Honestly, are any of us at all surprised by this?
The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.
I admit I am enjoying this as it all unravels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
Okay, a fair point.
So, are those who receive money from fossil fuel companies automatically suspect when they comment on this issue? How about those who appear on radio or television stations or networks that receive advertising dollars from those companies.
It certainly is a valid point if someone stands to profit if the policies they advocate are enacted, but isn't that true of many people who are active on various issues?
Shouldn't we also discount any researcher who has received money from a fossil fuel company?
I'm just wondering if you really believe this is an issue for everyone, or only for those whose views you oppose.
ro ... same old 'bat ... yawn.
Oops, not sure why I didn't get my full name in on my previous post.
So, here's a story about RNC Chair Michael Steele accepting money for speeches:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/12/22/steele_under_fire_for_paid_speaking_gigs.html
So, does that invalidate what he has to say?
Oh, and Anon 8:20, same old name-calling.
Rob, I've brought this up before, and you've done nothing about it.
It just amazes me that you're involved in education issues, yet when commenters on your side act in ways that would get them sent to the corner in kindergarten, you're silent.
Think of how this looks to people in the middle. They see one side that's mostly respectful, and another side that regularly does little more than call names. Which side do you think they'll give more credence to?
Furthermore, how is anyone supposed to trust you on matters related to education when you're unable to even tell your allies that they're hurting your cause with their juvenile behavior?
Your name is not important because you are a 'batcrapper and it's obvious everytime you post a comment (yawn).
You think that 'batcrappers ruin conservative blogs but it's the blog posts that count, not the comments from whackjob warmists and their ilk. We get all that in the MSM. The comments of interest are those that add to the blog posts.
If you don't get that you are a dolt, and a pathetic time-wasting one at that because nobody reads your 'batcrap.
You remind me of Bark Munster, that Portland firefighter who 'batcraps on City-paid time, and who started getting BoJack's goat a few years ago. Maybe you're him. Who cares.
Rob,
Aren't you embarrassed to have people like Anon 12:12 on your side?
Of course, you also have people like Ted Piccolo, David Gulliver, and Lars Larson on your side, people who seem either unable or unwilling to make an argument without it devolving into name-calling.
I'm still waiting to hear someone from the right tell me if people on their side are also suspect if they have received money from fossil-fuel interests. Or is this only a one-way street--you have to be squeaky-clean if you favor reducing carbon emissions, but anything goes if you don't.
RR:
Yes. I am automatically suspect of any research that is funded by an interest group. That applies whether it is an oil company providing the funding, or if the government provides the funding.
Guess which spends more?
But, Rob, it's not clear to me which side the government has an inherent interest in on this issue.
One of the benefits of government funding is that it can be seen as neutral.
So, does KXL accept money from oil companies? Coal companies? If so, might that affect the views on global warming presented on the station?
And how about the governor who appears to have flip-flopped on this statement, made about a year and a half ago:
Alaska's climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will warm at a faster pace than any other areas, and the warming will continue for decades.
Gee, do you suppose she realized her bread was buttered on the side of the deniers? To paraphrase Frank Ivancie, she's buttered her bread, now she's lying in it.
Does that mean *you* will go? Why not start your own blog. There are plenty of places, like the Funny Paper, to read your kind of mumblings.
Roadrunner said... But, Rob, it's not clear to me which side the government has an inherent interest in on this issue.
Your answer is here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
Hint: $79 B to the alarmists. Peanuts to the rationalists.
From the wikipedia article on the Science and Public Policy Institute:
"The organization refuses to release a list of their major funding sources."
So, they don't want people to know where they get their money. By Rob's standards, everything that comes from them is suspect.
By Bark Munster's perverted, corrupt standard, Roadrunner is a hero.
I suppose it's no wonder that ad hominem attacks are the intellectual currency on this blog, considering this post from Rob a little while ago:
Who knows what either he or LSU's coach was thinking. But what can you expect from a guy whose very name, Les Miles, exudes bad grammar.
I would think that a guy who has chosen to use the form of his name that's a synonym for armed theft would be very careful about making fun of other people's names, but no such luck here.
And so far Rob has failed to substantively address the issue of funding from fossil fuel companies. Sure, he posted a "automatically suspect of any research that is funded by an interest group", but I've never seen any specific criticisms when the funding has come from corporate interests.
And doesn't that make all commentary on KXL (or any commercial radio station) suspect, since all of their funding comes from advertisers, and not from the actual listeners to the station.
