Hilarious Daily Kos rant against Willis and me attending and presenting science at AGU

From the “Kos kids will be Kos kids” department. Willis points me to this Daily Kos article which is hilarious, because obviously the anonymous coward that wrote it somebody who calls themselves “ClimateDenierRoundup” hasn’t got a clue about how real science works, and thinks the angry old hermit in Mt. Beauty, Australia (Sou/Hotwhopper aka Miriam O’Brien) has already “debunked” what we are going to present. Here is a screencap of the article.


As I wrote to Willis when he notified me of the story:

Strange that this person bemoans lack of degrees, yet takes the word of an angry old hermit that has no training or experience at all in meteorology or climate.
I suspect the “ClimateDenierRoundUp” is just another one of Miriam’s fake handles.
What “ClimateDenierRoundup” doesn’t seem to understand, is that anyone who passes the AGU selection committee criteria for sessions can present a paper, talk, or poster about science. They don’t ask for credentials, they are only interested in the arguments being made, how they are presented, and if they have merit. This means that anonymous cowards and angry old hermits can even send a paper in for consideration. Oh, wait, they’d have to use their names, and that is the one firm requirement AGU has for submissions.
Obviously, that’s why you don’t see these rant-o-matic types that shoot from the shadows presenting at science conferences. But, the ranting against us playing by the rules reminds me of what Dr. [Roger] Pielke Jr. said about his treatment at the hands of the paid political slimeballs over at Think Progress:
Anyway, if you’d like to help out with a donation for Willis and I me going to AGU and presenting, you can do so here at the bottom of the announcement. Or see the orange donate button on the right side-bar.
Thanks to everyone for the support so far!
UPDATE: The funding goal has been reached and actually exceeded. I offer my sincerest thanks to everyone who contributed ! It is amazing how those $10 and $20 donations add up quickly. Bothe Willis and me thank you. I’m reminded of a quote from an old movie:
“Dear George, remember no man is a failure who has friends. Thanks for the wings. Love, Clarence.”
I offer my humble thanks on behalf of myself and Willis -Anthony

108 thoughts on “Hilarious Daily Kos rant against Willis and me attending and presenting science at AGU

    • Yep, almost nobody gets the grammar correct any more. Even educated people have heard the incorrect version for so long that we have to think twice before speaking.

      • Whether it’s correct depends up on whether “Willis and I” are the subject or the object of the sentence, so it’s not necessarily incorrect , though it was in this case.
        “Willis and I are going …”
        ” … for helping Willis and me to go.”

      • Greg—actually, it should be whether “Willis and I’ IS the subject… The IS refers to the quote, which is single in number, not the people in the quote. I’m sure there is a grammatical term for this.
        Sorry…but my mother and father both spoke English correctly. You grow up knowing these things by ear…and it bugs you to see them wrong. Even 34 years of hanging around construction workers on jobsites hasn’t erased my schooling in grammar! (though I can swear with the best of them!)

      • Fossil,
        Greg is wrong as wrong can be. Sorry, but a prepositional clause starting with “against” cannot possibly be the subject of the sentence. It should be obvious that the subject of the sentence is “rant”. Were it a sentence, which it isn’t. But the relevant noun is “rant”.

      • Hey, maybe you grammar N@zis should make your own blog about grammar, and stop filling up this comment section with your drivel. No one cares.

      • don’t get all wrapped up, in this case: Daily Kos rant against ……me. As in an attack against me. You’d never rant against I. Although grammarians at times forget that language is communication, not a set of immutable rules.

      • “Bothe Willis and me thank you” But here it should be “Willis and I”. Here’s what my mama taught me: Say the sentence, leaving Willis out, and you will know whether to say “I” or “me”. Would you say “Me thank you.”? Would you say, “I’m grateful for the donation for I.”? Then when you put Willis back in, you’ll use the right pronoun.

    • What is the rant against? It’s against ‘Willis and I going to AGU and presenting’. So “Willis and I” is correct. If you try to read it as a ‘rant against Willis and me’, then the last part of the sentence doesn’t fit. Same for the “donation for” sentence – “Willis and I” is correct.
      Or maybe Winston Churchill was correct about division by a common language.

    • No, actually it isn’t.
      “I” is the subject, me is the object
      “Wills and I are going…”
      “Hate mail arrived directed at Willis and me…”.

