Saturday, July 04, 2009

I don't care what you think about ice and snow on the roads, global warming is a bad thing

Today, let's talk about global warming. Also known as "global climate change."

See, on another blog out there, I said some mean things about Michele Bachmann, and somehow ended up in a debate about global warming. That's how things work on these here Intarnets - it's a series of tubes, and they don't always go where you expect.

(Now, part of the message of the post involved the Left Coast Rebel saying that liberals were close-minded and not willing to listen to other people's viewpoints. And ten minutes after I posted my viewpoint, that same rebel asked his readers if he should delete it. Ultimately, it stayed, but I like the inherent irony in him even asking the question.)

Now, much of that debate was reprinted here in three parts. And, since Andy has already posted replies to last week's rant, let's see if we can lure him here, since he seems to be particularly interested in climate change. (To level the playing field a little, I'll start here primarily with arguments he's already seen.)

Now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group put together back in 1988 by the UN to monitor studies about climate change and determine the facts of the matter. Despite White House opposition, the IPCC noted an increase of about a degree and a half in average surface temperature in the latter part of the 20th century. They determined that greenhouse gases and deforestation were the primary causes, and nature (solar variation and volcanoes) had produced most of the warming up through about 1950, but had actually cooled things somewhat since then.

The summary of that study is here, if you're curious. Most of the major scientific organizations internationally have endorsed that study, by the way, and the IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore on the subject.

You're heading out into Conspiracy Theory territory if you believe that a giant international cabal of scientists is counterfeiting their evidence for some nefarious purpose. Nor do I think that it's likely that all the governments in the world worked together to alter the findings of those same scientists, without any of those scientists saying anything. (On top of which, wouldn't the Bush White House have had some input in suppressing the results, if that was the case?)

(And, admittedly, there was one scientist who left the group, back in 2005, named Christopher Landsea. However, he was specifically miffed about another scientist saying that strong hurricane activity was due to global warming, when he had performed no studies in that area.)

There are several climate model projections in the IPCC report, which suggest that global surface temperatures will rise another 2 to 12 degrees F. up through 2100, depending on who you believe (and it will probably continue to rise beyond that, since the 75% of the earth covered in water is a great heatsink).

But even that 2 degrees will cause significant melting in the polar regions, and even a few inches of increase in the world's oceans will be a bad thing.

Now, I understand that there are arguments against this concept. A number of scientists (mostly funded by Exxon-Mobil, oddly enough) have come out saying that this theory is implausible. Sadly, the logic holds up, and the facts remain facts.

(On the subject of Exxon-Mobil, they did manage to get one leading scientist ousted as chairman. Not that they were trying to alter the results of the report or anything...)

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). You know, since the start of the industrial revolution. Why would that be?

And looking at that CO2, let's consider the nature of the chemical.

There are 3 major carbon isotopes, numbered 12 to 14. Carbon-12 is the most common, and carbon-14, the radioactive one, is the least common. They're usually spread pretty evenly, but, being radioactive, carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life, so that you can measure how old something is by how much of the trapped carbon in a specimen is carbon-14 - the less -14 there is, the older it is.

Here's the thing: since the various carbon isotopes are spread evenly through nature, you'd expect that they'd be spread evenly in the atmosphere. Now, since the carbon in the air shows a lot less carbon-14, doesn't that mean that most of it came from older sources? Like, for example, fossil fuels?

Incidentally, before anybody brings up "well, there are questions about the accuracy of carbon-14 dating! -- you know, I've tried to look into that, and the only place I've found those questions are in Christian (primarily creationist) websites. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to include a link to something from the scientific community, because it looks to me like they're pretty clear on the subject.

Our government seems to be concentrating on CO2 in their current legislation, as if that was the only culprit in air pollution. I mean, there are others: for example, ozone (O3), which is an unstable form of oxygen (O2) which happens to be poisonous (we need it in the upper atmosphere, but not where we're breathing, right?). Then there's the various sulphur compounds, many of which will kill you, and a bunch of various other compounds (mercury, weirdly enough, was taken off the charts by the Bush administration, despite the fact that it's been noted for the number of birth defects and other horrific problems it can cause).

