Unmoderated Post on Moderation

I will allow comments through by default for repeat commenters again, first time commenters will still need an initial approval.

I will however now be a more active moderator and delete things that are useless or unnecessarily personal from now on, except on this thread.

This is unavoidably subjective but I will try to err on the side of permissiveness. The goal will be controlling the tone more so than the content. Readers should keep in mind the fact I am in an Australian time zone, so doomed comments may be visible for many hours. I expect this blog will remain pretty quiet for the time being, though I still hope to have more to say in the future. It is in some ways an interesting time in The Climate Wars (really wild weather, new global anomaly records, politics), but also in other ways it is all so much “same as it ever was”.

188 thoughts on “Unmoderated Post on Moderation

  1. Again, not bothered about your paranoia.

    Unless you’ve read the IPCC reports, you and everyone knows that your claims about them are based on ignorance.


  2. “leftist ”

    Just your paranoia and projection here. To you it is entirely party lines. So everyone else must be. So you blame them for it.


  3. “led by corrupt politicians.”

    And this is your paranoia and ignorance speaking. But it actually describes you very well, if you were capable of seeing it.


  4. “You pretend to be knowledgeable”

    There’s no pretense about it.

    You’re just ignorant and have no better recourse.



  5. On August 29, 2017, Michael of Brisbane babbled…

    “… I simply do not trust the IPCC to release correct, real, and proper information, that doesn’t serve the political agenda of the UN…”

    That opinion can have no merit whatsoever until you read the IPCC report and justify your opinion by showing what it is in the report that you think is incorrect.

    If you haven’t read it, you can’t possibly know how reliable it is. It is fully referenced throughout so you can easily go and check the primary sources for all the information that is summarised in the report.


  6. WOW!

    You two dummies are totally incapable of defending your own beliefs!

    Why are you so bad at this?

    I’m asking you to defend your religion yourselves!

    All you can do is tell me to read it myself?

    You two leftists are funny!

    I say leftists because only leftist thinkers are closed-minded enough to blindly and arrogantly follow Al Gore and his mates at the IPCC.

    Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling.

    C’mon! Defend yourselves!

    Stand up to your intellectual enemy!

    Explain your devotion to AGW!


  7. You seem to be missing it every time, moron.

    We don’t care what your paranoia says.

    Read the IPCC.

    Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it’s not in which case you still know what convinced us.

    But your claims about the IPCC and climate science are out of complete and willing ignorance and screamed out merely because you are a paranoid delusional maniac.

    In which case obeying your demands is the worst thing we can do for you, since it will only feed your insanity.

    Read the IPCC.

    It’s not hard at all.

    Even a modest intellect, well within the remit of the vast majority of the human adult population in full mental heath, can read and comprehend the contents.

    So far your claims are all 100% falsified by the contents of the IPCC, which is still valid because your crazy paranoia is ABOUT the report’s content, not its evidence or conclusion.


  8. You demanded to know what convinced me. Read the IPCC, say I.

    “NOOOOOO!!!! I want you to say what convinced you!!11!”.

    Read the IPCC.


    Read the IPCC.

    “Is there nobody else here, you’re here on your own, luzer, because you’re a luzer and you ahve nobody here to support you!!!!”

    Craig turns up (again). Says Read the IPCC


    (oddly enough nothing is mentioned about how there’s someone else here now. Nor that he’s here alone. Luzer)

    We have.

    You do not want that answer, but it is the answer.

    Read the IPCC.

    You wanted to know what convinced us.

    Read the IPCC

    Then you’ll know.


  9. ” follow Al Gore ”

    And again, a claim from your ignorance that if you read the IPCC report you would know is incorrect.

    He’s not in any of the report.

    Meanwhile you follow Sen. James Inhofe. Your assertion of sheepdom is your way to cope with your woolly coat and frequent requirements to be shorn. Pure projection.


  10. Religious Zealot 1:

    “Read the bible! Then you’ll be convinced of my beliefs!”

    Religious Zealot 2:

    “Read the koran! Then you’ll be convinced of my beliefs!”

    Religious Zealots Craig and wow:

    “Read the IPCC report! Then you’ll be convinced of my beliefs!”



  11. Well you don’t want what you asked for. Not a lot anyone can do for you. The only thing that can be concluded is you never wanted it in the first place.

    But your ridiculous projection is pretty much all you have.

    I guess you’ll be sticking with the false reality going forward. Because you just can’t leave Inhofe alone, can ya?


  12. “Read the IPCC.

    Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it’s not in which case you still know what convinced us.”

    Can you read?


  13. Read the bible!

    Then you’ll be convinced of my faith!

