when they clearly have no concrete facts, just fears.
    It’s easy for me, for us, to say with 100% certainty and conviction ‘show me’
    But how can they be so sure ? it’s a puzzle

  15. Hah! Who does this Shol Vadi think he is? His mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries. I fart in his general direction.

  16. Personally, I am irritated by the “holier than thou” attitudes and faux intellectual superiority that is exhibited by both the warmist and warming skeptic camps. I fall into the latter category despite the fact that my political leanings are decidedly liberal.

    • The ONLY time I am holier than thou is two seconds after confession and communion. After that all bets are off.

      • WOW Pamela! I am only holier for 1 second! You must be doing something right! (for 2 seconds anyway 🙂 ).

      • Since I’m presuming it takes longer than that for you to exit the church itself, now I’m wondering about the types of farce crimes you must be capable of before exiting! Stealing wine? Candles? Dumping the donations basket into your purse? You scamp you!
        🙂

      • At the age of 8, I was already passed my first communion but not quite self-aware enough to figure out the purpose of confession. I figured the priest wanted to hear what I had done wrong, so not knowing what I had done wrong, I made it up. I once confessed that I had killed my brother. And I had to say three Hail Mary’s and one Our Father for that crime.

  17. “Downfall was inevitable.”
    Cannot help but agree. Pause in warming is how long now, 18 years? Shol, stop trying to pretend you support the CAGW meme and come out and admit you see it is just a siphon for cash.

  18. after getting into this subject for a bit more than a year
    I’m astonished by how dim the warmunist are
    warmunist is a word I would not have uttered a year ago
    I am a changed man
    I now love NASCAR, the Confederate flag, America, country music, meat, women in skirts …
    oh yeah
    and my coon skin hat, my Kentucky flintlock, my cabin on the frontier, bar huntin’, chasin’ injuns, and throwin’ my tomahawk
    life is a lot more fun after I became a denier!

  19. I give this hate mail a D. The poor use of grammar and lack of explicatives detracts significantly from the grade. I give some credit for the use of $5 dollar words, e.g. farce, obfuscate. Otherwise, this hate mail is overly simple and poorly thought out.

  20. Apparently Shol Vadi hasn’t heard of Naomi Klein. Someone should read her spiel and explain it ti this vituperator.

  21. Redmonton. Its called Redmonton, Alberta. Because its founders were illiterate. Named all of the streets by numbers. And its not really in Alberta, that’s just some weird space-time nonsense Phil Currie cobbled together when out looking for his ancestors, because heatstroke in the badlands, or something.

  22. Commenters here have spelling problems too from time to time. Sometimes its typos or its not knowing how to spell. I wouldn’t rag on him for the spelling, but he clearly doesn’t understand that we’re still classified as the underdog in the fight for true science. We haven’t reached parity yet, but I think we can glimpse it from here. We need to keep fighting the good fight or it may slip away.

    • I am beginning to wish it were just bad spelling or typos. These days, my brain thinks “where”, but my hands type “when”. Notice that “n” is no where near “r” or “e” on the keyboard.

    • And some have problems with punctuation. “Its” is the possessive of it, the spelling you want is “it’s” which is the contraction of it is. 🙂 I, too, aspire to be a pendant. 🙂

  23. “How do you sleep at night knowing … ?” … Probably better than most …
    “Do you get sleep at night?” … Is this question from the Department of Redundancy Department?
    “Leave the science to the scientist, will you?” … OK, then that means that Hansen, Mann, and Karl are out.

    • And Cook and Lewandowky and the SkS volunteers who can read the minds and motives of publishing scientists simply by reading their abstracts, and Bill Nye, and McKibben…

  24. The cartoon at the beginning reminded me at once of the response of a playwright to an adverse review.He wrote the the reviewer: ‘I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your review is before me. In a moment it will be behind me.’

      • @Martin Clark Cox Internet service does not permanently attach/use the same IP address to specific residential customers.
        [Note: This comment and some replies below are responding to comments by the banned “David Socrates” (another of his sockpuppet screen names) who is posting as the legitimate commenter Martin Clark. The thread may be a little hard to follow because the fake “Martin Clark” commments have now been removed. ~mod.]

      • Martin Clark,
        You’re wrong about everything, as usual:
        I’m retired, so got no need for a day job or any other kind.
        But if I was looking, I’m well qualified to work for for an intelligence agency.
        You? Not so much…

      • @Martin Clark: You so smart! Since you have the ISP address, tell us the identity behind it — if you’re not blowing hot air, smart guy.
        I think you are. So put up or shut up. Or make excuses why you can’t. Whatever.