You know, there's a term in the air pollution field: "particulate matter." It's that crap in the air that floats around for a while and then drops and clings to things. "Soot" is one type. (You know those Sherlock Holmes movies with the fog and stuff? I understand that the fog in those was actually smog from the factories, back in the 1800s/Industrial Revolution era, and it used to stain men's clothes to the point that paper collars and cuffs, that you could remove and throw away, were common.)

You know, when you think about it, soot should be heavier than air, right? I wonder how it gets up into the atmosphere? I mean, if your experiment with carbon dioxide proved that heavier gases will always drop, wouldn't a particulate drop even faster?

And where does acid rain come from, anyway? I mean, moisture in the air mixes with nitrogren oxide, sulphur dioxide or the like, and forms an acid that might travel for thousands of miles before it lands and screws stuff up around it.

Do you not believe that dumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere might have an effect on things like the absorbtion of sunlight by plants? (And remember, it isn't just CO2 being put out by those smokestacks.)

And one of the favorite arguments of the anti-global-warming crowd lately has been this 2008 petition, where 32,000 scientists said that you can't prove global warming.

I've been wondering about those 32,000 scientists. I mean, when you look into it, you start to notice some discrepencies. Let's start with "scientist" as a definition. It means somebody with a degree and some science background, right? Are you required to be working in a scientific field? You've got 31,478 college graduates who signed this thing. But only 3,803 (by Ron Paul's count, at least) have "specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences."

So, if we take their word for it about their training (and if they were going to fake this, they'd have a larger number, right?), that's about 12% who know enough about earth sciences to not be pulling information out of their posteriors. Did I do that math right?

You know, you've got to wonder about that other 88% of them. What did they study? There's got to be some math, some physics - that's a given, right? Of course, pretty much any degree has a certain number of prerequisites, including science, math and the like. But, really, a Doctor of Theology - well, by that definition, he's a scientist, right? I haven't seen a good accounting of what fields of study these degrees were in, so I can't talk with any certainty, but since they specified the numbers I used, I have to assume that there was a reason for it.

According to most studies, when you include the PhD's, there are 30,000 doctorates awarded each year. So based on that, they were only able to find 32,000 willing to sign on here? (OK, not even that many: only 31,478 - that doesn't seem like a lot.)


Eman said...

I thought I’d had enough of your anti-conservative ranting, but you have once again, proven my point about you. You’re a perfect example of what liberalism is: It claims inclusiveness but never includes dissension. You pillage and pillage those who give REAL reasons why they will not do what the government insists, yet when liberals say they will not yield, it’s not an issue or even worth comment.

I really want to go on and on with my pervious paragraphs reasons why you are not tolerated on others blogs, but THE TRUTH IS YOU DON’T LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT YOURSELF. You have lost all legitimacy by your unwillingness listen to true honest reason, and you dismiss those who YOU SAY are unreasonable.

You have posted on the blog you reference in this post that you believe “global warming” or “climate change” is man made. You dilute yourself by saying 32,000 scientists may not actually be scientists, yet you don’t question the credentials of those who believe its man made. You’re pathetic comebacks and your mindless brain burps in parenthesis are neither correct nor warranted because you insult good honest people with every breath you take.

I’ve had my fill of your ilk. No one wants to listen to your crap. Live your atheistic life skeptical of every conservative you wish. I don’t care. We don’t care. You have marginalized yourself by saying to everyone “I know it all and … oh by the way, here’s a link that proves I know it all.” You have no link Bill. You and your Colorado counterpart can kiss each others butts all day long.

WE DON’T CARE!! Maybe he can help you pack some of that crap back where it came from.

Andrew33 said...

If 32000 scientists disagree with the pro-government stance that all global warming debate should end, maybe the debate should not be halted. Also, those pushing the AGW agenda are using some fairly harsh tactics on those who don't tow the party line. A certain ex head of the NHC and personal good friend (nat hurricane center )lost his job and his career because he refused to say that Katrina was caused by global warming. Also now the EPA is under investigation because false info was released pertaining to greenhouse gasses.

