Commenting here instead of… there

Sorry to trouble you, but because I’m banned at And Then There’s Physics, this will have to serve as my forum for comments I would normally post there.

And Then There’s Physics has the mandatory Kill Lomborg post up, which every Konsensus blogger is required to do twice a year. Lomborg, of course, is the evillest person on the planet because he thinks helping the poor is more important than stopping all fossil fuel emissions.

One of the major criticisms is ATTP’s abhorrence that Lomborg has not publicized anything he has done to help the poor, despite writing that helping the poor should be a high priority.

One example of Lomborg’s indifference to the poor is Roger Pielke’s attendance at a party. For Konsensus idiots, that actually works.

On April 8, ATTP had a post, “No More Flying?” in which he agonizes over whether or not climate scientists should quit flying.

ATTP writes, “To be honest, I’m in two minds about this whole idea. … However, I’m not sure about the whole idea that climate scientists should be setting some kind of example. ….However, I do still worry that we’re expecting an awful lot from those who are really just the messengers, not the decision makers. … I’m just not convinced that we should be expecting climate scientists specifically to publicly change their behaviour. This is a global, societal issue and we should all be considering how we can help to both highlight the issues and reduce our emissions. We shouldn’t be leaving it only to climate scientists, simply because their research is most closely related to the topic. It’s not that hard for the rest of us to understand the significance.

22 responses to “Commenting here instead of… there

  1. Well, if this reflects the level of the type of comment you would like to leave, you can keep it here. What unadulterated nonsense. Since you may not understand why, here’s some hints.

    Kill Lomborg post

    WTF!

    which every Konsensus blogger is required to do twice a year.

    And you wonder why people like me are annoyed about the retraction of the Recursive Fury paper.

    evillest person on the planet

    Jesus!

    because he thinks helping the poor is more important than stopping all fossil fuel emissions.

    Ridiculous hyperbole. Furthermore, my criticism of Lomborg is not because he wants to help the poor. FFS, you’re using a serious issue to try score points!

    One of the major criticisms is ATTP’s abhorrence that Lomborg has not publicized anything he has done to help the poor, despite writing that helping the poor should be a high priority.

    I don’t remember saying this.

    One example of Lomborg’s indifference to the poor is Roger Pielke’s attendance at a party. For Konsensus idiots, that actually works.

    This wasn’t in my post, it was someone else’s comment.

    Your final paragraph entirely misses the point of my earlier post.

    Please ban me! If this was a serious post, you really should improve you reading comprehension and spend a little more time thinking before you write stuff down.

    • Let us look carefully at your line of argumentation above.

      WTF.
      Jesus.
      Ridiculous hyperbole. Furthermore, my criticism of Lomborg is not because he wants to help the poor. FFS, you’re using a serious issue to try score points!
      I don’t remember saying this.
      This wasn’t in my post, it was someone else’s comment.
      Please ban me! If this was a serious post, you really should improve you reading comprehension and spend a little more time thinking before you write stuff down.

      This is what a physicist brings to the table?

      ATTP, FYI, I am tweaking you a bit because you banned me. I will continue to do so when it pleases me.

      • Let us look carefully at your line of argumentation above.

        It wasn’t intended to be a line of argument. It was intended to be illustrative. How can I engage in a discussion about my post when your post has little actual bearing on my post.

        I am tweaking you a bit because you banned me. I will continue to do so when it pleases me.

        That, I can actually deal with. I do the same myself. What I have more trouble with is you writing a post that entirely misrepresents mine. If you are serious about having discussions, you’re going to have to at least try to avoid that, or acknowledge it when you do so.

      • Whatever you intended it to be, it looks foolish.

    • As far as being annoyed at the retraction of the Recursive Fury paper, I believe you are annoyed because a bit of propaganda got pulled from your menu.

      If you actually were a scientist you would be applauding the removal of a fatally flawed paper that bid fair to bring science into disrepute.

  2. That you could bring Recursive Fury into this conversation says it all, well, added to the WTF… You never seem to want to discuss the substance of topics, at least not here. Why should I discuss the substance of your post? The comments are much more fun and much more revealing, including yours.

    I’m sure you’ll inform all your commenters about the folly of trying to score points using a serious issue. You can start with the odious Eli.

    You have so little discipline that you can’t stay away and you ask me to ban you? Tsk, tsk.