Between business, science and government. KXL is in the business of political entertainment. Because climate science leans more on politics than science, it is of interest to KXL.
The IPCC is trying to be and do all of the above. That is suspect.
ro you always suppose wrong by this crowd. why don't u cultivate your own blog instead of cluttering the comments on these trog blogs? u clearly deserve a higher opinion of your self.
Actually, KXL is in the business of selling advertisements.
It's interesting how folks on the right are so often offended by people with different views, especially when they back them up with facts and reasoning.
Yes, they are also in the business of selling ads. Where are you going with this... ? If you are trying to make a comparison, it's apples and oranges.
No, they are only in the business of selling ads--that's where they get there money. Listeners don't pay a penny to listen to them.
Listeners who buy products or services advertised on KXL pay a pretty penny to listen. But obviously ro does not understand basic market economics. Progressives prefer The Chicago Way. Steal and reward.
Gee, anon 3:59, I'm unaware of a special "KXL listener surcharge" that's added to the price for certain purchasers.
No, all customers of those businesses pay.
Note this as a teaching moment, an example of how Progressives misbehave. Obama does it all the time.
Ahem. Nobody said non-listeners don't also pay a pretty penny.
Ro and Progs have perfected the straw man technique. Criticize someone for something that wasn't said. Makes you look great.
Makes the community organizer seem smooth, in the know, able to gain folks' confidence.
Then -- The Iron Fist. Steal and Reward. The Chicago Way. Saul Alinsky style, Rules for Radicals. We win, you lose. Fundamentally transform America! [insert Howard Dean scream here.]
Don't forget that Roadrunner has long been a Warmist and a Birther-stoker before that. These are assigned positions among the nutroots, the same tired crap that pollutes local blogs everywhere thanks to wealthy Progressives who push dimes on kids in their basements. What is happening here is not unique. Roadrunner's M.O. is nothing special, except that he has indeed displayed a lower self-esteem than many of his burnout-flameout pals.
Ahem. Nobody said non-listeners don't also pay a pretty penny.
Listeners who buy products or services advertised on KXL pay a pretty penny to listen.
There's an implication that listeners who purchase products advertised on KXL subsidize the station. Well, they do, I suppose, but so do non-listeners as well.
My point is that there's no direct connection between listeners and the revenue that KXL receives. Nobody purchases a product and say "please earmark x amount to go towards advertising on KXL.
Funny, there's all of this ad hominem against me, with no discussion of the points I've brought up. I suppose it's because you can't challenge anything I've actually written, so you have to attack me personally, even though you know hardly anything about me.
RR, you can stop whining any time. Don't bring up the tired old "ad hominem attack" rant, because you have no track record that argues for superiority in that regard.
To put a finer point on it: you say the same stuff, over and over, scattered across a number of blogs. Although you apparently believe that if you repeat it often enough, it becomes truth, most of us have long since tired of your repetitive schtick.
You've made yourself irrelevant. Congratulations.
Max,
I'm not whining--if you folks want to continue to show to the world that you're immature, that's fine with me. I'm just pointing it out, in case you weren't aware that name-calling is not adult behavior.
I may have done it here and there, but I try to refrain from it, as it really doesn't advance the discussion and does no one any good.
I have brought up points here that no one has addressed--at what point does the taking of money invalidate a person's stand on an issue, and does it only invalidate your stand if you're on one side of an issue and not the other?
Are those who comment on commercial radio automatically suspect, since they are 100% funded by advertisements, and thus dependent on keeping them happy?
Also, I'd say that a blogger whose last 10 posts have received a total of 11 comments is in no position to talk about irrevancy.
By the way, my verification word is "coment".
So ro then disclose which gov't pays you so we can judge you. You won't of course. But you won't stop whining.
Also, I'd say that a blogger whose last 10 posts have received a total of 11 comments is in no position to talk about irrevancy.
Dear un-entertaining 'bat-crapper: How many comments are there on *your* blog? That's what I thought. Just like your blood-brother the disgraced warmist David Appell. Quark Soup!
Why is David Appell "disgraced"? Because he posts facts, not your denier fiction?
Rob,
You haven't addressed the issue I've raised:
Are Senators who receive campaign contributions from oil and coal interests suspect when they speak against cap and trade?
Are radio hosts on stations that receive advertising dollars from various companies suspect when they speak against regulations that might affect those companies?