    • FWIW, the DK is against their “attending,” not against Willis and Anthony, per se. “Attending” is a gerund. When gerunds are modified by a personal pronoun, name, or other noun, then the modifier should be in the possessive case.
      Therefore, the proper form would be, “… against Willis’s and my attending….”
      (And since “Willis” is singular, the possessive form of his name done by adding apostrophe-s.)

      • Wouldn’t it just be “Willis’ ” – with an apostrophe, but no extra “s”? We don’t usually add apostrophe-s to words that already end in s, just the apostrophe.

      • i asked an English friend about this matter. He says both are correct, depending on what the point of the title was about, he just said the title is a bit “odd” (i did show him the article the rant was about.) His thought was that it’s a slip of “writing that follows the mind”
        he said it’s a matter of meaning:
        Willis and I are correct if:
        or you put the object in Quotes, if the subject of the rant was the article, it is possible this way:
        Hilarious Daily Kos rant against “Willis and I attending and presenting science at AGU”
        (option is you can add the article in between:
        Hilarious Daily Kos rant against the article: “Willis and I attending and presenting science at AGU”
        Willis and me is correct if:
        or is the matter of meaning the rant against Willis and Anthony themselves, then the next part is an explicative part and then you need to add “an action” that tells why this rant was a reaction. then it’s explicative and you need to add a comma and the “who are” it is possible this way:
        Hilarious Daily Kos rant against Willis and me ,who are attending and presenting science at AGU
        either way you take in this title now, both are a bit “odd” and honestly even for me as a non native speaker i recognize the error i sometimes make, and where my friend always says “you are writing “Dutch english” (English with the grammar build of dutch), an error i often make when i write on a matter, but where i don’t triple check my writing 🙂
        hope this helps?

    • English is a living language. Over time, what was once incorrect can become correct. Example: the express lines should read “20 items or fewer” instead of “20 items or less”. But since English is a living language, grammar and words change over time. Even as short as a few decades. If almost everyone says “20 items or less” then that is what is now correct.

      • I think everyone but pedantic English teachers gets the reflexive I wrong.
        “Who’s there?”
        “It’s me.” Very few people would say “It is I.”

    • It’s easy to remember:
      “a donation for Willis”
      “a donation for me”
      Therefore it is:
      “a donation for Willis and me”.
      “Willis trounced the alarmists.”
      “I trounced the alarmists.”
      “Willis and I trounced the alarmists.”
      Oh, and yes, one more grammar **** here. 🙂

    • My brother taught a class on writing grammatical English, and I picked up a few pointers from him. EVERYBODY handles the singular corrrectly. Drop out the “Willis and” to see how it should go.
      “Hilarious Daily Kos rant against I attending and presenting science at AGU{“, or
      “Hilarious Daily Kos rant against me attending and presenting science at AGU{“

    • There is nothing funnier than “correcting” someone else, and being wrong yourself.
      Like you did.
      That makes you a doofus.
      You correction has multiple punctualization errors
      which I will correct with the help of my pubic school
      That there comment of yours should of been wrote this away:
      Sorry, Mr. Anthony, it’s ‘Willis and me’, not “Willis and I”.
      If you insist on calling the owner of the best climate website on our planet “Dude”, there was no need to capitalize ‘dude’, and “Sorry, Dude” was not a complete sentence.
      The correct sentence using dude: Sorry dude, it’s ‘Willis and me’, not “Willis and I”.
      And I’m probably wrong too, because there was a dotted red line under “me” after I typed it.
      But your “correction” was wronger than mine.
      So, to summarize, you are a doofus for starting this gramma and punctualization debate on this here comment thread.

  1. Against Willis and “me” (objective case pronoun) or “my” (possessive case, modifying the gerund “attending”, functionally a noun), please, but not “I” (nominative case).
    OK. I’ll shut up now.

    • 😀 I usually just take out the other person and see if it makes sense.
      e.g. “Hilarious Daily Kos rant against I attending and presenting science at AGU” means it has to be ‘me’ not ‘I.’

    • A THOUSAND thank youze! No, a million of them.
      It’s so damned easy to get it right: You just eliminate the words “(Name and)” and see how it sounds.
      “Against I”?
      Or . . . “against me”?
      Chimp, bless your simian heart!
      And now I’ll shut up!

      • Yup. That’s how you know it’s wrong.
        But our esteemed host has many irons in the fire, when not being roasted himself, so grammar must suck hind tit. Unless someone wants to volunteer as grammar editor.