    • Tom,
      I’m not trying to engage with you. I’m trying to point that your post is stupid. If you can’t get that, what’s the point in engaging any further? If you don’t like me mentioning Recursive Fury, stop making it seem like there’s a conspiracy. Jesus, this isn’t even all that complicated.

      • ATTP, have they heard of the band Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks in Scotland? They have a song you might profit from…

        How Can I Miss You If You Won’t Go Away?

        What specifically do you find stupid about my post? That pointing out that your commenters are far below mine in terms of intelligence, courtesy and intellectual honesty? For that is the case.

        Perhaps it’s for chiding you for saying that Lomborg has made many errors but being too lazy to cite even one? You’re a lazy linker at that. The Graham Redfern article did not mention one mistake by Lomborg. It went into great detail about how a polite discussion could have proceeded with some points that Lomborg might have considered before a few statements–but no errors.

        Perhaps you could sense my dissatisfaction with your bogus insinuendo, a neologism that might have been invented for you, intimating that Lomborg has a tenuous grasp on the basics of climate science, once again failing to cite one example.

        I won’t ban you, ATTP. You provide not only comic relief but daily proof of the vacuous nature of Konsensus diatribes.

      • What specifically do you find stupid about my post? That pointing out that your commenters are far below mine in terms of intelligence, courtesy and intellectual honesty? For that is the case.

        Well, apart from the fact that your post makes suggestions about my post that are completely untrue, the above just makes you seem ridiculous.

        I won’t ban you, ATTP. You provide not only comic relief but daily proof of the vacuous nature of Konsensus diatribes.

        You don’t need to. I think I’ve seen enough.

      • ATTP, you say that Lomborg has made many errors. Citation, please.

    • Really? I might be able to substantiate a claim that more climate scientists are regulars (or perhaps former regulars–I lost some during the hiatus in blogging) here than at your site.

  3. He keeps asking me to ban him too. Strange guy.

    • Andrew,
      Seriously? Because I think your site is absolutely appalling. I think what you write is ridiculous. Your arguments are intellectually juvenile; that you can write such stuff and not realise it is remarkable. You should be ashamed of what you let people write in the comments; they’re fundamentally offensive. That anyone takes you seriously is also remarkable. Your understanding of complex topics seems non-existent. Someone described your site as being like a bunch of people solving the world’s problems in a pub after a few drinks. The only reason I disagree with that is because a bunch of people in a pub trying to solve the world’s problems after a few drinks would probably make more sense than what you promote on your site.

      The reason I ask you and Tom to ban me is because that is the one way you could stop me from pointing it out how ridiculous your sites are in the comments, and since I seem incapable of not doings so – and think it’s broadly a waste of time to do so – you’d be doing me a favour and saving me a great deal of time if you did. However, you probably don’t need to worry too much anymore because both of your sites have now got to the point where they’re so incredibly ridiculous that even I can’t even be bothered anymore. That neither you nor Tom can work out that disagreeing with someone who claims to want to do something good doesn’t mean that you want to do something bad speaks volume about your basic intellect.

      • Academics seem to project frequently.
        ATTP,
        If you offered any coherent, rational argument about how wicked and terrible this site or Bishop Hill is, you might have a case.
        But you go around going “tssk. tsssk” in badly acted outrage is not credible or rational.
        If one wants to read shallow reactionary arguments, your site is one of the top ones to come to mind.

    • Hiya Andrew–what’s up with this dude? Does he make sense over at your place?

    • ATTP, you may not like what the good Bishop writes or what his commenters say, but I visit there frequently and I must say the consistency of argumentation and the coherency of the point of view at Bishop Hill makes your site look a bit sad.

      • I must say the consistency of argumentation and the coherency of the point of view at Bishop Hill makes your site look a bit sad.

        Really? Wow. I think Andrew’s site is juvenile and appalling and from what I’ve seen Andrew couldn’t construct a coherent argument if someone was feeding him what to say.

      • Perhaps it’s a Brit vs Scot thing, but I think you are incorrect in your observations about Bishop Hill.

        To me, the description you provide is more appropriate for a site like Deltoid.

  4. ATTP please un-ban Thomas from your site and stop coming here to ask to be banned. It is silly behavior. Thankyou.

  5. Tom, I’ve stopped reading this stuff.

Leave a Reply

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