T W A W K I

The world as we know it

You know youre on a warmaholic website when;

3 signs of a climate alarmists blog;

1. Any of your comments questioning the ‘global warming theory’ are deleted. So much for freedom of speech!

2. They don’t post science online, they simply parrot the phrases “the debate is over” and “the science is settled” and “the scientific consensus“, despite science being about rigorous debate, analytical questioning and not about consensus!

3. They claim climate realists (“skeptics”) are paid shrills (despite having no evidence) whilst ignoring hundreds of billions in warmaholic climate funding.

Known offenders – Take the test with some of these ostriches for yourself and see!; unreal climate, climate progress

Oops warmaholic high priests instruct followers not to read climate realists blogs – ROFL – note to ROMM – “the mind is like a parachute – useless unless its open!”

FOI, Climategate, NASA and transparency, Climategate continues,

Judicial watch uncovers NASA’s climategate, Comments at air vent,

Bob Tisdale SST, Global warming hypocrites, What see level rise? Sweet tooth alarmists love “Climate fudge

Filed under: Uncategorized

23 Responses

  1. Ayrdale says:

    To their credit, they have never deleted me at Hot Topic, and we’ve had some very good debates.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/

    Some of their adherants are so way over the top with abuse it’s very easy to gain the upper hand.

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Funny, to me that looks like a profile of blogs like Watt’s Up and No Consensus.

    Try it sometime: Go to a blog of someone who denies warming or human causation, and ask them for a link to back up any of the “facts” they claim.

    Let me know if you get a real citation to a real article that backs up the claim.

    • Dave Dardinger says:

      Aha! Just as I suspected. Post a couple of hit and run messages on CA and then scamper off elsewhere to claim you were stiffed.

      BTW, it’s sheer accident I landed on this site. I decided to follow a link back at CA, which I rarely do.

    • twawki says:

      The science is open and debated on WUWT, Climate Audit, Air Vent, The Blackboard etc etc etc On WUWT if its edited it has ‘snip’and often its for abusive language. As usual your claims dont match with reality. Whereas real climate for example you post anything contrary to their green religion and bang its gone!

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    OH, and add Air Vent. Wow. Ask them a question, you can hear the switchblades come out in unison.

    • twawki says:

      Not my experience there at all, they have always been open to debate. But then as Ive witnessed your comments on here you can be caustic with your mouth – you ever thought of de-emotionalising and trying simply to keeping to the facts. You know it actually works wonders – I suggest you try it sometime!

  4. twawki says:

    And heres the air’vent no consensus blog (also in links);

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/blog-traffic-lucia/#comment-18216

    with ed not being censored but being abusive!

  5. twawki says:

    Ed – lets make this REAL EASY – give us your best case for why global warming is true! – in your own words!

  6. Jeff Id says:

    I see now that ed was just being a jerk to see if he would get cut. He treated us like we’re his personal librarians, made ridiculous claims like we’re spitting on America b/c the IPCC is a money driven government.

    After claiming to be an expert in funding he then claimed the IPCC was funded by 4 million dollars. After being shown that the document he gave specifically stated that the it referred only to the trust fund, he refused to drop the point. After given evidence to support tAV claims, Ed said ‘I spit on this country’.

    You will be socialist no matter what ed has to make up to do it. Including false claims of censorship. False insults to America, False representation of the pay structure of the IPCC – (which isn’t public knowledge) False statements about his own expertise in funding.

    It became a bit tiresome when he began insulting.

    You would think that after he demanded information and received it, he would at least notice but that was not Ed’s purpose.

    • twawki says:

      Agreed. If he got rid of the chip on his shoulder and the attitude he might learn something. And a bit of humility on his part would go a long way.

      And yeah it is too easy to check things these days for people like him to mouth off and then they just get exposed as being dumb and abusive.

      I didn’t like the claims he was making about your site that’s why I posted comment there so people could see for themselves what he was doing.

      Great site you’ve got btw – well done!

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    . . . give us your best case for why global warming is true! – in your own words!

    Biological indicators. They can’t be fudged.

    Among biological indicators:
    1. Plant zones
    2. Bird migration times
    3. Bird nesting places
    4. Hawk migration patterns
    5. Creeping spring time (8 hours earlier every year in the Northern Hemisphere).

    Plants don’t read newspapers, don’t listen to radio or television. If the plants say it’s so, it’s pretty difficult to state otherwise.

  8. twawki says:

    The latest data (from about 2000 onwards as the world has started to cool) shows the opposite;

    1.Plant zones changing from cold
    http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=989f82dc3fd93720
    2.Bird migrations
    http://www.birdmigration.co.uk/
    3.Bird nesting
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6983768/Winter-of-discontent-for-Britains-bird-population.html
    4.Hawk migration
    http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20100106/DCP01/1060371
    5.Spring time
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871

    I agree nature doesn’t have a vested interested in what it communicates to humanity! Check out the PDO (pacific decadel oscillation) we are in a natural cooling cycle for the next 20 -30 years – even most alarmists will acknowledge this!