Andrew33 said...

From my blog:
One more thing, in looking back, my comment that you have been the gift that keeps on giving, could be taken as an insult if you do not understand the context in which it was meant. We have often wished for more debate on this blog coming from our friends on the left. You have done so without being rude or insulting. I hope that with the context of the comment understood, that it is not deemed insulting in any way. Thanks. Please accept my apology for not making that clear. I have no desire to insult you and if I did, it would not be ambiguous like this. I hope we are on good terms
(A.D.33 & Keemo)

Nameless Cynic said...

Wow. Eric. Dude. You're off your meds again.


Let me just say that this post was placed here, using primarily arguments I'd already written (see, that's what that "level the playing field a bit" comment meant) to encourage debate. Asking Andrew here to throw in his viewpoint (and if you go where he co-blogs, you'll note that we don't agree on much of anything.

But, hey, good hearing from you again.

(I "pillage"? Do I also rape and burn? I don't get compared to the Mongol hordes much.)

Nameless Cynic said...

Yo, Andrew,

(Do you prefer "Andy" or "Joel"? I'm easy.)

I'm not saying that the words of 32,000 scientists should be ignored. (Well, I guess you could read it that I am, actually...), I'm saying that this petition should be scrutinized with the same vigor that every page put out by the IPCC is.

Have the signatures all been verified? Have the bona fides of all these "scientists" been established? Do we pay attention to a Doctor of Theology? How many of these people do, in fact, have degrees? ("It's pathetic that they're so desperate to show that any scientist supports their position that they're even contacting random graduate students in tangentially and unrelated fields." - Sean Lake, graduate student in the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy)

Thing is, the global-warming deniers have the motivation to find any loophole that they can, because Exxon-Mobil will be happy to bury them in cash if they can show even the barest hint of irregularity in the science. Who's paying for checking the paid skeptics?

Let's consider what we do know about the Oregon Petition.

First, the whole exercise is being pushed by Arthur B. Robinson, the survivalist, Darwin skeptic and proprietor of something called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The "scientific" article on which the petition rests is authored by Robinson, his son Noah, and the American Petroleum Industry-funded Willie Soon, none of whom could hope to get their climate work published in a peer-reviewed science journal...

But most offensive is the use, once again, of the 96-year-old Dr. Fred Seitz as the lead signatory. Seitz was once a widely respected scientist; he's a former President of the National Academy of Sciences and a one-time President of Rockefeller University. But he fell from grace in the 1970s when he signed on as chief scientist for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company. He fell then further in 1989 when Alexander Holtzman at Philip Morris complained in an internal memo that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

So, 18 years ago, Seitz was "not sufficiently rational" to meet the lenient scientific standards of the tobacco industry, but today, Art Robinson still feels it's ethical to send out a petition over Seitz's signature on one of the most pressing current scientific issues of the day.

They admit freely that only 12% of these "scientists" have any kind of "specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences." What kind of background are we talking about? Are any of them active climatologists? Or is this something more like "I took a class in earth sciences once" or something? You know. Questions like that.

Now, as to the "EPA releasing false data" charge, I suppose you mean the accusation that they suppressed a memo critical of global warming? (I've got to ask, because that's a slightly different slant than the question you posed. If you're talking about a different case, please advise.)

Well, it looks like the memo was "suppressed" because the science in it was flawed.

(And incidentally, I don't insult easily. Don't worry about it.)

Diogenes said...

NC, please stop this. My sides hurt too much, laughing at the unparalleled hypocrisy and gall of someone like the Vaunted E-Man.

"You’re a perfect example of what liberalism is: It claims inclusiveness but never includes dissension.... THE TRUTH IS YOU DON’T LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT YOURSELF."

This coming from a walking barf bag who banned you and I from his own blog because we wouldn't agree that every word that sprang forth from his fingertips was a pearl of wisdom? This coming from someone who can ONLY listen to himself, because nobody else will bother commenting on his blog?

