This site is getting flooded with idiots posting mindless FUD, who appear incapable of interpreting maps or graphs.
If you say the same stupid crap over and over again, you are going to spam.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
But Steven, I have to say the same crap over and over again just so David Appell can understand it. Hahahahahahahaha Actually you put up with that guy who was mocking your name much longer than I would have .
If someone can show me that I am wrong, fine. What I can’t stand is people who are unable to admit that they don’t know what they are talking about and post the same shit over and over again.
Yes, it’s exhausting. I think they to that crap on purpose. To distract for a bit.
Old Adage – if you can’t dazzle them with facts, baffle them with BS.
If you are being flooded with idiots posting rubbish see that as a complement. You are now on the True Believer radar, which means they view your information and analysis as threatening.
It.s called “trolling”. Been around for ages on the web and usenet.
Ignore and erase.
Looks like you are over the target Steve.Take that as a compliment.
Could be that you are a bit obscure at times. You can never be to clear. Make sure that the x-y-graphs are very clearly marked on the axis and always put a trend line in it with an arrows head at the end of it.
Remember the words of the wise prophet George Carlin: “Think how stupid the average person is, and half of the people is stupider than that”.
Don’t worry, James Delingpole’s blog in the UK Daily Telegraph is infested with trolls – we largely ignore them, but often poke fun at them when they render themselves to ridicule, which is most of the time.
It’s fun responding to alarmists posting on the site, kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. All they can do is site blatantly corrupted data and then claim that the agenda driven pathological liars who corrupt the data are honest. But I can understand that they do get tiresome after awhile.
Just a suggestion — after all, it is your blog and you do all the heavy lifting to make it appear for us — but would you consider a “stupid hole” to file the comments in? Leave a name and place holder for each stupid comment, but move the comment itself into a separate file where it can still be accessed by the strong of stomach. Think of it as a sort of daily joke section! 🙂
PS Steven, thank you for putting up with the trolls. Even more, thank you for presenting real data for our consideration. Yes, I know that there is such a thing as honest adjustments, so not all adjustments are scams. What the “climatologists” are giving us is simply assertion though. “We have fixed the data and our conclusions are this!” Without showing original data and the procedures and reasons for ALL adjustments, the conclusions they release are NOT science. Raw data, even with big error bars is part of science, but raw assertion without justification is nothing but rhetoric.
I’ll go one step further and say that the error bars are the science.
Surely you mean “the error bars are what passes for science”??
I’m not completely sure what I mean. That’s all I can say.
No more, no less.
Awesome Steve. Maybe you should call this the Climate Chatterbot Rule.
A Climate Chatterbot Hall of Fame from this site would be very entertaining.
Steven, I know how you feel, some people who come on here to just troll around and be a nuisance, it gets annoying after a while.
Eric,
Don’t think for a minute that there is not some coordination going on. The arguments, the tactics, they are all too familiar. Most people, even ones that are passionate about their beliefs, wouldn’t waste time repeatedly spouting the same drivel over and over again unless it was part of some responsibility they had. I would love to see the IP addresses of some of the Climate Chatterbots…….I am sure it would be very illuminating.
Yeah, you are right, I never thought of that before. It would be interesting to see where these clowns come from.
What the trolls don’t seem to realize is that once that post stupid drivel the rest of us just scroll past their post. So they really aren’t affecting the argument.
Exactly!!
So wait, nobody has a right to disagree with you or question what you say?
I thought you wanted an open forum in science?
You really aren’t very bright. What part of ” the same stupid crap over and over again ” isn’t clear?
I consider a warmist on this site a troll. I wouldn’t allow trolls, unless you really want. Certainly those that are petty or insulting, keep them away. The idea that we need to have an “open forum” is ridiculous. But it’s your perogative. If you don’t feel like having the most annoying ones comment, don’t let them, life is too short. Maybe just allow those warmists to comment that bend over backwards. It is your site, and most of us don’t like them anyway. Geven is ok though.
I was just trying to joke about Geven because his comment was right above mine. But I actually don’t know anything about Geven (so, I should have not joked), but lol on his name, though, what a coincidence!
I consider a warmist a troll too, but as a skeptic of the AGW argument, we need to try and be open-minded, and I agree that AGWers that come on here just to insult and not present an actual argument should be considered spam. However, I don’t want to end up like the climate clowns who don’t consider any counter-arguments or other points of view and over time those kind of actions lead to ignorance and incompetence, thus Dunning-Kreuger effect is established.
Well SG decided to ban me even though I made valid points (and even others apparently in this post think so). SG doesn’t seem to be interested in honest discussion or anyone calling him to task.
That’s a real shame.
You are an idiot.
GS – Jesus would not try to impersonate some one else, especially apparently one that he seeks to emulate.
I don’t want to end up like the climate clowns
But, perhaps an analogy is Romney in this campaign, or certainly McCain in ’08, such a goody-two-shoes that he wouldn’t go properly negative. It’s fine to complain about the other guy being negative, but not if it interferes with the necessity of going (very) negative yourself. IMO, Mitt needs to get in the mud, and get over his puritanical or perhaps paternalistic “I’m better than everyone else” type thinking. (That’s one of the problems of having a high-brow type as our candidate, they may fall victim to an unhelpful notion that they have an obligation to follow some higher standards, while, like O, an everyday non-elitist candidate would just do whatever it takes to win.)
But, as far as us, I don’t think there is anything to be gained by trying to put ourselves on a higher moral plane that the warmists. The warmists keep us out of most of their sites for a logical reason. We may have similar reasons to keep them out of skeptic sites. In theory there could be benefits gained by fighting off their arguments. In theory, but the cost is that we may feel broadsided by the warmist bs. In any event, it is up to Steven to use his discretion on the matter.
Your last paragraph sounds like the old “moral equivalence” crap that the Liberals love so much. I read Steven’s posts because they are about reality and therefore about real science. I don’t read “Real Climate”, etc, because they are about the corruption of science and the spreading of disinformation. So to the extent that truth (reality) is on a higher moral plane than falsehood (pseudo-science), then I am absolutely committed to the proposition of moral superiority!!
The Warmists can’t argue the science, because it’s not on their side, so they are reduced name calling. The entire CO2-causes-warming fantasy has been discredited over and over and over. But the alarmists, with a few notable exceptions, stubbornly cling to their pet theory like a child hugging ther favorite Teddy Bear. Their actions are embarrasingly juvenile.