You've raised an important issue, but is it only a one-way street?
ro, you must have missed the memo.
ClimateGate disgraced all Warmists. The science was all junked-up by politics, and AGW has been roundly exposed as the greatest fraud in world history. Skeptics knew this all along, and now the Warmists' unethical behavior confirms.
Try the internet instead of the lamestreams; you might find something on it there.
RR - sorry, been away for awhile.
You ask at what point does money create a conflict of interest? Interesting question.
I think I answered part of it before: A research study on global warming, funded in entirety by an oil company or other carbon intensive industry group - I would definitely be suspect. Does it absolutely negate the results? No, but I would definitely scrutinize it closely.
A study done by a well known think tank, whose ideology is understood, and who has some oil/industry donations as part of their fundraising picture? Still some suspicions.
Research funded by government? Same suspicions. The government bureaucracy has a vested interest in continued funding. Global warming has been a huge boon - billions per year these bureaucrats get to dole out. They have a lot to lose by funding research and researchers who don't toe the AGW line.
A politician who votes one way and takes $$ from those who benefit? Nothing unusual about that in the slightest. Usually the $$ follows the position, not the other way around. As long as it is disclosed, for all to see, not much of a problem.
Now, how about a politician who will PERSONALLY benefit from an issue he is leading, because of investments or a lucrative position advising the industry or firm that stands to gain from his efforts? And that politician is not open about these entanglements, declaring the conflicts and when appropriate, recusing himself from voting altogether? That is just common corruption.
And that is what we seem to have with the head of the IPCC. Blatant conflict of interest, and nobody at the UN seems to care. Of course the UN saw no real problem with the "Oil for Food" corruption either, so we have to consider the source.
As for radio shows? Come on. Talk about full disclosure! Ads run on the station. Everybody knows who advertises. So if a talk show host starts shilling for those products, it is pretty transparent.
To think that industry groups are advertising on talk shows in order to get the hosts to help their cause is quite a stretch.
Political groups advertise on talk shows in order to reach the audience that the talk show speaks to.
But it doesn't really matter anyway. Talk shows are talk shows. But organizations like the IPCC are attempting to make far reaching policy that could effect every living person on the planet.
So blatant conflicts of interest matter a tad more.
Merry Christmas, Rob.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
I'll just address a couple of issues for now:
A politician who votes one way and takes $$ from those who benefit? Nothing unusual about that in the slightest. Usually the $$ follows the position, not the other way around.
Not with Sarah Palin. When she was Governor of Alaska she was concerned with global warming. Now that she's a national figure, not so much.
In her case, some of that may be because of money directly from special interests, but I suspect it's more that she understands that her new constituency don't believe that global warming is a human-caused problem. They're more likely to buy her book the more she's perceived as one of them.
As for talk show hosts, again, some of it may be direct dollars, but in most cases they've seen that in the radio biz, there's more to be made on the right than the left.
So, you have a respected news man who did things like raise money for UNCF and emcee Earth Day events suddenly become very right wing when he became a talk show host (and sever previous ties with groups that could be perceived as liberal).
It's not that they're actively bought and paid for, it's just that they see more career opportunities on the right, rather than honest conviction (though they may come to believe what they say on the radio).
Rob,
A couple more points.
If you think that advertisers don't use their money to influence content, you are naive. And if you think that on-air staff don't engage in self-censorship, you're also naive. Do you really think that Lars would jump on a story that showed a big advertiser in a bad light? Would you?
And, again, are you going to criticize Sarah Palin, who clearly is PERSONALLY benefiting from her flip-flop on global warming.
And for those who like to make the claim that "climate change" is a new term, the IPCC was formed in 1988. "Climate Change" is in their name.
You're also neglecting that even the oil companies have admitted that global warming is a problem--haven't you seen the Exxon-Mobil commercials with the scientist who says that his work on alternative fuels to reduce global warming is the most important of his career?
They want to have it both ways--it's not a problem as far as the government goes, but it is a problem that they are hard at work trying to solve as far as the public goes.
So, are those who receive money from fossil fuel companies automatically suspect when they comment on this issue? How about those who appear on radio or television stations or networks that receive advertising dollars from those companies.
Actually, fossil fuel (other than peat or coal) is a misnomer, but we can let that pass for the moment. Petro companies have funded relatively little when compared to taxpayer-funded grants. The fact of the matter is that science today is not the science that existed back in the day of Pasteur or Curie; today it is generally grant-funded, and one does not advance in that field unless one's results reflect the views of those holding the purse-strings.