      • It doesn’t identify identity to us here, no, but to someone with a power to examine ISP logs, it identifies the customer account used, even if that is in fact a wifi node.
        And unlike other data, originating IP address cant be spoofed – if you want to actually send data from it, you need to get valid acknowledgements back TO it.
        Ok at deep levels you can compromise core internet routers to divert an ip address to somewhere else but that requires very very high level access to a lot of very secure kit.
        And leaves a lot of evidence globally.
        What am I saying here? Anonymity as far as the man in the street goes is not anonymity to the security services, should they take an interest.
        Ergo when I post stuff online behind an anonymous name, I am disguising my identity to the average troll and cyber stalker, but not the government security services or the ISPs whose services I use

      • Unfortunately, you’re all out to lunch – no intel jobs for any of you. The IP address attaches to the MAC address of the modem supplying the WAN to the user. Who’s at the keyboard will be a subject of the waterboarding interview.

      • usurbrain:

        @Martin Clark Cox Internet service does not permanently attach/use the same IP address to specific residential customers.

        dbstealey:

        Martin Clark,
        You’re wrong about everything, as usual:
        I’m retired, so got no need for a day job or any other kind.
        But if I was looking, I’m well qualified to work for for an intelligence agency.
        You? Not so much…

        @Martin Clark: You so smart! Since you have the ISP address, tell us the identity behind it — if you’re not blowing hot air, smart guy.
        I think you are. So put up or shut up. Or make excuses why you can’t. Whatever.

        You guys sure showed him! You smacked him down so hard all his comments disappeared without a trace…?
        [Reply: The banned troll “David Socrates” (among his more than two dozen other fake identities) has once again stolen the ID of a legitimate commenter, Martin Clark. When that happens we delete all the sockpuppet’s comments. If you need someone to blame, the correct person is the identity thief. ~mod.]

      • Brandon,
        You missed my point. I said:
        Since you have the ISP address, tell us the identity behind it…
        But he can’t, and unless it’s a gov’t agency or someone with more resources than 99.99% of the public, no one else can, either. For all practical purposes, posting that particular computer ID compromised no one’s identity.

      • dbstealey:

        You missed my point. I said:
        “Since you have the ISP address, tell us the identity behind it…”
        But he can’t, and unless it’s a gov’t agency or someone with more resources than 99.99% of the public, no one else can, either. For all practical purposes, posting that particular computer ID compromised no one’s identity.

        I don’t know how I could miss a point in a comment when I didn’t address anything said in any comment. All my comment did was address the fact a number of comments had retroactively been disappeared without any trace or explanation, which is a shady practice which has received criticism on this very site in the past. Speaking of which, the explanation I received:

        The banned troll “David Socrates” (among his more than two dozen other fake identities) has once again stolen the ID of a legitimate commenter, Martin Clark. When that happens we delete all the sockpuppet’s comments. If you need someone to blame, the correct person is the identity thief.

        Is fine. I have no problem with it, but you guys need to do something to indicate when you do this. Just having comments suddenly disappear without trace or warning is not okay. I saw a couple comments in my RSS feed and was curious since I’m an IT guy, but when I got here, I saw a bunch of people responding to comments which weren’t there anymore. I figured they had been deleted and looked for something explaining why, but…
        What’s especially bad about not saying anything is by not saying anything, you leave a false impression with any comments responding to the deleted comments which refer to the poster by his stolen name. To someone like me, who had just showed up, it looked like Martin Clark had behaved so bad he had his comments deleted. So rather than protecting Martin Clark from having his identity stolen, you just made it look like he was really, really bad.
        *******************************************
        [Reply: Some good points there. We will note why comments are deleted after this. The real Martin Clark’s comments have not been removed. Only the sock-puppet ‘Martin Clark’ comments were deleted. This particular identity thief has stolen other commenters’ names many times. We will not reward his efforts by posting his comments; they have been rendered a waste of his time by removing them from the thread.
        Anyone who notices a comment under their name or their screen name that they didn’t post should let us know, like the real Martin Clark did when he posted: “Hello … someone is spoofing …I certainly did not write that above.”
        One commenter in particular was so upset by having his identity stolen that he stated he would take legal action against the identity thief if the thief’s identity is verified. We are building a case. The comments you complained were missing are not in fact missing. They are being held is a separate folder. ~mod.]