Is that the sound of one hand clapping, or doing whatever one might normally do with one hand?

It's somewhat divergent from your topic, but this thread reminded me of what I heard on my car radio this morning: the "Best" of Rush Limbaugh. (Now THAT is the oxymoron of all morons!" He was ranting about the cancellation of the school voucher program in Washington DC, and he decided it was all a plot by the Democrats to keep the underclasses stupid and uneducated, because once people become educated, they automatically realize that liberals are idiots and automatically become conservatives.

And it struck me: how is it that guys like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck merit fours hours APIECE, daily, on our nation's airwaves, when -- between them, total -- they don't have four years of a college education, much less a single college degree? Why is it some folks repeatedly look to this level of (un)education in order to "understand" complex scientific and social issues? Tell us, O Great Ones, who these great scientific minds are that laugh at the concept of global climate change. How many of them received their doctorates in advanced pretzel manufacture from some online university operaing out of Sri Lanka? How many received honorary doctorates from Rupert Murdoch Institute of Higher Edjawmawkayshun?

How DARE you ignore such experts "simplY" because they don't agree with you, NC!

Diogenes said...

And, by the way, NC, please don't "dilute" yourself anymore. We liberal heathen prefer our Cynics at full strength.

Andrew33 said...

My handle for the blog is Andrew 33. AD33 for short. Joel is my first name, Andrew my middle name and 33 was the year most believe Christ died. You can use any off the above. I have an offer for you. To be fair, you come up with a concise pro global warming post and I will post it on our blog. I am a believer in giving both sides of the story. My only line that I draw is that you do not go through all my global warming posts and simply try to debunk them. You use your info strictly and you get a post on our blog. Post it here, and let us know through a comment that it is ready and I will repost it in it's entirety. How can I be more fair than that? We want good fair debate on our blog. You have debated us well and not resorted to name calling and insults so hopefully this shows that we are fair and treat everybody decently as long as they act like adults. Joel (aka Andrew 33)

Andrew33 said...

I don't care whether 1 scientist or 32000 scientists have changed their tune, I know that there is no way that in 100 years enough climate data has been taken with accurate enough instruments to prove beyond any doubt that CO2 emissions are causing global warming. 100 years is a pixel on a big screen 1080p in the big picture of climate. I could care less about who is an official scientist or not. As you can see, I went to college 1 year and walked away because all the professors were communists. Yet, I can still hold my own in this climate debate with you, right? Now do you want to do a free post on our blog? All our readers, both lib and conservative are for it. By the way, while I co-host the blog, I kinda get final say so on climate and weather stuff. Just like KOOK gets to adjust the format however he chooses.
By the way, we agree that other harmful chemicals like CO, mercury, lead and arsenic should be eliminated from all industrial output. Those do hurt the environment and I actually consider myself to be a clean environment supporter. We disagree on CO2.

Diogenes said...

This inter-blog "negotiation" seems more complicated that the Kyoto Protocol itself.

When it comes to potentially destroying our environment, is the standard of proof to be applied really "beyond any doubt"?

Eman said...

One ply toilet paper is too complicated for Diogenes.
Which really is "Beyond any doubt"

Diogenes said...

Just another pearl. Thanks for the contribution, E.

Andrew33 said...

When those who claim we are harming the environment want to get rich on the system that they want to implement, as that same system will utterly destroy our way of life, should the standard of proof be any less than 100%? So by asking this, you are admitting that not all the evidence is in agreement.
Is it that important that our way of life be destroyed as quickly as possible? if you really look at the evidence, the climate shifts are cyclical and have been as far as archaeology and recorded history go.

There is no "inter blog negotiation". The offer stands. You get a post to lay out any evidence you choose. You have to give your evidence, not go attack my previous posts. You are getting the chance to lay out your point of view on a much bigger forum than your own. If the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post gave me the opportunity to do one post as the opposing side for a debate, I'd jump on it in a heart beat. This is your opportunity to convince readers on another blog that your point of view is right. I am trying to do something cool for a fellow blogger. While I differ in opinion, I do not question your motives. I am not afraid of differing opinions.