    • Exactly. “Attending” is a gerund (a verbal noun), so strictly speaking “Willis” and “I” should be possessives. In other words “Willis’s and my attending”. However, in the real world, this does sound rather cumbersome, and “Willis and me” is an acceptable compromise.
      I’m afraid “against Willis and I” doesn’t have a leg to stand on (or should I say , “on which to stand”?).

  2. Please don’t complain now.
    You started it, naming Mann etc. etc.
    You will be watching, etc. etc.
    This is a scientific meeting, like it or not.
    Present what you have to present.
    I already donated.
    I will donate again now.
    But please behave as serious researcher.
    Get there and present your work.

      • You may sway me to vote in that direction.

        Please do. The thought of the Frump for four years (or less, depending on FBI) is too much for I.

    • Seriously, that’s how it comes down for me.
      I’m not for Trump. I’m against the traitorous, pathological lying, corrupt, racketeering, seriously ill Clinton.
      Actually on any list of ten issues, I might well agree with Clinton on four of them, but I don’t trust her to stand by any of them. Trump is odious, but Clinton is beyond the pale. Trump might be a threat to the Republic, but will be constrained by the other two branches. Clinton is a threat to America. She’ll strive and connive to be beyond all restraint in her quest for personal enrichment at the cost of American interests.
      Trump will be but for four years. Clinton threatens to destroy America for good.
      For me, it’s easy. “Climate change” is but one of the reasons for voting against Clinton, rather than for Trump.

      • I can’t stand Trump either but I plan to vote for him. Will share my rationale (or rationalization?) if you want.

      • Please do. The more the merrier. There might be a reason I haven’t thought of yet to justify my odious choice.

      • That’s the way I see it as well. When you vote Big Dem you’re not just getting Leviathan; you get all that other crap thrown in for free.

      • Yep, Trump will get a great number of votes that are a protest against the corruption of the two major parties, the government in general, and the corporate press. I voted “To Make America Great Again” Monday since odds are I’ll be on the road on the traditional election day. Have been voting early or by absentee ballot ever since I’ve been an OTR truck driver. This time the line was longer than I’ve ever seen it. Four years ago I wrote in Ronald Regan because I would rather of had his corpse in the WH than any of those that were on the ballot.

      • My take on Trump is that, if he is so bad, how the hell does he maintain his multi-million companies? (Bearing in mind, they are not ‘foundations’) I figure he knows how to employ the right people – and knows how to make (incentivise) them work for him. He may turn out to be the next Reagan (so hope that he takes plenty of naps).

      • For me, it is simple: Trump is the safer vote.
        Why? If he misbehaves, there are constitutional protections and it will be easy to find 2/3 of the senators and congresspeople to vote for impeachment.
        Mrs. Clinton and her party despise the constitution and have the votes to filibuster any effort to enforce it.

      • The biggest, in more ways than one, leftist airbag in the world provides the greatset Trump campaign ad ever!

  3. Well it’s official, the last refuge for those losing a debate is to call names and ridicule their opponent

    • Yes, but what is odd is that the proponents of GW / AGW / CAGW / CC / whatever the brand names is today almost invariably go to the argument ad hominem immediately.

      • Working with both your observation and Bryan A’s, we may hypothesize that the warmunists have already the debate, and know it.

  4. I am GOING to high-jack this thread. Just learned today, my son is in grade 7, they showed the movie “Before the Flood” in class. I feel like calling the Principal, I do not know what to do. I would have no problem if they brought in a legitimate scientist from Environment Canada but this is propaganda pure and simple.
    Anyone have some advise to address this without black listing my son. (location Toronto Canada)?
    Please and thanks,

    • That would be for you to do a little research in your home town and find a geologist, meteorologist, any body in the earth sciences, who would be willing to set the record straight and insist to the principal or school board that they be allowed to make a presentation. Alarmists, frankly, are not in the majority

    • Just refer to the Al Gore climate horror movie and it’s case in Great Britain – court decided that it is just fiction and can only be shown on schools with some extra guidance. Is Before the Flood approved by the state educational board or sumtin?