    • I am just wondering. Is this email the best example he can give of hate mail? “Mission civilization succeeded!” I would say.
      (Reply: This was an extremely mild example. We cannot possibly post many of the examples sent here. If you saw some of the real hate mail we receive you would be too embarassed to comment. -mod)

    • Sender threatens to kill or rape = threatening email. That’s going above hate and leading towards a call to the police.

      • “Sender threatens to kill or rape = threatening email. That’s going above hate and leading towards a call to the police.”
        Huh? Since when is hate mail not a threatening mail?

      • And yet another subject on which you know nothing. Keep it up, there are are still a few subjects left.

      • Let me clarify Wagen,
        You can hate someone all you want, and you can express your hateful opinion all you want without legal repercussions. It’s called freedom of speech. But, you cannot threaten someone all you want without legal repercussions. There is no freedom to threaten.
        Threatening mail is always hate mail, but hate mail is not always threatening mail. Hence the international propensity to define and distinguish between the two, aside from you.

    • stop talking to the mirror, put it down and actually LOOK at what’s on the computer screen.

    • That’s your definition of hate mail?
      To me a letter like that should be turned over to the police or whoever handles electronic threats. There’s a difference in sending someone you hate a letter telling them they suck, and a letter threatening to kill or rape them. Were you the author of the letter?

      • wagen,
        Does this sound kissy-face to you:
        How do you sleep at night knowing that you are abetting in such a farce crime?
        He also labels those he doesn’t agree with as “deniers”. That’s a hater’s code word.
        Now can you see it?

      • “How do you sleep at night knowing that you are abetting in such a farce crime?”
        Sounds like the sender is appealing to the recipient’s conscience.

      • @ wagen- perhaps reflecting upon the millions who die in the third world because they are denied what you have with the excuse: “Sorry, climate change” might appeal to your conscience

    • “(Reply: This was an extremely mild example. We cannot possibly post many of the examples sent here. If you saw some of the real hate mail we receive you would be too embarassed to comment. -mod)”
      Mildly critical mail is branded as hate mail. New policy was announced that hate mail is fair game. Now I am told you cannot possibly post those. And then you tell me I would be embarrassed! 😀

  25. What astounds me in this world; is people like your hate mailer who have so little understanding of what science is that they think science supports their position. Those of us who have spent a lifetime as actual scientists know that nothing could be farther from the truth.

  26. Congratulations Anthony – Even this hate mailer acknowledges your success:

    For decades you have succeeded

    Having no scientific or logical grounds to stand on, their only recourse is to descend to gutter rhetoric.

    • Because denier was used to describe those who denied the Holocaust. They are trying to defame skeptics by the well known term.

  27. You may think that, being from Edmonton, he would enjoy right now those 2 extra degrees the alarmists are promising by the end of the century.

  28. Wagen…….I think you are an as@hole, and deserve MS. That’s hate mail. If I say (all theoretical) I was sending someone to break your legs and rape your kids, THAT’S threatening and deserves a call to the cops. See the difference?

  29. mods….just posting my real name alongside my nick to back up the claim made higher up that I am just pointing out that not all nickkers are crack-pots. If this is wrong, please delete.

  30. I am patient enough to put up with the looks of shame and pity from those who are under the spell of “anthropogenic guilt” for whatever time it takes nature to put to rest the idea that CO2 is the omnipotent force of global temperature.
    If we are wrong and the hot monster springs from the closet to roast us with our own exhaust gases, then they can continue to regard me with pity and disdain for having been deluded. I will, however, admit I was wrong.
    If we are right and nature smacks us with a spell of cooler global temps in the next few decades, we will have been visionaries who were ignored and persecuted.
    Will the damage that meanwhile is done to liberty be undoable?

    • Creative minds will have to find ways around the damage to liberty. A law adhered to is a law that will exist in perpetuity. A law ignored is a law that is eventually given the boot.
      Warning other motorists of speed traps ahead by flashing headlights to oncoming cars; the CB radio warnings; the radar detector; and the sheer volume of motorists that ignored it finally got rid of the simpleton, control freak 55mph speed limit. Grape juice sold with explicit instructions on what not to do to make it into wine (wink, wink); speedboats; whiskey runners; and speakeasies finally got rid of prohibition.
      The creative possibilities here are endless. A whole industry devoted to evasion is soon to spring up.