Diogenes said...

Uhhhh, Andy? Joel? McFly? Just a simple suggestion for you: please check to see who you're talking to before you post. You made your convoluted offer to the purveyor of this blog, the incomparable Nameless Cynic. He has not responded to you. I simply commented that I thought the whole arrangement you proposed seemed a little.... well..... unnecessarily labyrinthine. But, if your blog is on the level of a Daily Kos or a HuffPo, who am I to question your methods? As it happens, I know somebody who got a few comments posted at HuffPo. It didn't seem to be quite an elaborate process. He typed out a comment, hit "PUBLISH" and it got posted.

Andrew33 said...

I could call you a typical liberal who thinks fancy language makes you look smart but I'm just a podunk redneck conservative right? See, the problem is, you did not debate me 4 times on my blog and LCR's blog. I made you no offer to say squat. And compared to this blog, the Manifesto may as well be the KOS or The HuffandPuff Pots.Difference between me and your friend is the HuffandPuff does not promote debate. When I hit publish, it doesnt come up for some reason. They are as one sided as a tourist passed out drunk at the beach. Not that I really care but what is so labyrinthine about wanting NC to use his own ideas? Everytime I debated him and won I used my knowledge from my own studies, not NC's old blogposts. Of course, to a man, doing things on your own is natural, but to a mouse a blog without attacking the other side must seem like a labrynth, right? Difference between you and NC is I respect NC. Since you are the surveyor of the blog, and not the purveyor of the blog, why are you doing the talking? I will no longer acknowledge your existence as between your ears lies a supermassive black hole, but if NC wants to do a fair post our blog and have a reasonable debate, he is welcome to. You however are not welcome on our blog since you obviously only think with the part of your body glued to the chair.

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

I find it interesting that Diogenes Syndrome is a disease related to being slovenly...its symptoms include body odor and other signs of severe hygienic neglect ( a decent description of a liberal hippy type) Frontal Lobe impairment may also play a part in causation.

Diogenes is also the name, I believe, of the evil brother in the Pendergast novels, and a villain in Sherlock holmes.

Good name choice

I also notice going back quite a ways that there seems to be two varieties of comments on this site, NC sucking up to Diogenes, and Diogenes sucking up to NC. So although you have been around a long time blogging it appears that you are talking to yourself and your BFF. Then you go and insult my fellow patriots. My blog has been around for about 6 months and has grown at a steady rate since then. This could be because I do not get into the usual flaming of people, and I have been more than fair with you on my blog, so has everyone else. But it appears that you can't hang...just dangle.

Andrew33 said...

Diogenes, you barked up the wrong tree.

As for NC, if he will ever come out, his invite is still open.
(I don't mean coming out of the closet)

By the way, Diogenes my pet Asian leopard would eat you. NO joke!!! Maybe, you should stay in your labrynth after all.

Eman said...

Diogenes is very comfortable with his name folks. we can only hope he now slips into something more comfortable....Like a coma.

Andrew33 said...

The silence is deafening. Not that I'm trying to rub in an intellectual beatdown you academia worshippers got from a bunch of stupid flat earth rednecks.

My Asian Leopard still wants to eat you for dinner. With Diogenes Syndrome, you would make an easy kill for her.

Diogenes said...

I have no idea what your blog is, Andy Joel, nor do I intend to visit, much less post. I don't think I've come across "the Manifesto", whatever that is. And I don't even know LCR or what LCR stands for, so I plead not guilty on that one, too. It's a free country, Andy Joel (well, not YOUR blog, maybe, but elsewhere) so I'll comment where and when I want to. It's up to NC to decide if I'm out of bounds or not, not you or your pals.

And I never called you any sort of name, Andy Joel, much less a "stupid flat earth redneck". I guess you've been called that elsewhere, by other people, but I didn't call you any names. I did use the word "labyrinthine" which I guess is "fancy language" in your book, so I apologize, even though I felt it was an approriate use of the word.