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    twawki, what you’ve listed is odd events. Not trends. Not rebuttals.

    1. Look here for plant zones:
    American Horticultural Society:
    http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html
    Heat zones, too, here:
    http://www.ahs.org/publications/heat_zone_map.htm
    Description of the warming trend and controversy over Bush administration suppression of the newer maps:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/waiting-for-the-new-president-doctoring-data-on-global-warming/

    In any zone one can get a freeze. The zone maps chart a lot more than just whether a freeze will occur. If you read that Galveston story, you’ll see that the freeze was a shocker, not a trend — and it’s weather, not climate.

    In fact our freezes here in Texas are much changed. 20 years ago the average date of first freeze here in Dallas was in November. Today it’s January. The dates of cold have moved two months. Check the plant zone maps, you’ll see most of Texas is warming. 20 years ago a local nursery was storing some palms temporarily, and a couple of frozen nights wiped them out. Today local nurseries are landscaping with palms. It’s warm enough now.

    2. Again, with bird migrations, you’ve listed one cold event, not a trend. This link will take you to an explanation with links to the Audubon Society story and the Cornell University Ornithology blog, with more data — two of the most rock-solid sources possible on birds:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/cant-fool-the-birds-migratory-birds-in-north-america-react-to-climatic-warming/

    3. Bird-nesting: Again, you’ve confused weather with climate. Especially when warming invites southern, non-cold-hardened birds to move north, a sudden cold snap can be devastating. And it will devastate northern birds, too.

    But go to your source, and see what they say about birds and climate change, not just weather:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5109311/Warming-climate-leads-to-record-number-of-rare-birds-breeding-in-Britain.html

    You may also check with the national “State of the Birds” report section on climate change, to start:
    http://www.stateofthebirds.org/challenges/climate-change
    Plus, Audubon:
    http://audubon.org/bird/bacc/index.html
    and the American Bird Conservancy:
    http://www.abcbirds.org/conservationissues/globalwarming/

    The nesting is moving, and a cold-snap doesn’t alter that fact; it means only that birds that have moved north may be more vulnerable.

    4. A red-tailed hawk in Delaware is some sort of rebuttal?

    Here in Texas, when I first birded here in the 1980s, most hawk species were listed as migratory viewing. We’d see them in the spring going north, and in the fall going south. Then warming kicked in. Now we have year-around mice, voles and rabbits. We now have hawks who migrate here to winter. And we have year-around hawks, who do well in the winter. It’s been hell on the local cat population in the spring, but it’s a fact of life.

    That bird count you referred to, the Audubon Christmas count, shows hawk migration changing, for warming reasons.

    One of the greater indicators of northern movement of warming (both #2 and #3 here) is the increasing number of bird strikes by aircraft. Canada geese used to migrate to Georgia and southward. Today, they live year-around in much of North America — including around New York City where last January a few of them brought down a US Air passenger jet in the famous Hudson River landing. It’s an issue of long concern in aviation circles.

    5. Spring time: Interesting that a 23-year cycle is about to shift to cooling. Alas, the springtime coming earlier thing has been going on through a couple of those cycles now. If that cycle might reverse the earlier spring time, it would be good.

    History suggests that won’t happen. See the story here, on point #2, with the link to an NPR story on the issue:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/plants-refuse-to-listen-to-climate-change-skeptics/

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Please check your spam filter; too many links to rebuttals, I guess.

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    After claiming to be an expert in funding he then claimed the IPCC was funded by 4 million dollars. After being shown that the document he gave specifically stated that the it referred only to the trust fund, he refused to drop the point. After given evidence to support tAV claims, Ed said ‘I spit on this country’.

    I found a link that said there is more money available from governments. The charter of IPCC says they’ll work off the trust fund. If you have something that suggests IPCC costs more than $4 million a year, I’d love to see it. The piece we looked at earlier included the budget for most of the functions. It looked good to me. Where do you see error?

    I love the way people complain I provide no links, then they make wild charges about extravagant spending — without even a reference to a source, let alone a link.

    There’s this thing about replicability that got stuck in my mind back in the laboratory days . . .

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    And heres the air’vent no consensus blog (also in links);

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/blog-traffic-lucia/#comment-18216

    with ed not being censored but being abusive!

    And my abuse? I asked for some documentation that there was a problem with Mann getting a half million for research.

    The chief chunk of information was posted at the blog in the original post: It’s a general grant, having gone through NSF’s vetting process.