    • For the kid, take an active role in his education, not just on climate stuff. He will trust you. I advise he be told to give them their answers and not be a rebel at his age. He wouldn’t get credit for alternative views anyway. Quietly tell him the stuff hasn’t actually been proven and much of it is wrong. Teach him math, the names of the trees, flowers, get books on the stars , buy a telescope, go to the art gallery, etc. and learn together. He will believe you and be happy you and he have some secrets about all this. Google: Redwood chunks found in Ekati diamond mine in Northwest Territories. He’ll see that that frozen country used to have a California climate with no help from naughty humans!!!

    • Thanks, I have thought about it. First I need to first check that the teacher has brought in material that is school board approved. If not, trouble for the teacher. If board approvd, even bigger trouble !!!

    • Gary, good comment, do this every day. It is hard, my home I have control of, fighting the system, whole nother level.

    • Call the principal! Ask him what educational qualifications DiCrapio has. Ask him what gave him the OK to show the movie in class. Ask him if there was a right of reply/opposite pov offered. Ask him if he is qualified to fisk the movie. Give him hell. Please. I would.

    • Perhaps show him “the great global warming swindle” (easier but incomplete) and/or the “little ice age the big chill” (more extended but harder to get) documentary, explain that climate always changes and if interested in climate that the latest discoveries are pretty getting in disfavor of those alarmists views?
      Perhaps show an article before one of these documentaries like this one: receding glaciers reveal that once a forest grew there and that these trees did grow when we still were “cavemen” in a manner of speaking
      also the new researches about the Holocene highstand are also very interesting.
      most of all, tell him to consider both aspects and let him ask critical questions and let him do research. and point to the fact it is a hypothesis, that nothing is proven.
      real science says that they do not know how much CO2 does add to the ever changing climate.

  5. I wouldn’t mind betting Miriam has not had a hot whopper in a long time but probably gets a thrill every time she writes those words.

    • C’mon. We all know that Miriam is the IVF-love-child of Mann and Hansen: Artificial Insummination. (Mike’s trick – and Hansen just smoked afterwards)

  6. As far as the P O S known as John Podesta, Wikileaks also has him with welcoming email invites to Satanic bloodmeal (and worse) rituals. Those invites for that sicko obviously were not a first time invite. Podesta is as evil and sick as they come. Is it any wonder he went from Obama confidant to Hillary’s campaign chairman?
    If you believe in a pure evil devil and if it has demonic archangels doing bad, evil things on humanity, then surely John Podesta is one.

      • SMC,
        A little philosophical journey here:
        Even for the Agnostic or the Atheist, there is an an element of a truth about “evil” in a society. The truth is that social humanity evolved religions and faith as a tool of natural selection, enhanced selection via cooperation within a society that needed common values., a mutalism that a moral religious framework allows that provided survival and propagation benefits. The religions of Judeo-Christianity and Buddhism have absolute moralism as a foundation.
        Absolute moralism is discarded by today’s Liberals (aka Progressives) and not so coincidentily also by Islam. It is replaced by relative moralism. Relative moralism allows for a social order whereby leaders ((Presidents, Kings, Ayatollahs, Imams, Dictators) can adopt and justify an “Ends Justifiy the Means” approach to ruling power. Relative moralism allows for a redefinition of “what the word “is” is, in order to justify whatever behavior the ruling elite thinks necessary.
        So we can frame the issues purely as moral issues, morals that do not require belif in a Loving Supreme Creator. And for anyone who might read this, be assured that the climate hustle has nothing to do with climate and everyone to do with power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. Religion and faith in a benevolent God not required.

      • Joel,
        Right on.
        Evil is an observable phenomenon. No devils need apply. Humanoids of the Podesta and Clinton ilk are evidence enough for the fact of unspeakable evil loose in the world.

  7. So, has Victor Venema actually bothered to respond, or has he got the snarky route and acted like he’s too good to respond to skeptics? Do his ‘long, detailed, technical posts’ include climate models?

  8. ” Strange that this person bemoans lack of degrees, yet takes the word of an angry old hermit that has no training or experience at all in meteorology or climate. ”
    You have to be a scientist to question AGW but not to promote it. You could be a pope or a movie star with no formal education or an 8-year-old or even Al Gore and still be a credible promoter of the AGW hype.

    • “Science is a belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
      – Feynman.
      Apart from that skepticism, everything else is negotiable, including educational degrees.

    • Also interesting that the the ‘person’ seems to ignore the fact that the people authoring the Op-Ed are both Scientists with Phd’s.