And KOOK? I have no idea who you are, and as for you being more than fair to me on your blog, thanks! Thanks -- even though I have no idea what your blog is, or whether or not I've ever been there. I'd like to ask you to enlighten me but, since it really doesn't matter to me, I won't.

As for me and NC forming a mutual admiration society, I've seen his blog for about three weeks or so. I actually bunped into him on Another Blog That Shall Remain Nameless Because It Is, Indeed, Moderated By A Stupid Podunk Redneck. NC and I seemed to be somewhat on the same wavelength, nothing more, nothing less.

And as for your Asian leopard, Andy Joel? That whole train of thought is just too bizarre for comment. Is that your idea of an "intellectual beatdown"?

Andrew33 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew33 said...

What is labyrinthine about asking that NC use his own ideas? What is convoluted about offering NC not just a comment, but a post to make an honest pro-global warming debate? The fact that you cannot figure out that you will call me AD33. My friends call my Joel, and you do not fall within the possible area code to do so. If you do not know about Asian Leopards, that is not my fault, why dont you go to a conservatory or breeder that will let you "play" with one and see how much you like hospital stays. I don't care how long you have been seeing NC. I made a respectful offer to NC to have a real debate our (far larger than your) blog with nothing but good intentions. I never spoke to you till you began insulting me. You have proven nothing on Climate Change and proven that you act like a scumbag when you debate people that are intellectually out of your league. Maybe you will grow up when you get your G.E.D. and become a school janitor. Then you will have people to debate that are on your level daily (assuming you end up at an elementary school.) You say you never called me a name..uh hello Mcfly??????
You started this by speaking to me when I was commenting on NC's blog. I made the assumption that since this is his blog, that my comments are for NC. Can you read well enough to figure out the name of the blog McFly? Oh, was that calling you a name? Not if you say it, but it is if I say it. Looks like you need affirmative action to get out of your lies McFly. Do you need affirmative action to prove you are right on Global Warming too, McFly? You just got, and when I post this on my blog, you will get lots more intellectual beatdowns from the army of people that read our blog. I would insult your intelligence but that would be a hate crime against the mentally retarded, right, McFly?
That's 2 intellectual beatdowns, and I did this one in my sleep. So McFly, you got 2 choices. We can go at this until i get mad and say something rude, or you go back to discussing topics of importance like we do on our blog(the manifesto). That means you do not speak to me again. You started this and it ends here as I do not see your name on this blog as co-contributor. You will not respond to this comment in any way since you lied about the unwarranted name calling. In return, I will give you the same courtesy... or you can keep on trading insults and my many good friends and I will keep making a display of your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Diogenes said...

OK, message received, loud and clear.

Now, don't be alarmed, but I have a hunch some guys in white suits may be coming by, sometime soon, to visit with you. They might seem scary, with the big net and all, but don't worry, they won't hurt you. They're there to help.

For you to get so bent out of shape of one offhand comment that your proposal seemed somewhat labyrinthine is nuts. I wasn't debating you, and I wasn't even commenting, positively or negatively, on your views on global warming, whatever they are.

You do sound like some sort of control freak with a Napoleanic complex... defining the rules of blogs other than your own, threatening to give me "beatdowns" from you and your buddies on somebody else's blog. All this over "McFly"? Good Lord, I apologize! (And by "Good Lord" I don't mean your AD33 persona. That is one monicker that, for sure, I won't be using to address you.)

Get over yourself, pal. Life's too short.

Andrew33 said...

"You made your convoluted offer to the purveyor of this blog, the incomparable Nameless Cynic."

Incomparable? I can get over myself just fine but incomparable? Oh most wise nameless cycnic. I wish I had one thousandth of your infinite wisdom, and a boyfriend like Diogenes with such big rugburns.

Again, your duplicity is exposed just like your homosexuality.

I hope you get the sex change operation you want so badly soon. Have a good one!

Diogenes said...

Do you come with a translator? Because this is becoming increasignly incomprehensible, not to mention bizarre.