  31. If the facts are on your side, stress the facts in the conversation. If the Scientists are on your side, stress how many of them there are in the conversation. If neither the facts nor the Scientists are on your side, stress how bad your opponent’s ethics or intelligence are in the lecture.
    They’re stressing ethics and intelligence of their critics more and more.
    Because the facts aren’t there and the number of scientists who agree with them is going down.
    They’re running out of gas. The only problem is that politicians, once they see the potential for taxing and gaining power are very reluctant to give up those ideas. Regardless of the facts or the Scientists who disagree. And of course they argue about the ethics and intelligence of their opponents because they themselves have very little.

  32. While reading all these comments something I have overlooked for years suddenly came strongly into focus. The vast majority of commenters on this website hide their identity behind false names. Why is this? Is it cool and style-ish to be “cute” or sophisticated and make up a name? Or are you afraid of something or someone? I think the discussion would be far stronger and more meaningful if everyone used their real names. In a way you who hide with fake identification are no better than the person who sent the “hate mail”. And, I find this email no big deal. In my years of TV I received an non-ending flood of emails from viewers. While most were very supportive, interesting and positive, there were emails like this piece of “hate mail” almost everyday. I considered the points of criticism and disregarded the personal attacks and discarded these emails without concern. They are pure and simple proof you are having an impact. No big deal.

      • Perhaps your leading question is an exercise in “futility” itself: you know the answer is impossible to state here. Even verifications of blood test and dna may be insufficient, or not !
        As for his words and his name: no-one (here) is above the WUWT moderator, so, please give way.
        If John Coleman is John Coleman, then THAT is exactly who he is.
        PS: John Coleman is the ONLY person who has actually done what no other can do and he alone shall maintain a dignity that is respected.
        Regards,
        WL (my real name) England.

    • But on the other hand, the content of the email makes for a fun conversation. I can actually approach the ideal of being witty. Otherwise I am trapped in a technobrain.

    • John Coleman on August 18, 2015 at 4:12 pm
      – – – – – –
      John Coleman,
      A study on risk assessment needs to be done. The assessment would concern the risk to non-anonymous commenters on a blog that is predominately populated by anonymous commenters. It is an asymmetrical situation epistemologically.
      John

    • If in sixty seconds you cannot determine my name, age, address, and the color of my cat’s coat, the most charitable interpretation is that your Google-fu is so weak as to be non-existent.

    • Having also been cyber stalked in the past, I also have no desire to go through that again.
      Its not real anonymising, its just making sure that a casual google doesn’t reveal to someone who is stupid and hate filled, any personal details that might lead to a brick or a Molotov cocktail through the window.
      Trial by internet and media is not a pretty thing either. Even when you think you are on the side of the angels.

    • I can speak only for myself, but I’m married to a man who does internet security in the IT field on an international level, and whose brother in law is pretty much a security savant. It took exactly one DEFCON decades ago for him to stridently advise everyone he loves to never, ever post anything under their real names on the web unless they had to. Why?
      Because it is unfathomably easy for even a semi skilled hacker who decides to target you individually, to ruin your financial life, your social life and your private life with just little things gathered from the web. If you or a spouse or loved one happens to hold a position of authority of any kind, or you even have children, you can also be easily blackmailed and manipulated. And professional hackers know how to cover their tracks.
      That you think the discussion would be far stronger and more meaningful if real identities were used is your opinion. My opinion is that people need to learn to identify truths and facts no matter who states them, because humans are human. I don’t base my scientific opinions on the authority or personal background information of the person(s) I can find on the web. That would be introducing bias and logical pitfalls into a thought process that should be extremely logical, and free from as much personal bias as possible.
      If you would automatically give my comments more meaning if I just posted as R. Anderson, instead of Aphan, and I could be any one of millions of “R.Andersons” in the world…then you assigning more meaning to my comments based only on that is illogical. Anyone can use any name they want to. They could even pretend to be someone else, who is real and highly regarded. You can not establish the “truthfuness” of people on the net with any degree of accuracy. So why are names so important to you?

      • Aphan,
        I would draw the line at impersonating another real person, however, using a pseudonym or even a false, but real sounding name, is perfectly acceptable and as you pointed out, sometimes necessary. For example, co2isnotevil is blacklisted at most warmist blogs, Not because I throw insults around, but because I aggressively attack their pseudo science with physics and data.

      • I agree with you co2. My point to John Coleman is that what makes a discussion meaningful here should have nothing to do with who posters “really are”, and everything to do with what is presented and how it is received and examined.