It just amazes me that you're involved in education issues, yet when commenters on your side act in ways that would get them sent to the corner in kindergarten, you're silent.
Think of how this looks to people in the middle. They see one side that's mostly respectful, and another side that regularly does little more than call names.
I may have done it here and there, but I try to refrain from it, as it really doesn't advance the discussion and does no one any good.
Actually, RR, you are rarely respectful. Not only do you tend toward belligerence; there are many examples of your ad-homiem attacks scattered across conservative blogs.
Also, I'd say that a blogger whose last 10 posts have received a total of 11 comments is in no position to talk about irrevancy.
Actually, that would be because you appear to lack a basic understanding of How Things Work. My site receives a great number of hits (page views) each week, though I concede that relatively few comment. I suspect that the underlying reason is that many readers agree with the perspectives expressed there, and is also due to the fact that when folks like David Appell leave their trademark droppings, my reply shreds them.
As one commenter recently noted after Appell cut and ran, "Awesome rebuttal Max. I'm sure Davey is cowering and soiling himself somewhere in a dark corner from your erudite evisceration. BTW Davey, what about the 60 million bison that roamed the plains for centuries? I'm sure they were responsible for copious amounts of methane. Or do they not fart?"
RR, there is a reason why BNN routinely ranks my site among the top Oregon blogs, and it has to do with page views, not comments left.
Not with Sarah Palin. When she was Governor of Alaska she was concerned with global warming. Now that she's a national figure, not so much.
Fundamentally wrong, RR. When Palin was governor, she convened a panel to look into the matter, as anybody in a position of responsibility might be expected to do. Unlike Oregon's current governor and our former Secretary of State, she didn't just reflexively drink the kool-aide proferred by either side in the debate which Prophet AlGore has long insisted is over.
Personally, I've always wondered how he can decide that the debate is over, when he's never participated in any debate. Moreover, he seems to be making a lot of money in his "carbon trading" firms. Doesn't that disqualify him as lead Prohet?
Roadrunner, We think you're scoring major points on this blog. Disrupting your pal 'Rob' (I love the familiar) means that '10 isn't going to be as bad for us in the state legislature as it would otherwise be. Keep up the good work. You're making a difference.
Max, you're just sore because I caught Patrick's fake post and called him on it.
Unlike folks like Ted Piccolo and many of the people who comment here, I don't call people names in virtually everything I write.
Your saying I use ad hominems all the time doesn't mean that I do. Ted, though, calls people "moonbat" over and over and over.
Also, I note that you quote approvingly of a commenter on your blog who uses ad hominem against David Appell.
Couric: What’s your position on global warming? Do you believe it’s man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we’re the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I’ve done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are -- there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.
"The point is: it's real."
Hmmm. I guess now it's not so real. Funny how a year, and the opportunity to make lots of money, can change a person's point of view.
Well, what that quote really proves is that she can't speak. I cringe when I read her tortured syntax.
But really, Palin was just being a politician. She was on the ticket with McCain at that point, and he is a believer. All her hemming and hawing there was obviously due to her discomfort at having to pretend she believes humans cause warming.
So, point being - I don't put hardly any stock at all in any politician's view of this stuff, because no matter what, they are always taking whatever position they take for one political purpose or another.
Your other points - that radio stations censor content because of advertisers. Sure. I admit that it happens. But this has little to do with the point of this post: blatant conflict of interest, personal profiteering of people who are making huge public policy decisions. Talk show hosts don't make public policy decisions.
Your point about oil companies "admitting" climate change? Heck, British Petroleum and Enron were all-in on the issue for years! Rent seeking their asses off!
Just more corruption, which is what you get whenever you concentrate power in government.
Max, you're just sore because I caught Patrick's fake post and called him on it.
Unlike folks like Ted Piccolo and many of the people who comment here, I don't call people names in virtually everything I write.
Your saying I use ad hominems all the time doesn't mean that I do. Ted, though, calls people "moonbat" over and over and over.
Also, I note that you quote approvingly of a commenter on your blog who uses ad hominem against David Appell.
RR, oh please. That's just silly stuff. Why on earth would I be "sore because (you claim to have) caught Patrick's fake post"?
Just as you and I have never met, I've never met the person to whom you refer. Your claim is between the two of you; it has nothing to do with me. You keep claiming that it somehow does, but your claims don't make truth.
Your saying I use ad hominems all the time doesn't mean that I do.