Nameless Cynic said...

Ah, geez! Boys! Don't make me turn this car around!

OK, I've been busy for these past few weeks with work. New computer system. Big pain in the ass... butt (sorry, Joel - I've got a potty mouth. I'll try to keep it in check on your blog)

I'm planning on taking a shot at your challenge this weekend. (How do you want it delivered, by the way? Printed here and you cut'n'paste? Emailed? Put as a comment on yours?)

Meanwhile, stop it, you kids. Don't make me come back there.

Left Coast Rebel said...

Cynic - I actually want debate at my site, the only reason that I considered deleting your comment was due to name-calling on your part, (no cursing though). Typically I will delete anyone that throws racist, bigoted comments or curses, calls names. If you can refrain, I'd love to see you debate my readers. I'm sure that you disagree with 100% of what I put up.....BTW I sense a lot of anger in you too but a keen intellect as well. Interesting......

Andrew33 said...

As they say in my part of the world:you've got some 'splainin to do. There have been mistakes made on this blog by your smart mouthed friend. Either you make some serious making right of what he said or go someplace else. That was a totally fair offer and he insulted it while you said nothing. Now to say that I am unhappy about this is putting it very mildly. I want debate on my site too, but I will not nor let the good people that frequent KOOK's blog be insulted. EVERYBODY on my side thought that I made you a great offer and after I got such a rude response I was too nice. Your actions from here will decide what happens in the future. I don't care one bit about debating you now after what your buddy said. So I will put it too you like this: the offer is on hold while you make some "corrections" as to what your friend said. (Corrections is also mildly put) Make it right and I will let it go. From my point of view, I am again being nice as I have every reason to cuss you up down and sideways and no reason to even think about giving you a post now, but I am a forgiving person by nature so handle your business then show me that you did and you get your post.

Andrew33 said...

Affter major corrections are made regarding things said, You can do your post on your blog and I will copy it onto ours. Let me emphasize MAJOR CORRECTIONS. This is your blog, and it is your responsibility for what your bloggers say. Just as LCR takes responsibility for his and KOOK and I take responsibility for ours. Nobody resorts to name calling or insults on our blogs. As I said to in your defense on our blog, anyone resorting to name calling or personal attacks will face our wrath. My wrath has been incurred and its up to you how this goes from here.

Diogenes said...

I'm really sorry to cause NC any grief, but ARE YOU SERIOUS? He and I don't know each other AT ALL, so how is it that he's responsible for what I said to you? He had no prior knowledge of anything!

You, my good non-friend, are a paranoid control freak. Your concept of open discussion on an Internet site is beyond juvenile.

But, NC, in the interest of letting you debate this jerk-off, go ahead and excoriate me. I've been a very very bad boy, and I should be punished. And please, do it quickly, before A-J wets his diapers again.

I will suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in solitary desperation, knowing it will allow you an opportunity to intellectually castrate this bimbo.

And to think, this all started because he mistook me for you and couldn't admit his own mistake.

Well, that, and the scathing "McFly" reference.

Just watch out for his attack kitty.

Good luck! :-)

Nameless Cynic said...


OK, let's get some things clear. It's 10:00 at night. I'm going to bed. I have another 12 hour shift tomorrow, teaching doctors (who, you'd think with 8 years+ of med school, along with a 4-year internship and 3-8 years of residency, would be able to handle something simple like logging in and entering patient data. Go figure)

You know, I'm pretty sure that over on the KOOK Manifesto, something ugly is being said. At this point, i don't care.

"MAJOR CORRECTIONS" - yeah, blow me. I'm going to bed. Come the weekend, after I've had time to sleep and see what comes up, I'll throw out the post. I'm not going to be held hostage by some childish "you'll behave or you'll be deleted" crap. I've had my posts deleted by better men than you, Andrew.

You've already (based on a quick look earlier, when I was more awake) shown the reality in your "we want debate, not name calling" statement. Sweet Jesus, where do you get off claiming anything about "open debate" when you can't even chill for a few days until those of us with a real job get back to you?

