Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Do you see why I was kind to Lockwood?

Alex Lockwood said a very silly thing. Alex Lockwood invited comment. Alex Lockwood was gently twatted with a cluebat. Alex Lockwood published the comments and replied to them. Alex Lockwood realised the error of his ways. Alex Lockwood did so very graciously, admitted his fault and apologised. Alex Lockwood is open to debate and ready to admit when he is wrong.

On the other hand (and via the comments on Alex's follow up post) this Alex is an absolute cunt of the first water who should have rusty ironmongery shoved up his japs-eye and then be beaten to death with his own nail-punctured cock.
Climate "skepticism" is not a morally defensible position. The debate is over, and it's been over for quite some time, especially on this blog.

We will delete comments which deny the absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, just as we would delete comments which questioned the reality of the Holocaust or the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups. Such "debates" are merely the morally indefensible trying to cover itself in the cloth of intellectual tolerance.

And this just shows off your rampant stupidity. AGW is a theory: a theory with a good number of holes in it, not least that we cannot even be sure that the world is warming. Further, AGW is a prediction and a prediction that has been, for as long as we have been able to observe the correlation between reality and said prediction, proven to be at the very least inaccurate.

The Holocaust is an historical fact: we know that it happened. We have documents, eye-witnesses, photos, film-footage, forensics and all of the other paraphernalia of past events.

The idea that different human races have different mental capacities is controversial and almost certainly untrue. However, it is very far from being impossible. It rather depends to what extent mental capacity is governed by genetics (very little, seems to be the current concensus). Because, you see, different human races can have grouped genetic traits. This is why, amongst other things, white people are white and black people are black: the black race possesses a gene (or set of genes) that stimulates high levels of melanin pigmentation in the skin, whilst the white race does not. This is a racial—some would say the racial—genetic trait.

This fucking idiot has decided to conflate three different arguments and present as the same kind of general evil. Ergo, this man is a retarded fuckwit without even the brains to defend his own disgustingly illiberal position.
So, if you're a climate skeptic, you may be well-intentioned and you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but we're not interested.

The "skeptic" position is not an attempt at scientific inquiry, it's a PR scam, funded largely by coal and oil interests and run largely out of American right-wing think tanks.

Seriously, if there is all of this coal and oil money sloshing around to fund the sceptics, then where the fuck is my share, eh? Why the hell aren't oil companies throwing their filthy lucre at me?

Oh, and while we are about it, who is throwing the filthy lucre at pro-AGW "scientists"? Would that be governments? And Green NGOs (mostly funded by our governments)? Why, yes; yes, it would.

Every scientist is funded by somebody: why is any of this relevant?
The point of climate skepticism, politically, is not to engage in fruitful discussion.

Says the man who has proudly announced that he is not going to engage in discussion...
It is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt...

I'm sorry; I thought that that was the job of the AGW lobby. Oh, wait, I didn't rad the rest...
... about the overwhelmingly clear science on climate change...

Oh, yes, it's clear alright.
... and the moral imperative to act quickly to stave off climate change's worst consequences. By repeatedly posting "skeptical" and confrontational comments about climate science whenever climate solutions are discussed, anti-environmentalists hope to hijack discussion and slow movement toward climate solutions. That's a bullying, dishonest tactic, and we're not putting up with it anymore.

That's right! We're going to shut down all debate so ner ner ner-ner ner.

Look, sunshine, the way that science works is that not one single theory is absolutely proven, OK? Science—or, rather, good science—relies on falsifiability; that is to say, it is a central axiom of science that no theory can be absolutely proven to be true: it can only ever be proven to be wrong. As such, everything is up for debate.

Except, of course, at WorldChanging: the website where the tagline "change your thinking" is not an invitation but an order.

Fucking hellski, what a cunt-faced weasel this man is.


Anonymous said...

In Germany it is a criminal offence to deny that certain atrocities were committed by the Nazis. One of these is the Katyn Forest massacre. However, the Russians have 'fessed up to it being done by the NKVD. Despite this, the law in Germany still makes it a criminal offence to deny the Nazis did it.

There are also many myths associated with the Holocaust, denial of which will get you into trouble. People think that Auschwitz was a death camp. It wasn't: it was a work camp for the IG Farben rubber factory. Birkenau was the death camp, designed to murder whole train loads of people after being sorted at the fake railway station. But any attempt to correct the myths and you are treated as a heretical denier of the worst kind - the kind of heinous person who would deny AGW.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Cunt-faced weasel? And then some! It's got hair and everything!