Well, there you go again. I don't believe that you can support the claim you make. I did note that despite your protestations to the contrary, examples of ad-hominem on your part can be found on conservative blogs.
Also, I note that you quote approvingly of a commenter on your blog who uses ad hominem against David Appell.
How odd. It seemed to me that you were trying to shoot my site down as irrelevant. I noted that BNN ranks the site consistently in the upper brackets, and explained (since you didn't appear to understand) that rankings appear on page views, rather than comments.
It should be obvious that I provided a sample quote of a comment in reply to my rebuttal of Appel's comment, but that I did not imply approval nor disapproval of the comment itself. Your decision to impute approval where none was stated is very typical of your approach to blog commentary, and it is an approach which I believe that many view as sophomoric.
As a rule, your comments are not based in fact, but they do reveal your "feelings". And for Leftists, nothing else matters, eh?
So, these are allegations that have not yet been substantiated. Sort of like the allegations (which seem to have died a merciful death) that car dealership closures were politically motivated (and were accompanied by meaningless statistics).
Roadsplat.
Word verification: jasms
So, these are allegations that have not yet been substantiated. Sort of like the allegations (which seem to have died a merciful death) that car dealership closures were politically motivated (and were accompanied by meaningless statistics).
I always enjoy your attempts at diversion, RR. The folks on the Left are always yammering about the importance of transparency and openness, and then they turn around and pass bills that nobody's had time to read, and in the middle of the night, at that.
You should be the standard-bearer, to show the rest what transparency really means. Hey! Is that a bomb in your underpants? ;-)
But really, you do this all the time, RR, so not only is it transparent - it's all too predictable. A blogger posts, you disagree, and then you charge in and start calling him naive (while trying to change the subject). Somewhere down the line, you'll start claiming "ad-hominem attacks" - despite the observable fact that such behavior is precisely what you initiated.
As a further diversionary tactic, you'll try to claim the moral high ground by naming a couple of bloggers who aren't posting on this site and accusing them of some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy.
As I've noted before, if you have a beef with them, then you should take it up with them, as it does nothing to further the conversation in regard to the original post on this particular site. That, however, seems precisely your intention: obfuscation, not conversation.
Interesting, is it not, that conservatives answer your comments, and you immediately turn to something else.
Not with Sarah Palin. When she was Governor of Alaska she was concerned with global warming. Now that she's a national figure, not so much.
Fundamentally wrong, RR. When Palin was governor, she convened a panel to look into the matter, as anybody in a position of responsibility might be expected to do. Unlike Oregon's current governor and our former Secretary of State, she didn't just reflexively drink the kool-aide proferred by either side in the debate which Prophet AlGore has long insisted is over.
Personally, I've always wondered how he can decide that the debate is over, when he's never participated in any debate. Moreover, he seems to be making a lot of money in his "carbon trading" firms. Doesn't that disqualify him as lead Prohet?
That's just one example, RR - there are tons more.
You'll trot into a conservative blog and accuse people of not addressing your question or comment, but when someone actually takes the time to do so, you try to divert.
Come back
When you grow up, girl
You're still livin' in a paper-doll world
Max,
The entire strategy of the global-warming deniers is diversion.
First it was "the Earth is not warming." Then it was "the Earth may be warming, but it's not caused by humans." Then it was "The Earth is actually cooling." Then it was "the Earth may be warming, but it's caused by 'cosmic rays'."
Rob has previously trotted out unfounded allegations. These may or may not have merit, but they're just allegations at this point. Rob's previous track record is certainly pertinent.
PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.
So, at one point she said that "(she) know(s) that it's real."
She's obviously changed that position.
The behavior of other bloggers is pertinent because Rob does not blog in a vacuum. The behavior of commenters on his blog is similar to the behavior of other local right-wing bloggers.
Rob seems to think that the juvenile behavior of his allies is acceptable behavior. In most kindergartens that behavior will get you sent to the corner.
You folks will deserve to be taken seriously when you start acting like adults.
Oh, and Max, I've tried to discuss things with Patrick and Ted. Ted deletes comments that point out his juvenile behavior.
Patrick has banned me for something similar.
As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It's clear that Ted and Patrick are unable to stand the heat that comes with the territory of being a blogger.
RR,
You folks will deserve to be taken seriously when you start acting like adults
It is all too apparent that you are in no position to lecture anybody on the subjects of credibility nor adulthood.