  33. Studies have been done, models have been run and the indisputable consensus is that people from Edmonton are CRAZY, and their hockey team sucks too.
    Signed,
    Nick, from Calgary (Go Flames!)

  34. “The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science.”
    Is this Conspiracy Ideation!

  35. “The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science.”
    …Conspiracy Ideation

  36. John Coleman
    August 18, 2015 at 4:12 pm
    While reading all these comments something I have overlooked for years suddenly came strongly into focus. The vast majority of commenters on this website hide their identity behind false names.
    ===
    Think of them as nicknames sweetcheeks…

  37. Hi Anthony
    Don’t let the hate mail get you down. Consider hate mail as an endorsement and that you are getting under the skin of these sick puppies. I would recommend that you visit Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog site and see how he deals with hate mail. Go to the bottom of each weekly post.

  38. That’s hate mail? To me the boredom caused by having to read it is its most disturbing effect. Passing by a school playground I have heard worse than that. I have said worse things than that to people I like.
    O’ for a draft of vitriol that hath been
    Penned in quick rage espousing crude distains
    And personal attacks — a silent din
    Of language in which no reason remains
    A distillation of all that is left
    After even grammar and spelling go —
    Thereby something not completely bereft —
    A silent scream of no art that we know
    In ages past till reason ruled the mind
    Before civilizations first began
    The grunting savage vented his wind
    And such were the rages of every man
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • I used to teach maths in a western Sydney high school.
      That is a particularly insipid effort from shol, and wouldn’t even get him in the front gate !!
      nuff said !! 🙂

  39. {all bold emphasis below is mine – John Whitman}
    Name: Shol Vadi
    Email: ——-@gmail.com
    Message: [. . .]
    Leave the science to the scientist, will you?
    Faux Name
    Time: August 18, 2015 at 11:20 am
    IP Address: –.–.—.—

    Dear Shol Vadi (aka: maybe sleepless over possible skeptic sleeplessness),
    I think skeptics do want to leave climate science to scientists and do not want to leave climate science to pseudo-scientists.
    When one reads (as I have) Mark Steyn’s book ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, it is clear that many independent thinking PhDs in science have found that academics like Michael E. Mann (and his associated climategate friends) have produced what can reasonably be considered to be pseudo-science. Based on that then we can reasonably evaluate Mann and company to be pseudo-scientists; it is important to efficiently separate their pseudo-science from science.
    John

  40. “Dedicated and extremely sophisticated,” they said.
    Anthony, you old devil you. Pat you on the back 😉

  41. I suspect another one of those psych Cook ups is on the way-
    ‘97% of deniers are into propagating hate mail’

  42. Not read all replies. Too many.
    As an Albertan (trying hard to fight for sanity in climate information), I am embarrassed by this.
    I suspect that the person is well educated and faking the mixed grammar…it is not difficult.
    The Alberta Greenpeace staff/members and Pembina Institute people are all capable of such a letter. The writer is probably some 25 to 35-year old idealist who has swallowed the Kool-Aide (from Pembina et al) and thinks we can exist on wind and solar even in this cold, northern climate. They do not get it.
    A colleague and I both received vitriolic hate mail a few years ago … bordering on threats that were almost harsh enough to take to the police. I still have that letter. Very sad.
    BTW, there has to be a clue in Shol Vadi. Anyone? Google comes up blank.
    Keep up the battle Anthony … and all of your contributors and readers.
    CAS

  43. “a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is…”
    Is the writer referring to the group? Obviously, if the writer were referring to people the pronoun should be who are and not which is. Then in the next two sentences, the writer uses the pronoun they; probably referring to people and not the group that was emphasized by the use of which.

  44. Probably an NDP EA (executive assistant). Oh. That may have been rude. I the other hand, I have known a number of Ministers and their EA’s over the years and some of them actually speak like this though their “public” statements are normally vetted by a writer. This could easily have come from deep I see government given teir current activities in soliciting input on “Climate Change”. And yes, I have already made two short submissions with a much longer detailed one on the way. I suspect others are doing the same so the temperature is rising.
    We live in interesting times.

  45. Sounds like it might have been written – in a misleading, dumbed down manner- by that faux Nobel prize winner who shall remain nameless.