From his comments:

I have often thought of us as a virus (more like a cancer, though, due to the unlimited expansion) infecting the planet. In that context, Earth developing a fever to kill of the infection sounds like a reasonable response.

I hope it starts with you, "zoot".

Interesting to hear people still saying "the science is settled", two years after that post.


TheFatBigot said...

I think the answer Kay Tie's comment is that it is for Germany to decide on its own laws in respect of the Holocaust. A law does not have to be unimpeachably consistent in order to serve a purpose which outweighs the criticisms that can be made of it. There might come a time when Germany (if allowed by the EU, oh sorry I forgot, it's Germany so it will tell the EU what to do just as France does) decides its current law should change but that is a decision for Germany.

On the subject of Worldchanging, I would much rather people were honest about their approach to the AGW issue. He has declared himself to be a closed-minded ignoramus so everything he says on the subject can now be judged against that background. Much better that than him namby-pambying around and trying to pretend he is rational.

Luís Oliveira said...

I just came across your blog and I find it SPECTACULAR! Love the tags!

Jones said...

Scratch an AGW believer, find a fool. The facts are gradually ramping up against the Anthropogenic Climate Change postulation. The doomsayers are being proven ever more wrong with every new fluctuation of the climate. Polar Bears are fine, more Arctic Ice 2007/8, oceanic cooling observed. The Gulf stream is not stopping. I mean, come on guys, how much evidence do you need?

The only 'Deniers' here are the people who simply cannot accept that their holy Climate Change writ is turning into heresy before their eyes. Sorry chaps, the physics is proven. CO2 is not a cause, it's an effect. Google 'Outgassing'

Poor old Alex.

Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or is it getting colder in here? Better turn up the central heating today this global warming is really ruining my summer.

knirirr said...

AGW is a theory

Surely you mean "hypothesis"?

Anonymous said...

"the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups"

"The idea that different human races have different mental capacities is controversial and almost certainly untrue."

"However controversial such assertions may still be in the eyes of the mainstream media, they are not controversial within the scientific community."

Actually, it is accepted scientific fact that the average white IQ in America is about 100, the average black IQ in America is about 85, and the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is about 70.

Which is not to say that everyone should not still be treated individually.

Roger Thornhill said...

AGW is a religion, pure and simple.

That bloke is just yelling "BLASPHEMER!!!!" at people and wants them out of his church so he can preach and all can sing from the same hymn sheet.

Anonymous said...

Ye shall all burn in the flames of eternal global warming for taking the word of the Gore in vain.

Aye, sinners repent now while you have the chance turn ye away from your sinful automobiles and 4x4 conveyances for they are but the vehicles to hell, turn ye away from your air conditioner, cold filtered ales and refrigerators for they are but the chillers for the soul.

So sayeth the Gore. Amen.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

Just like those who attempt to stifle debate on the EU, those who don't want to debate on the environment are afraid to do so for one reason, and one reason alone. They are afraid that their case doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Which, let's be honest, is true. And if the case for AGW had been proved, no-one would be debating it. Instead it is a hypothesis - one that should be debated by both those who believe in it and those who don't.

And, man, isn't he a looker?

knirirr said...

And if the case for AGW had been proved, no-one would be debating it

Well, if it had been then we'd still be debating what to do about it. At the moment, though, we're debating both what to do about it and whether or not it's actually happening. I suspect that it probably is, but I wouldn't call it absolutely proven and certainly wouldn't go around saying that people should be prevented by force from disagreeing with me.

anthonynorth said...

Some people think I'm an AGW believer. I'm not. I just think that if there is any possibility that it could be true, and things could be done to ease it without overly damaging the economy, then it is commonsense to do so.
So, even from my perspective, that guy sounds like a dangerous idiot. And he does a disservice even to AGW believers.
Is he a plant?

Twisted Root said...

It is also worth remebering that the 'debate is over' line is a political one. Not scientific.
See IPPR publication Warm Words; which is where this moronic repeater gets it from.

Wonder if he even knows?

Roger Thornhill said...


But people are not talking about "easing", are they? They want to control what people do (carbon credits), how they do it, when they do it and how often.

If you believe it might be, then you are very much within your rights to change your behaviour. That is fine and I doubt anyone here would complain. The problems start when it becomes a matter of controlling others.

Anonymous said...

@anthonynorth, isn't that just like hedging your bets?Being an agnostic instead of an atheist, not quite believing in God just in case he exists.