You trot out unsubstantiable material such as: First it was "the Earth is not warming." Then it was "the Earth may be warming, but it's not caused by humans." Then it was "The Earth is actually cooling." Then it was "the Earth may be warming, but it's caused by 'cosmic rays'."
And in every case, you are wrong. In point of fact, your opening sentence demonstrates your bias: global-warming deniers. Ooh, trot out that scary term - though by doing so, you place yourself clearly as an adherent to the Religion of Man Made Global Warming.
Thus, anybody who hasn't drunk the kool-aide, as you have, is an infidel; a "denier". You're not trotting into other folks' blogs in order to converse; quite the opposite: you're here to convert - or if that isn't feasible, then to denigrate. Your apparent mission is one of toxicity.
The fact of the matter is that I've encontered no person who disputes that global warming occurs; they also note that global cooling occurs. Thus, your "global warming deniers" cliche is nothing more than a manifestation of your religious belief, and contributes nothing to intelligent dialogue.
Unlike you, the people who dismiss any significant climatolgical impact related to human activity understand that on a planetary scale, the ability of humans to effect significant change is negligible; they recognize that humans are, in essence, puny. They recognize as well that it takes an incredibly inflated sense of ego - in fact, arrogance - to accord to humans the import that your Religion would bestow upon us.
And so you see, RR, why you lack any standing to lecture others in regard to juvenile behavior - arrogance is a profoundly juvenile trait, which you exhibit in abundance.
Now, turning to your whines about other bloggers for a moment: I've tried to discuss things with Patrick and Ted. Ted deletes comments that point out his juvenile behavior. Patrick has banned me for something similar. As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It's clear that Ted and Patrick are unable to stand the heat that comes with the territory of being a blogger.
RR, it seems surprising that you don't understand, but it probably shouldn't be. Here's the deal, excerpted from a reply I recently made to your hero, Appell, on my blog:
If you wish to comment here, that's fine - and welcome - within certain parameters: I consider this blog to be much like my living room. Guests are welcome, as long as they don't crap on the carpet.
Your continued pronouncements regarding my "scientific ignorance" amount to little more than soiling the rugs.
In other words, RR, we leave the door open - as long as you're potty-trained. That you've had trouble with other bloggers says much more about you than them.
Just a pathetic 'bat-crapper. Not a blogger. A self-appointed police thug with zero authority, zero legitimacy. The only object is to divert attention from the Left's continual failures. That task is way too big for low-esteem cartoon characters like this. But they have no trouble lining up the low-life 'talent' to waste your time and dissipate your focus, your energy.
Remember, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been running Congress since 2006. Three years is long enough to know they are an utter failure. And now we have to tolerate 3 more years of President Barry Obama. Just to make sure we know it's all 100% Democratics running things into the dirt.
Max, those are all arguments that the deniers have put forth.
It's fair game to hold your side of the issue accountable to their grabbing at straws.
Tell me, if you are in your living room and you're telling outright falsehoods, am I supposed to just twiddle my thumbs?
That's what Patrick did--he posted something that he attributed to a left-wing blogger that all evidence points to his having made it up (and I explained what the evidence was that pointed tho this).
For pointing this out you suggested that I was committing libel.
The fact that you're still sticking up for his bad behavior tells us volumes about your ethical standards.
Thank you for that service. We all appreciate it.
Oh, and Max, when you set up a camera in your living room and invite the world in, then spout nonsense, you have to expect people to call you on it.
If you can handle that, perhaps it's time for you to find another hobby.
RR,
Congratulations! You've outdone yourself; I really didn't think that you had it in you. But obviously, you do. Amazing!
Let's review, RR: the post was about your Religion. Clearly, as I noted, it is a religious belief for you.
As you have made no attempt to refute my observation, and as you continued to use terminology promoted by the theology, my observation stands. True to form, you have made valiant efforts to deflect and distract, but you have been unwilling or unable to address the salient issue.
As noted previously (and in view of your silence upon the matter, reasonable people may take as affirmation), You're not trotting into other folks' blogs in order to converse; quite the opposite: you're here to convert - or if that isn't feasible, then to denigrate. Your apparent mission is one of toxicity.
It is quite clear that reasonable discourse with you is not possible at this point in your life. You don't seem to have passed successfully through the stage of being unable to control yourself. Thus, you soil the floors.
On occasion, the floor owners lock you outdoors.
Puppies can usually figure out why that happens.
That you can't says much.
Post a Comment