    Read the IPCC report!

    Then you’ll be convinced of my faith!


    You are intellectually weak and cannot defend your beliefs at all.

    You STILL haven’t even tried!

    (I s’pose I shouldn’t laugh. It does seem a bit mean to laugh at someone who doesn’t have the slightest chance of regaining credibility)

    All I’m asking is for you to briefly sum up your beliefs in your own words.


  14. On September 1, 2017, Michael of Brisbane blathered:

    “Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling.”

    Er, well if you had bothered to read the document which you assert is unreliable despite the fact you don’t know what is in it, you would know that the document we advised you read contains nothing in relation to modelling. Nothing at all.

    Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply repeating unsceptical propaganda you have imbibed from somewhere.


  15. Hello Craig.

    Welcome back to the conversation.

    I have actually read numerous IPCC reports.

    That is the reason I don’t trust them.

    I have been interested in this debate for many years and have a pretty good understanding of it.

    I truly do not understand why you cannot sum up your beliefs in just a short par or two.

    I suspect it’s because you know that no matter which “evidence” you point to, it is based on computer models.



  16. Adam and Craig: To make it easier for you to understand

    WARMER IS BETTER THAN COLDER REGARDLESS OF WHY IT’S getting warmer, if it’s even getting warmer at all.

    You communists and green ideology fanatics move on lost ground abd nobody cares about what you cry here on a blog nobody but a few read, so you totally waste your energy.


  17. Never got an answer to mine. Why should anyone answer? If it’s answered, what then? Because we both answered you in our own words, yet you are still here demanding we give a different answer.

    Which is what I predicted would happen.

    If you mean something to happen, explain what it is you intend to do when you are answered and what decides whether you will accept your complaint as answered.


  18. Mike, you don’t run the blog, so your demands are meaningless. the fact that you have to try to find a new plaything to JAQ off to and try to force into something you want them to say indicates how little you’re capable of defending or even defining your “facts”.

    And breibart? Really? Want to cite Age of Aquarius too?


  19. “like the mindless leftist fool”

    You proclaimed that AGW was false because those pointing it out were partisan and rude.

    So this spat of shite from you proves dellingpole is wrong.


  20. Haha!

    You’re a classic, Wow!

    I don’t think I’ve met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you.

    You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!

    You are STILL clinging to your fellow authoritarians at the IPCC. (haha)

    Luckily, these days, leftists like you don’t have much credibility.

    It turns out that when called out to back up your faith, you have nothing but insults and arrogance.

    You are weak, and have no intellect by which to change your mind as new information comes to hand.

    I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life.

    I’m also wondering why you and I are the only ones here.

    This blog used to be bustling, back in 2009.

    Now there are just a few tumbleweeds, and wow sittin’ on his porch, whittlin’, ready to yell, toothlessly at any passers by.



  21. “I don’t think I’ve met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you.”

    Do you drive them off with your closed-minded arrogance and nastyness? Moreover, still an ad hom.

    “You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!”

    Since you’re making this partisan, you’re proving AGW denial is fake.

    “You are weak, and have no intellect blah blah blah”

    More ad hom. Tell me did you check ANY of the papers to see what they said? they don’t say what dull old pole says they do. But he knows idiots like yourself will not check. It’s been debunked by several people and you’ve never even researched if it’s correct.

    “I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life.”

    And you will believe in the shibolets of your righwing masters all your life.

    “I’m also wondering why you and I are the only ones here.”

    Because you have nothing valid to say, cupcake.

    “Now there are just a few tumbleweeds”

    Ah, bit YOUR tumbleweedness proves AGW is false. Whereas my tumbleweedness proves AGW false too…. According to your intent here at bringing it up.


  22. The total defeat of Adam in any “discussion” about “climate change” invented by the communists is documented. Now as scienceblogs is shutting down, Adam has lost everything and is forced to change his life, hopefully to the better for him and those who don’t like him.


    1. freddyboriskai, just because you’ve been outed for sockpuppeting doesn’t mean you get to pretend that I’m adam just because you “think” (if such a term can be applied to an ignorant moron like yourself) this is somehow workable as a strategy.

      You’re a fuckwit and a moron who has nothing.


  23. Did you read the article, wow?

    To which papers do you refer when you say they’ve been debunked by several people?


    I love that you are STILL clinging nastily and arrogantly to your faith in the IPCC and Big Climate.

    I love it!


    1. Did you read any of it, mikeboriskaifreddy? Or have you just ignored it because you don’t want to change your opinion of it, since that is the only source for your denial of reality? You’ve already been show to have been wrong about the IPCC report in the first paragraph: not written by politicians.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s