I completely agree that the climate is changing, if the climate didn not fluctuate, then that would be cause for concern.

However, I think it arrogant in the extreme that a) humans have something to do with climate change/AGW because we drive our cars to the shops, and b) we can "do" something about it.

We can't. So let's get over it.

What we can do, as DK so rightly postulates is be be positive and investigate and develop more cost-effective energy sources rather than run around like chicken little and coming up with bollocks like carbon-credit/offset scams

Anonymous said...

anthonynorth said... "I just think that if there is any possibility that it could be true, and things could be done to ease it without overly damaging the economy, then it is commonsense to do so."

The problem is that there is no meaningful way to reduce CO2 without severely fucking up the economy and halting development in the Third World. If the issue is as serious as is made out, dramatic reductions in CO2 are required; reductions that can only be attempted with vastly expensive/wasteful schemes and a return to peasant lifestyle. Things that are easy to do, like changing life-bulbs and cycling to work have pretty much fuck all effect on CO2. Even if the Kyoto treaty was fully enforced worldwide, it would have a negligible effect on C02 reductions.

It is not a choice between screwing up the planet and saving the planet. It is a choice between screwing up the planet and screwing up life, liberty and prosperity. The 'mentalists think the first option is preferable to the second but, be under no illusion, the consequences will be disasterous either way. I, for one, need a bit more convincing before I agree to step into the abyss.

Anonymous said...

'ang on a minute Dk - you appear to be suggesting that it's morally *okay* to delete holocaust denial posts?

Sure, his blog, his rules, but you dont' have to go bloody agreeing with it.

BTW, on race, IQ, all that - I'll make a prediction now that I bet has a zillion times more accuracy than any GW model, when the 100m final takes place in Beijing, eight black men will be lined up.

If there are physical differences, on average - and there are - then is it really implausible that, on average, there be mental differences?

Anonymous said...

Ye shall all burn in the flames of eternal global warming for taking the word of the Gore in vain.

Don't forget to bring a coat

neil craig said...

Banning heresy is a function of religion not science & this loon (& James Hansen who wants people joiled for scepticism) merely show that they what they are practicing is a faith rather than sciene.

One might argue that virtaully everybody in the "environmentalist" movement is wholly dishonest, uninterested in the environment & merely motivated by Ludditism & hatred for their fellow humans. Strong though the evidence for this is it would be wrong to prevent anybodty saying the reverse. Not as wrong as denying sceptics the chance to speak, as the other Alex & the BBC do, but nonetheless wrong.

As regards IQ differential - of IQ tests are of any worth then there is a wide range of mean IQs among ethnic groups from Weatern Jews & Parsees (112), to Chines (106), Europeans (100) & sub saharan Africans (71). The record of achievement closely parralels this. The thing I find both interesting & hopeful about this is that bothe Western Jews& Parsees have existed as an ethnic group for since at the outside, the conquests of Constantine & Mohammed respectively which suggests mental evolution is an astonishingly rapid process.

Wolfie said...

You really should avoid scientific subjects, I bet you were crap at them at school because you still are.

Anonymous said...


Yes there are physical differences and nobody anywhere would be stupid enough to deny it.

Then you say that it's likely there are mental differences. Wrong. It's a certainty that there are mental differences because mental IS physical - unless the brain is just a hypothetical construct.

The brain is physical, and as you accept there are physical differences, then you must accept that there are mental differences. Otherwise you are engaging in illogicality, and in the nearly three years I've been reading your thoughts, you've never exactly done that before.

Also remember, we're talking averages here - there are white individuals who can out-run most or all blacks, and there are individual blacks who can out-IQ most or all whites.

And so on throughout all the racial groups. Someone said above that the average Jewish IQ is 112, and is the highest group average in the world. Would that someone dare say there aren't Jewish people with the IQ of an amoeba? Average sub-Saharan African IQ is 71, anyone dare to say there isn't a sub-Saharan African with an IQ of 165? Averages, we're talking about averages. However, taking a look around the world and history, it does SEEM that for scientific and civilisational advance that it's the average that matters.

This ISN'T a challenge - but can you pick that lot apart? In a friendly way would be nice. Or is it at least a possibility that I may be right? Seeing as how this thread is originally about willingness to concede error and change one's mind versus twats who wont engage in debate.

cassandra said...

Hey Wolfie?

"I bet you were crap at them at school" Oooooh dear, what a well reasoned argument and how beautifully structured, so full of interesting facts and figures too! How many degrees in science did you need to create such a compelling and intelligent monologue, your mummy must be so proud of you!
Is there something you dont agree with regarding this post? Why not tell us, share with us your thoughts on the AGW theory? I bet you have lots of interesting things to say and lots of scientific findings, come on Wolfie lets see what youve got!
Why not explain just why DKs post is "crap", Why not share your thoughts on why DK shouldnt be allowed to discuss science on his own blog! But hey, perhaps you are a common sense denier who wouldnt know a scientific theory if it sat on your ugly mug?

Bloke on the Torquay Omnibus said...

Wolfie, you're a complete cunt - fuck off

Thatcher's Child said...

People who deny that they might be wrong - tend to be seriously wrong! History shows this to have been the case, time and time again.

The question of mental ability and race is fascinating. I understand that the Chinese see the Jews as being the cleverest people on the planet, while Europeans are only just above the Blacks.
The question is not about who has the rawest intelligence, but who uses it to its best advantage.

The education system seems to show that Black kids are stupid - is that the fault of the education system or the black kids' parents?

If this idiot doesn't allow for debate, how will we know where the answer is?

Maybe he thinks that without debate, the answer will never change from the one he hears today?
If he really is that stupid - he needs to be put in a barrel and told the answer is in the corner!

Devil's Kitchen said...

It is worth noting that there seems to be a considerable dietary component to IQ, as well as a number of other factors. That's the point: that it seems that the purely genetic component of IQ is relatively small.


Anonymous said...

In the nature/nurture debate within psychology, DK, "relaatively small" comes out at an estimate of about 40%.

There is of course a nurture component to the physical fitness argument - you could be genetically POTENTIALLY the stringest fastest etc individual on the planet ... but if you live your life as a couch potato and the most exercise you ever get is a wank ... well, can you see where this is going?

You could be genetically POTENTIALLY the biggest genius the human race has ever produced, but if the most mental stretching you ever get is watching Big Brother from the age of four ...

There's a nature/nurture divide to everything to do with human functioning. Nobody on any side of these arguments has ever denied that. But the potential does have to be there in the first place, and that bit is undoubtedly genetic. A toad will never design a nuclear weapon.

Anonymous said...

Strongest, not stringest. Typo.

PS One of the early essays I had to write at uni was "Culture and Cognition Create Each Other".

We are permanently only one generation away from a new stone age.

Anonymous said...

"Is he a plant?"

I don't know about 'plant', but the reasoning he displays on his blog makes 'vegetable' a pretty good certainty...

Longrider said...

Cunt-faced weasel? And then some! It's got hair and everything!

Indeed - but it appears to be on the wrong end... ;)

Anonymous said...

I am not certain about mankind causing climate change. I have seen doubtful points on this blog and in other places but I would have to research all the evidence to see how likely it is.

I believe quite strongly the Holocaust story is exaggerated. Contemporary documentation is close to non-existent, but I haven't evaluated all the eye-witness testimony to determine whether claims such as the existence of homicidal gas chambers are justified.

I am certain that different racial groups have different abilities, both physical and mental.

Mankind did land on the moon.

The world is not flat.

Creationism is nonsense.

Tomrat said...

Am currently reading Bjorn Lomburg's Cool It!, which offers a slightly different approach to the problem with the AGW arguement - saying for a minute that AGW is real, what is the best way to handle it? Massive curbs into our freedom? Huge taxation which impoverishes us and kills untold millions of brown people due to a lack of technological advancement which we take for granted? Or are there simple, rational ways of dealing with the problem which will cost us less money with maximal effort (H/T to Master Worstall for the excellent review which covinced me to buy it).

Personally I'm with DK on this; I think that AGW is God's waiting room for political ideologists and all the patrons are stalinists, but the best way to respond to such blind ignorance is to present a solution to the ignorant masses who dont know better, rather than the swivel-eyed morons who extol massive swathing changes that look suspiciously like those needed to recreate soviet russia on a global scale...

The best way to battle this present darkness is to suggest solutions to their imagined problem that have limited negative impacts on what drives technological advancement that would help; how many people would be truly willing to support AGW supporters if they realised little of the government, tax-payer funded money went on anything other than lobbying and "detection" when you could offer real solutions for a fraction of the cost?

Anonymous said...

I just looked at the webpage linked from the phrase, "The Debate is Over".

Guess how it begins?

"This is the way the debate ends: not with a bang but a press availability. President Bush today in a backhand way admitted that climate change is here..."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahaha ahaha (cof) (gasp) ahahahahahahahahahahahaha (wheeze) hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Wolfie said...

Cassandra darling,

For the reasoned argument you cherish please see "bloke on the Torquay omnibus". I think you make a good couple.

I never said DK was wrong, I never said his argument was wrong. What I am saying is I think that his route to that destination has little to do with the scientific method. DK is good at arguing, he was good at arguing over a beer with me last January (which was fun) but what is really weird is he seems to be still having the same argument. Now that's staying power.

Intelligence of a given population is governed by selection. If procreational success is governed by intelligence then the median intelligence will increase over time. This has been true for Europeans for several centuries but with the advent of the welfare system it has gone into sharp reverse as the unintelligent/financially unsuccessful have larger families at the expense of the middle class. Some of them come over to comment at this blog too it seems.

Anonymous said...

Since nobody else has said it, and to misquote the one true religion: nice one, nbc, like it, like it.

Anonymous said...

The problem, from the perspective of a eugenisist, is that procreational success is no longer seen as a success.
Regarding IQ, it is a pretty pointless figure - achievements are what matter and emphasising raw intelligence (whatever that may be) just serves to make people lazy and useless.
One other thing. I've never met anyone who claimed to have an IQ of less than 115. How is this possible?

Anonymous said...

Seriously, if there is all of this coal and oil money sloshing around to fund the sceptics, then where the fuck is my share, eh? Why the hell aren't oil companies throwing their filthy lucre at me?

You can sod off, sunshine. We're keeping it all to ourselves, in compensation for living on Sakhalin. :)

FlipC said...

Person 1: "The apple is red!"
Person 2: "No the apple is green!"
Person 3: "I'll think you'll find it's a pear."
Persons 1 & 2: "Shut-up!"

I have to disagree with Knirirr it's past hypothesis and moved on to theory as it's been tested and confirmed independently multiple times. What seems to be the problem is that the original test may have used flawed data and the follow-on proofs may have used the same data sets.

As DK says that's what science is for - to always re-examine the proofs and check them against reality.

If the theory predicts X and it doesn't happen you need to have another look at it.

If new data is produced that doesn't match the theory you need to take another look at it.

Science doesn't stop debating, it's only the scientists that do that.

knirirr said...

...it's past hypothesis and moved on to theory as it's been tested and confirmed independently multiple times.

I think that that's a fair comment. Still, as you imply in your comment about the data, there are still some significant (in the non-statistical sense at least) uncertainties.
The main reason I mentioned "hypothesis" is that's what DK seems to be implying the whole thing is, but mistakenly using "theory" instead (unless I misunderstood him). Risking a lot on a hypothesis would be an appropriate course of action to criticise.

Anonymous said...

My local council has jumped on this green bollox like a rat up a drain pipe.
The list of what you put in the fortnightly collected recycling bin grows ever longer and more ridiculous. Surely it won't be long before they make you shit in it.

FlipC said...

Technically the trouble is that as a theory it has 'the establishment' behind it and historically any data that pops up to disprove a theory normally results in the theory being tweaked rather then being out and out rejected and that, along with a lot of "You're just wrong", is what seems to be happening.

In this instance there hangs a question of whether it should have been advanced to theory in the first place.

Before anyone interjects I'm not questioning climate change in and of itself, I'm questioning a) if it's purely anthropocentric and/or b) if it's anything outside the normal fluctuations.

My personal thinking from the data is that it's within the norm, but that it may be exacerbated by humanity's action. As such some action is appropriate (as well as much more study) but not to the degree the arm-flailers seem to want.

Devil's Kitchen said...


You are, of course, quite correct: I had lazily conflated the meanings of "hypothesis" and "theory". On the other hand, the vast majority of those reading wouldn't necessary spot that...


Anonymous said...

I can't help noticing that in your excruciating attempt to be peecee, you referred to 'the white race' and 'the black race'. These are terms used exclusively by white nationalists / supremacists.

I found that highly amusing - thanks ;)

Anonymous said...

DK, the comments here got side-tracked, but I was going to point that out too - sub-saharan Africa isn't exactly noted for it's top prenatal care or early-childhood nutrition - crucial factors in brain development...

But on to what I initially wanted to comment on: Desmogblog itself is largely a PR Scam. It is run by James Hoggan & Assoc, a public relations firm in British Columbia. If you check their website you can see one of their target areas is "environmental communications" and has several alternative energy companies as clients. See http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=2c07121b-85c2-4799-9aaf-0c2688bf5ca1&k=64805&p=2

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...