    • “You have to be a scientist to question AGW but not to promote it. You could be a pope or a movie star with no formal education or an 8-year-old or even Al Gore and still be a credible promoter of the AGW hype.”
      Excellent thinking there chaamjamal. I never thought to distill this issue to the essence.
      Absolutely true, and to me, a very powerful bit of analysis.

  9. From the opening post;
    “…the angry old hermit in Mt. Beauty, Australia (Sou/Hotwhopper aka Miriam O’Brien)…”
    There are some very nasty and seriously uninformed people in Australia who engage in schoolyard bickering rather than reasoned debate on any subject but especially climate change and it’s causes.

    • Mann, Cook, Gleick, and others in the room can begin to discover “the key to science”…
      Do you really think they want to?
      They have already discovered the key to fame and fortune and unlimited supply of grants.
      Who needs science?

  10. “… that’s why you don’t see these rant-o-matic types that shoot from the shadows presenting at science conferences.”
    I wouldn’t be too sure, Anthony ; )

  11. Re I or me.
    A man died and knocked on the Pearly Gates . “” Who’s there?” St Peter demanded.
    “It is I,” said the man.
    “Bother,” said St. Peter. “Another English teacher.”

  12. It took me 2 days, but I was able to donate to the A/W presentation cause. They don’t want Visa. They have to have it through PayPal… I would prefer just my Visa card, but I went through all the &%$#@&%’s and ended up donating more than the original amount I pledged. Hope you will spend it on the extra beers you will need after the media un-information about your presentation…
    JPP – (Let’s hope they will “see the light” after your presentation).

  13. From the top post;
    “…the angry old hermit in Mt. Beauty, Australia (Sou/Hotwhopper aka Miriam O’Brien)…”
    Sadly there are many uninformed Australians who would rather engage in schoolyard bully tactics than engage in reasoned debate.

  14. Just for the Kos report – a modest contribution from another retiree. Good luck with the presentation. Have a great time and I look forward to reading the reports from the event.

  15. Willis, I hope you aren’t too offended that this ‘gentleman’ accorded you mere ‘sidekick’ status. Personally, I think you should be given equal ‘Superhero’ status alongside Anthony. In no way are you Robin to Anthony’s Batman. You shouldn’t allow this to pass unchallenged. I’ll write them a strongly worded letter to that effect ….. as soon as I locate my box of crayons.

  16. Willis, i’m curious about your answer to your own question in this post:
    >>> “This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750 … so where is the corresponding warming?” <<>> …”the RSS TPW data indicates an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015.” <<<
    I think this increase in 'forcing' is offset by a comparable increase in evaporation, as suggested here:
    I'd just like to know what you think and what you're going to say about it in the AGU presentation.
    Thanks & good luck

  17. How could I not donate after the Kos input? Hell, even if I thought it was bad science I would send money after that anti-science tirade. It is funny that when persons who hold a different opinion and chose to do science, the anti-science crowd come out in the name of science! The article could be total crap, but in that they did the work, it should be put out publicly. That is how science is done.
    These less than objective persons epitomize why there is so much heat and so little light in public discussions.
    By the way, I hope your work is great and it puts a bug up their collective …, it appears they need it.

  18. So Congrats Anthony!. I’ve been too busy to do much.
    Here is a good video on how bad science is. No reflection on your work, rather, a reflection largely on your critics.

  19. Re … against Willis and me … 11/4/2016:
    Politically correct public education –– unfettered by standards for skills; science abandoned in favor of environmental endoctrination, e.g., Before the Flood, An Inconvenient Truth; English just an alternative patois for minorities, but now guilt-ridden; vocational skills swapped for unearned self-esteem. Consequently, today, in everyday English, the odds favor the wrong pronoun in conjunctions, i.e., and or or.
    Sometimes Willis and I is correct and sometimes Willis and me is, regardless of which actor is named first. Nor does it matter whether it’s something for us going somewhere or something for us to go somewhere, and of course it’s never for we going or for we to go. The preposition for demands its subject. We’re almost back to diagramming sentences.
    The rule that needs stating, the one that disappeared from public schools, is simply this: test whether I or me fits. The public seems to have an instinct for getting that right more often than not. So, for x and I and against x and I are as wrong as for I and against I. My coffee mug is always wrong, too, guaranteed. On the side it says HIM OR I.
    Environmentalism is a belief system. Students need to be taught, among other things, that science includes no belief systems. And that science, like most jobs in a technological society, rewards command of unambiguous natural language and its embedded logic.

Comments are closed.