    Among wild allegations that followed: NSF should have known better, since Mann’s e-mails were stolen at revealed illegal activity. I asked where the illegal activity was — crickets. (See remark #2 in this thread.) Someone alleged political hanky-panky in earmarking the money for Michael Mann. When I asked for the language in the bill, and pointed out NSF listed it as a general grant, crickets. When I pointed out that the Congressman for the area is a conservative Republican who thinks there is no warming, let alone human causation, crickets.

    No doubt you think I’m being abusive now. It’s so unfair that anyone would ask you to back up your claims.

    In the poll above, may I click it 12 times for the more than a dozen times I’ve been censored at WUWT?

    Ben Franklin noted that, in a fair fight, truth wins. That’s why we have evidence rules in federal courts, and it’s why science generally works hard to assure accuracy with peer review and open discussion.

    You’ll get obnoxious people posting once in a while — not so obnoxious as the religious fanatics I get sniping at Darwin, or the racists who snipe at Obama, or the birthers — but in the end, Franklin was right. Truth wins in a fair fight.

    How dedicated to finding the truth are we?

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Response to the evidence for warming question, ad seriatum to avoid the spam filters, I hope:

    twawki, what you’ve listed is odd events. Not trends. Not rebuttals.

    1. Look here for plant zones:
    American Horticultural Society:
    http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html
    Heat zones, too, here:
    http://www.ahs.org/publications/heat_zone_map.htm
    Description of the warming trend and controversy over Bush administration suppression of the newer maps:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/waiting-for-the-new-president-doctoring-data-on-global-warming/

    In any zone one can get a freeze. The zone maps chart a lot more than just whether a freeze will occur. If you read that Galveston story, you’ll see that the freeze was a shocker, not a trend — and it’s weather, not climate.

    In fact our freezes here in Texas are much changed. 20 years ago the average date of first freeze here in Dallas was in November. Today it’s January. The dates of cold have moved two months. Check the plant zone maps, you’ll see most of Texas is warming. 20 years ago a local nursery was storing some palms temporarily, and a couple of frozen nights wiped them out. Today local nurseries are landscaping with palms. It’s warm enough now.
    [continued]

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    [continued response to #8 above]

    2. Again, with bird migrations, you’ve listed one cold event, not a trend. This link will take you to an explanation with links to the Audubon Society story and the Cornell University Ornithology blog, with more data — two of the most rock-solid sources possible on birds:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/cant-fool-the-birds-migratory-birds-in-north-america-react-to-climatic-warming/

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    [continued response to #8 above]

    3. Bird-nesting: Again, you’ve confused weather with climate. Especially when warming invites southern, non-cold-hardened birds to move north, a sudden cold snap can be devastating. And it will devastate northern birds, too.

    But go to your source, and see what they say about birds and climate change, not just weather:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5109311/Warming-climate-leads-to-record-number-of-rare-birds-breeding-in-Britain.html

    You may also check with the national “State of the Birds” report section on climate change, to start:
    http://www.stateofthebirds.org/challenges/climate-change
    Plus, Audubon:
    http://audubon.org/bird/bacc/index.html
    and the American Bird Conservancy:
    http://www.abcbirds.org/conservationissues/globalwarming/

    The nesting is moving, and a cold-snap doesn’t alter that fact; it means only that birds that have moved north may be more vulnerable.

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    [continued response to #8 above]

    4. A red-tailed hawk in Delaware is some sort of rebuttal?

    Here in Texas, when I first birded here in the 1980s, most hawk species were listed as migratory viewing. We’d see them in the spring going north, and in the fall going south. Then warming kicked in. Now we have year-around mice, voles and rabbits. We now have hawks who migrate here to winter. And we have year-around hawks, who do well in the winter. It’s been hell on the local cat population in the spring, but it’s a fact of life.

    That bird count you referred to, the Audubon Christmas count, shows hawk migration changing, for warming reasons.

    One of the greater indicators of northern movement of warming (both #2 and #3 here) is the increasing number of bird strikes by aircraft. Canada geese used to migrate to Georgia and southward. Today, they live year-around in much of North America — including around New York City where last January a few of them brought down a US Air passenger jet in the famous Hudson River landing. It’s an issue of long concern in aviation circles.

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    [continued response to #8 above]

    5. Spring time: Interesting that a 23-year cycle is about to shift to cooling. Alas, the springtime coming earlier thing has been going on through a couple of those cycles now. If that cycle might reverse the earlier spring time, it would be good.

    History suggests that won’t happen. See the story here, on point #2, with the link to an NPR story on the issue:
    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/plants-refuse-to-listen-to-climate-change-skeptics/

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The New Rich

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
.......
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
.......
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
.......
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
.......
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
.......
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
.......
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
.......
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: