Jul
20

Oh No, Not Again




Posted at 22:21 by Gavin M.

Shorter Powerline:

Blowing The Whistle On Global Warming

  • Say, check out this op-ed in The Australian. While I have not checked the author’s credentials,1 and am unable to evaluate any of his claims,2 it clearly proves that global warming is a fraud.3

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

1 As we have so fulsomely seen, David Evans is not in fact a ‘rocket scientist,’ nor even a scientist at all, but worked as a consultant for the Australian Greenhouse Office as a C++ programmer.
2 Cf.
3 Mr. Hinderaker of Powerline (à la manière de Thers):

31 Comments »

  1. Typical Republican said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:26

    You are all a bunch of elitists.

    Computer programming, like economics, is a very difficult discipline. Computer programmers and economists can weigh in on ALL scientific inquiries with equal validity because of their expertise.

    That is why David Evans is a climate scientist and Thomas Sowell is an autism expert.

    Liberals. Hmf.

  2. christian h. said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:37

    OT: I am outraged that the important recent column in The Australian proving mathematically that there is no anthropogenic global warming is being suppressed, when it should be widely debated.

  3. SamFromUtah said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:39

    Damn, it’s like wingnut flypaper.

    I suppose the one thing that’s been incontrovertibly proven is that these yayhoos don’t read each other’s stuff very carefully, if at all – they just yank-n-paste.

  4. owlbear1 said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:46

    Hey Gavin could you put a bird in there shitting on his head?

    You know, just for fucking SPITE?

  5. Not Learning Anytime Soon said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:52

    This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot! This article clearly disproves what the global-warming propagandists have been saying! Ow! Hey, this stove is hot!

  6. Gavin M. said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:54

    Hey Gavin could you put a bird in there shitting on his head?

    You know, just for fucking SPITE?

    You know, that illustration does need some sprucing up at this point…

    Would people get it, do you think, if I did the next one as just a telephone pole with a pair of ripped tighty-whiteys nailed to it?

  7. Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,

    July 20, 2008 at 22:56

    I mean, Jesus, you’d think at some point they’d realize they’re looking at the same goddamn article after the sixth time. Maybe seven years of parroting back the same talking-points on cue has reduced their capacity to recognize that moment when they’re looking at the exact same thing they said an hour ago.

  8. owlbear1 said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:00

    Would people get it, do you think, if I did the next one as just a telephone pole with a pair of ripped tighty-whiteys nailed to it?

    Maybe if you stuck the top of Hindy’s head kilroy style at the bottom of the picture with a confused look to his eyes.

  9. Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:02

    Would people get it, do you think, if I did the next one as just a telephone pole with a pair of ripped tighty-whiteys nailed to it?

    Perhaps it’s my absolute immaturity at work here, but I think it’d be hilarious if you did that, with maybe a splotch of blood, urine and/or poop on the remaining fabric.

  10. Our Dead Selves said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:04

    Poop! I vote for poop!

  11. J— said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:07

    With “Time’s 2004 Blog of the Year” inscribed on the crossbar.

  12. Tim in SF said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:10

    Powerline has no comments. Therefore, Powerline is not a blog.

    I’m not sure what it is, other than a waste of time.

  13. robert green said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:18

    i recently found some success getting across to a denier with the following formula: “so, you do believe that there is a consensus amongst orthopedic surgeons about how to fix your torn ACL in your knee? Yes? well, there are certain surgeons out there, particularly older ones, who still do things the old fashioned way. and their patients tend to suffer unduly as a result. this consensus amongst OS’s came from years of study of knees, though some of the long term effects are guess work.”

    “so you do respect in order a) science b) expertise c) peer review and d) wherever possible (and it isn’t always) double-blind studies, no? and e) that all of this information builds upon previous pieces of information processed through the rigors of other experts and the scientific method, yes? but for some reason, in this ONE area, an area which in the real world leads to contention politically, in particular lining up with interests (oil) that are both pro-imperialism and pro-ultra-laissez-faire capitalism, in THIS particular area you somehow reject a-e inclusive? that seems odd. nowhere else in your life except this one place.

    perhaps you think climate scientists are not in fact experts in their field? that they aren’t peer-reviewed, or if they are it is not genuine review but merely an echo-chamber unlike every other peer-review? or maybe you think that they are all (and i do mean all, we are talking over 99% or tens of thousands of climate scientists) in the tank? perhaps to george soros? can you cite any climate scientists who, dollar for dollar, make the same or more than an equivalent geological or other scientist at a mid-level oil company? no?”

    after this farrago of fun, my friend gave in and said “maybe you have a point, but i’ve heard different opinions…” and of course he meant clownhallrush etc.

    but still if you beat away at this shit you can pretty much make smart people feel bad about themselves for being idiots, without even getting to a reverse pascal’s wager.

  14. Buskertype said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:25

    I think this has risen to the level of internet abuse.

  15. D.N. Nation said,

    July 20, 2008 at 23:27

    Sigh.

    This entire week is a wingnut TKO. I feel sorry for piling on.

  16. Rob (Formerly) In Toronto said,

    July 21, 2008 at 0:13

    D.N. Nation said,
    July 20, 2008 at 23:27

    Sigh.

    This entire week is a wingnut TKO. I feel sorry for piling on.

    Don’t. If the liberal side of the blogosphere had been as fucked up this week as the wingnuts were they surely wouldn’t feel any guilt about piling on.

  17. gbear said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:04

    At least they’re consistent.

  18. El Cid said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:34

    All of you liberals may want to remain hypnotized by Al Gore (who is fat!), but although you will never, ever, here of it, there is an article by a Nobel-prize winning Climate Scientist(TM) at the incredibly scientistical newspaper The Australian which I think is from Missouri. This article proves that global warming is a giant hoax made up by Al Gore so that he could do commercials with that guy from Oreck vacuums who wants to sell air filters. This scientist actually used a thermometer and a balloon, and it was the first time anyone has ever measured the temperature of the air. It’s all a racket. I have not read the article yet, but you don’t want to deal with the TRUTH!

  19. DrDick said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:43

    The body count keeps growing. It is beginning to look like and opposition rally in Zimbabwe. I can only repeat that Alexander Pope was an optimist and waaaay too generous.

  20. MzNicky said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:46

    they just yank-n-paste.

    eeewwww.

  21. stryx said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:52

    Actually the wiki article about Sideshow Bob sounds an awful like this whole episode.

    Once again, Bob was released from prison, and developed a plot to kill Krusty using Bart as a suicide bomber but he was again foiled

  22. David Evans said,

    July 21, 2008 at 1:55

    *Another* right winger fell for my little ruse! How many is that, now? Three? Four? They just pounce like meth-crazed dingoes, they do.

  23. SamFromUtah said,

    July 21, 2008 at 2:56

    How many is that, now? Three? Four?

    We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you count Ace twice. In fact, the second time should count for two, under the “fool me twice” principle.

  24. jenniebee said,

    July 21, 2008 at 2:59

    My fave global warming deniers are the ones that insist that, in order for scientists to be able to say anything, there needs to be a “control” for their experiments. I guess by this they mean that to know anything about anything, we have to find a dimensional rift that allows us to access a parallel universe that is just exactly like this one except there, solar caught on in the seventies or something.

    The big question of course being, if we could find such a thing, what’s to stop those same scientists from jumping through the rift and shouting “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya!” as it closes behind them. Because, like, wouldn’t you?

  25. jim said,

    July 21, 2008 at 3:05

    This entire week is a wingnut TKO. I feel sorry for piling on.

    Oh, I think they’ll bounce back – they seem pretty much immune to all those silly left-wing conspiracies like macroeconomics, ethics, science or history.

  26. El Cid said,

    July 21, 2008 at 3:07

    It would be cute if the “Global Warming Skeptics” insisting (at least rhetorically) upon the most stringent, empirical standards for climate scientists would apply those same harsh empirical standards to wacky right wing theories of economics which hold that cutting rich peoples’ taxes makes us all better.

    That one they seem to find the leeway to believe not only without requiring a single shred of evidence, they find any suggestion that one might need to empirically back that theory up with facts & stuff to be a horrendous insult which will lead us all directly to Pol Pot slavery.

  27. Just Alison, without Qetesh said,

    July 21, 2008 at 11:14

    El Cid, that’s a fine thought. I’d not considered it in those terms, although I confess to spluttering incoherently whenever wankers talk about economics in very deterministic terms (“let the free market handle it”, “people get paid what they’re worth”, etc etc wank wank wank).

    Now I’ve got something to think about (besides slapping those wankers till their teeth rattle).

  28. God said,

    July 21, 2008 at 12:54

    “My fave global warming deniers are the ones that insist that, in order for scientists to be able to say anything, there needs to be a “control” for their experiments.”

    What do you mean? I put all these planets into the heavens for you to compare Earth with, and even made one that not only sits within the same temperate zone as Earth, but is almost the same size and density; I just varied the atmosphere so you could see what Carbon Dioxide did to temperatures over on Venus… and the deniers on Earth still can’t understand? Oy, me…

  29. El Cid said,

    July 21, 2008 at 13:37

    If God had wanted us to understand these things he would have told us directly by putting giant words and/or pictures on these other planets, not forced us to try to listen to the fork-tongued “scientists” who don’t know anything about making sensible conclusions which agree with what we deeply believe about the world.

  30. tigrismus said,

    July 21, 2008 at 15:08

    It would be cute if the “Global Warming Skeptics” insisting (at least rhetorically) upon the most stringent, empirical standards for climate scientists would apply those same harsh empirical standards to wacky right wing theories of economics which hold that cutting rich peoples’ taxes makes us all better.

    And, you know, war.

  31. manrush said,

    July 21, 2008 at 17:18

    I know that somewhere, the editors of CapMag are orgasming over this editorial.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()