The Guardian maintains a good old-fashioned Soviet style consensus, by simply silencing any dissent.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
Recent Comments
- Bruce of Newcastle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Jack the Insider on Doubling Energy Costs
- Conrad Ziefle on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
Who is the bullet-shaped-head guy behind Nuttercelli?
Oh … Abraham … that nut …
Here is Abraham pictured with two friends:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dZZ22N-gL._SS500_.jpg
So, we’ve got bullet head and Cro-Magnon man?
Amusing to see the article illustration of AlGore (who, by the way, invented the Interwebs).
Really confidence inspiring, that.
For some years now I have taken the trouble to do a screen shot of any post I make at the Guardian, just so I can look back and see what it was I said that so contravened their “community standards” when they delete it. These standards are very sensitive where Nuccitelli and Suzanne Rosenberg are concerned. Here is the text they deleted in this case:
“I am a keen follower of the “global warming” debate in most of its many aspects…but freely I confess I could not be arsed to read more than a few paragraphs into this turgid analysis.
I wonder if the authors of the study, or indeed Dana, really believe this sort of hideous mating between a glorified straw poll and low-rent psychobabble actually advances the boundaries of science or our understanding of it.”
Jack, that was plainly savage … bravo!
You poor lost sheep. If you wish to have your comments remain in Holy Canon of Warming at The Guardian you must first repent your denying ways… then purchase lots of expensive
indulgencescarbon credits and place them upon the alter of the IPCC.You can also try using bigger words that aren’t in the AP Stylebook or the average abridged dictionary. That way their moderators have to work a bit harder to understand what you said
But Tony, they believe they posses all the Actual Facts. They hold the Holy Grail of all that is fact in their CAGW altruism to save the planet.
I’ve never had the honor of being censored by those websites because I usually just get banned and my computer gets IP’ed
It is fun to screw with their heads
Put in your comment:
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more details see our FAQs
They then spend hours trying to work out what the original comment was, and who deleted it.
No, because the ones they deleted turn blue.
Here is what I just posted there, let’s see if it gets through:
I’ve got a question. If humans, by increasing CO2 by 43%, have caused 0.5 degrees of warming since WWII (the warming before WWII was obviously not anthropogenic because CO2 was still almost pre-industrial), which means the earth has a climate sensitivity of .5/.43 which is 1.1 C per doubling, and if we have to double the CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, which will take a century or two to do, and by doubling said CO2 all we will do is add 1.1 C, then who cares?
And you’re even meeting them more than half-way, Morgan, because the CO2 “sensitivity” is all wrong. That’s one of the reasons their models consistently get it wrong. CO2 is NOT a heat source. Trying to figure W/m^2 from CO2 into the energy budget fails every time it’s tried.
Maybe you should try –
Studies have revealed that all references to this brace of mere erudite scriveners; singly or as and aggregation, as formulations of pre-fossilized coprolite, or an exegesis of anaerobic, or partially anaerobic microbial effuse of biological, or meta-biological exudate, are hereby expunged. Deliquescence of actuality however remains.
for more see P. Merde’s book “Enthüllt Scheiße-Köpfe der Welt”
What great, steaming pile of male bovine exudate…
Let’s see if this works:
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more details see our FAQs
Nope, I wanted to see if regular HTML color codes would work in a comment… no luck.
signs that the message is filtering down to MSM (legal)
http://wvrecord.com/arguments/268511-global-warming-americans-pay-the-price
pity the 97% paper has been torn to shreds .
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
from here http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
The Graudian still has me on double secret probation so very few of my comments get through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXEQ8hjyGI
Smarmy, arrogant closed-minded “rhymes with ducks”….Nuccitelli, Mooney, Borenstein….I grit my teeth when i see them get (create) press. Oops. Think I just cracked a tooth.
The Guardian reveals it’s new log-in screen –
“Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been a Climate Change Denier”
1. Yes……………[logout]
2. No……………..[Continue]
This is scary stuff. Censoring dissenting opinions is absolutely outrageous. Whatever happened to the idea of free expression? So, these days, just call a comment “spam” or “hate speech” and then you can delete it and censor speech? What is going on in this world?
Phycology of Facts — I like how they use the term “global warming” in the headline and then in the very first paragraph substitute the term “climate change”.
Words are the physicians of a mind diseased. – Aeschylus
I had my fun over there but I give up. The warmers are such unbelievably stupid people.
But I did make about 7 or 8 posts and only one got deleted. And one of the warmtard posts was deleted too. I’m proud of myself.