"This is your blog, and it is your responsibility for what your bloggers say." Yeah, crap. I seem to recall you saying something about "we won't call you names, but we won't take responsibility for our commenters." I could be misquoting, but I don't care. I'm going to bed.

I will say this. Diogenes is not my responsibility, but I will not say anything against him. (And, to be honest, I can't even say "him" with perfect surety. Most of the Diogenes' in history were male, but a random internet poster is not bound by such things.)

You guys can fight it out. I don't edit comments on my blog. Because I believe in the Constitution. There's this thing called "freedom of speech" that I support.

(At some point in teh future, I may have to go back on this, if I get random anonymous spammers or whatever. But as long as it looks like humans debating, I really don't care whether one side beats up the other. Welcome to Debate Club. The first rule of Debate Club is, there's no crying in Debate Club.)

(Oh, sorry, was that too many movie references at once? Yeah, life is hard, isn't it?)

You guys chill for a day or three. I'll be back.

Diogenes said...

LMAO Get some sleep, CN! And let us know if you're allowed to post on wherever this blog is. I'm not sure I'LL be able to sleep, with all this anxiety!

(Will he, or won't he? Tune in tomorrow, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel....)

Eman said...

Again Bill, your name calling costs you not just the ability to post but dilutes your impish ideas. You and Dio-genius are now the “Don’t ask don’t tell” poster boys of We can sure tell, and I promise not to ask, because I don’t care how you get your jollies. The fact is Andrew33 is right; You have no original ideas and you have lost all credibility with me, much less anyone else when you say in your first sentence of this blog, “Today, let's talk about global warming. Also known as "global climate change."

Which is it? You guys keep moving the finish line. It’s like your saying “WHOLLY CRAP WE’RE HAVING WEATHER!!” Man made global warming is a farce even more then Dio-genius is, and that’s saying something. The planet warms. The planet cools. Dio-genius loves you and takes your load like a woman should. And what a load it is too…

Diogenes said...

And you have the freedom to come here and spew your trash all over, don't you, Almighty E ? Because NC doesn't restrict access to his blog. You do. Think about that before you sophomorically challenge someone's manhood again.

(What is WITH all these sexual allusions from the rightwingnuts? Is it a reflection of some sort of real-world sexual identity indecisiveness on their part?)

Nameless Cynic said...

Damn, Eric. You're still here. Let's see if I can explain this in words you'll understand. After you invited me to come to your blog and debate, you got all cranky as your various points were easily dismissed. This caused you to throw the following hissy fit:

"I now have chosen to remove their ability to post, their ISP addresses being blocked now and further comments will not be seen by me. I have reported their actions to BlogSpot and they are looking at the comments I forwarded to them in the hope these two people, who seem to care not for country or character, find ways to express their ideas without the crud, rude and inconsiderate utterances prone to liberal minds."

We'll ignore the infinitely silly argument that anybody was rude to you. Apparently, among the right wing, that's a good reason to give up, say, the governorship of Alaska, so obviously that argument goes nowhere.

(And we should probably ignore the fact that the Mighty Arbiters of Blogspot are still allowing me to post under their banner - I guess they looked at the whole discussion, not just whatever cherry-picked statement you supplied. I mean, it would be rude of me to point that out, wouldn't it?)

So we'll just concentrate on the blatant hypocrisy you consistently show. (Sorry. Should have dialed that back a little - too many long words. I've been accused of looking educated or something.)

Apparently, I'm using metaphors this week. So here's one for you. You didn't want people to play in your playground, so you built a wall. But you keep coming into other kid's playground to poke them with sticks and then run away.

Is that any way for an adult to behave?

You're more than welcome here, big guy. It's a big tent, and plenty of room for all the clowns and elephants. But do you have a point? "You guys are stoopid, and your mama dresses you funny!" Is that really the best you've got?

An argument would be nice. Point out where I'm wrong. Or just turn the other cheek and walk away. I thought you were trying to promote yourself as a role model for the Christian Movement or something.

Hey, way to set an example there, big guy.