  46. The yapping chihuahu, has yapped..! 🙂
    Lucky for it, it was behind a 6ft fence.. my Rotty is due for his feed !!

  47. When arguing against the CO2 story, a new phase in my education began, both in print and via the
    internet. The aggressive vitriol of some of the believers was an attitude I’d never encountered before – OK, maybe I was naive!
    I think that many are truly convinced that life on Earth is in danger because of CO2. Others seem to be hitching a ride on the coat-tails of this very fashionable scare for reasons I can’t imagine – but then, I’m not a psychologist. Perhaps there’s a need of some kind to belong to a herd. Whatever, there is this odd mindset present which assumes that anyone who disagrees is either completely stupid or has sinister ulterior motives.
    Yet I’ve noticed that in all my encounters in print and on the internet over the last few years, not a single believer has come up with figures or observations to back up their arguments. Not one has argued their case in their own words. The lame ‘leave it to the scientists’ won’t do! Links to videos are sometimes given, sometimes to a favored journal – as if to say ‘just read this and you will be enlightened’ – but never do the writers come up with their own views obtained from these links and set out in their own words, using their researched figures. They are incapable of constructing their own arguments to show that they’ve taken the trouble to look at some figures in detail. They’re probably too lazy to do so. Even science graduates such as the Member of the European Parliament I wrote to aren’t immune to this mindset.
    When I first began to take an interest in the danger we supposedly face, I went into it with an open mind. Very soon I noticed that the self-styled gurus at ‘Skeptical Science’ selectively avoided issues they didn’t like. The condescending attitude to people who thought differently about things was very clear.
    It didn’t take me long to make up my mind about the quality of this particular website!
    I’m not surprised at the hate mail – yes, delete it. Why should anyone put up with it? It’s not as if the writers have anything worthwhile to say.

    • Interesting that you were made more sceptical by the antics of the SkS crowd.
      On a previous thread there were a lot of testimonies about why readers of this blog became more sceptical.
      And one of the main reasons was the antics of the RealClimate crowd. That website sank itself with its own censorship and hypocrisy.
      (I summarise the reasons in this comment here).
      But it’s curious that the similar behaviour (with similar reaction) is continued to this day across the Alarmist Blogosphere.

      • MCourtney: Thanks for the link – it certainly aroused a lot of comments. Going back to my early days, after I’d read Al Gore’s book, I came across Professor Robert M. Carter’s “Climate – The Counter Consensus”. It was clearly of a far higher calibre and of course scientific, but for a lesson in propaganda methods Gore’s book is outstanding!

  48. “Faux” is French for false or fake. French is mush used in Canada.
    Sou is not pleased : 🙂

  49. “You know what astounds me in this world? That there are people with so little moral character that they have to hurl insults about scientific integrity from behind faux names.”
    That’s part of the reason I use my real name. When someone is hurling insults at you, it’s hard to keep from retaliating in kind- and looking like a pig in a slough. Using my real name helps me by preventing me from posting anything I will be later ashamed of.

  50. Ah, the poor baby. Little doubt that loosing this missal was soporific.
    Rock a bye, baby
    In alarmist trope.
    Nature will see you
    Safely to sleep.
    ===========

  51. I suggest whenever you meet someone with this mindset and intellect, you simply thank them for confirming the Dunning-Kruger effect, and move one.

  52. I am no psychologist but I think that Shol Vadi is sending this to Anthony not so much as to shame Anthony but rather to be able to show the email to his/her True Believer fellow travelers so as to establish his/her credentials as a believer and activist in the “cause”.
    It seems similar to a personalized Colorado license plate that I saw that read “IHTFC”. Most people personalize their plates with some meaningful message that is understandable to the viewer. This incomprehensible plate must give the owner some satisfaction, but what? His friends would certainly ask what it means. I surmised that it is a hate message in plain sight directed at law enforcement, which his friends would likely applaud. if that is not the case, if asked by a police officer what it means, he had better have ready a reasonable alternate meaning.
    It seems that many hate messages are mainly self gratification for the sender. If “Shol Vadi” persists, he/she simply becomes a stalker.

  53. Donation made. Sorry, but on US$30, that’s all I can afford right now. Keep up the good work Anthony.

  54. Being old, closing in on 65, and cynical, I no longer care about hate mail or avoiding politically incorrect
    statements to maintain harmony in the workplace. I don’t go out of my way to be rude, or to hurt peoples’ feelings, but my attitude is, if others could risk their lives to defend our country, I should have at least the courage to post my own name and stand up for my beliefs.

  55. Really frothing, isn’t s/he?
    There are many people out there who have “gotten religion” about false environmental claims who make wild assertions that they have no clue about.

Comments are closed.