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. Oh, and to further clarify my point:

    Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the “science” of AGW and CAGW is “settled science”, with no further discussion allowed.


  2. “What a nasty, leftist, religious zealot you are!”

    You keep bringing religion into it. And politics.

    Projection (Psychological)

    1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

    “Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the “science” of AGW and CAGW is “settled science””

    Again, Svante Arrhenius.

    Science uses maths as it s proof, so you’re demanding a non science science. Which you moved to from “No computer models” because your arse was handed to you when you demanded and got what you never wanted.



  3. “I thought you might have understood what I wrote.”

    Nope, I understood completely. You asked for a non-computer model proof of AGW. I gave it.

    “I’m asking you to explain it.”

    Now you are. Because you’re JAQing off and wasting time. Like “asking” for non-math proof of the science of climate change.

    We both know it’s meaningless because your only complaints against AGW have been that things “rang alarm bells”. Yet far more and stronger alarm bells ring for the denialists whose bilge you spout, yet this rang nothing with you.

    You do not want or demand evidence, you want to pretend it’s all fake so your politics can remain undisturbed.


  4. “That doesn’t work on me.”

    That’s because you’re in deep denial. There is so much evidence that you need proof it’s all fake to discount it. It’s 30 years too late to cry off that there’s no evidence and no proof.

    Where is that proof that it’s all faked evidence?


  5. “ALL of the alarmist predictions come from computer model evidence.”

    WRONG. See Svante.

    “NONE of the alarm comes from actual evidence.”

    WRONG. See MBH98

    “Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change!”

    Science answers the question why the climate changes. And it’s CO2 changing it now and we’re doing it.

    Logic proves human-caused climate change.


    And along with your religious projection, your politics too.

    “are also THE ONLY segment of society that has fallen hook line and sinker ”

    Leaving the right to fall for the denial industry’s proven lies. While reality shows the scientists are right and that the left is just accepting expertise.

    “for the crap spun by the politicians at the IPCC.”

    Where is your proof and evidence?


  6. “Explain your faith in the IPCC”

    They are scientists who collate the work of thousands of other scientists. Expertise gives reason to believe their results.

    “and the politicians”

    The politicians have sold you a line that you swallowed. I don’t believe the politicians. They mostly try their best to underplay the facts about AGW so that the big oil states and the USA can all continue to pretend there’s nothing to worry about.

    You’re the one believing politicians and untrained idiots.


  7. hey Wow.

    This form of “copy and paste” writing you do, is it acceptable in your academic circles?

    I must say I find it infantile and annoying.

    Just like its content.

    I suspect you are incapable of explaining the ‘evidence’ yourself, so you just use bluster.


    I also wonder where all the other commenters are these days.

    Remember Mandas and all the others who used to comment here on your “believers” side?

    I always respected Mandas, because he was never nasty like you STILL are.

    Why are they not supporting you anymore?

    Even Coby doesn’t seem to comment much in support of you.

    Have they woken up to this political hoax, or do they still believe, like you do, that the politicians at the IPCC are genuinely good people?

    The UN is the vatican and the IPCC is the college of cardinals.

    Al Gore is the pope. (haha)

    (He’s become very weatlthy on Big Climate, the holy father!)

    Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?

    (besides mathematical science of course)

    Please explain how a complex system like the earth’s climate is “settled science” when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter!

    It’s SUCH bullshit and you’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker!

    I know it’s time for your daily prayers, so I’ll get in before you….

    Algorhu Akbar!


  8. “It’s SUCH bullshit”

    Ah, and your proof for that is you don’t like its conclusions.

    Sorry, that only is your bigotries and denial speaking. Rational humans, unlike yourself, need evidence for claims. You haven’t got any. Just your feelings.

    “Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?”

    Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too.

    “Please explain how a complex system like the earth’s climate is “settled science” ”

    Please explain why AGW is not. That’s what you asked about before.

    And it’s settled science because the scientists have looked at the evidence and all come to the same conclusion: AGW is real and it’s happening and explains the evidence extremely well while every other avenue of explanation is incapable of doing so.

    “Why are they not supporting you anymore?”

    They don’t have to. Why does nobody support you, betty?

    Trollidiots like yourself have driven them away, because answering morons luike yourself who demand A then when it’s given say “no, I meant B” then “Nuh, uh, I asked C” is just meaningless.

    You’d decided for your political and ideological outlook to deny reality and deny AGW based on your feels and until reality and AGW “feel” OK with you, you will not change, no matter what evidence is presented.

    Like Svante Arrhenius and MBH98 and Cook et al. All non computer evidence and proof of AGW and it being settled science.

    You don’t feel right when presented, so you refuse to allow it to penetrate your denier skull. And no evidence will change your mind, since evidence never made it up in the first place.

    So they left because you’re a moron denier and like other moron deniers, there’s no value in pandering to your idiocies and they have left.


  9. “He’s become very weatlthy on Big Climate”

    He became very wealthy long before it.

    And odd that you hate the wealthy so much. Wealth envy is again a projection of the right. “How DARE they be rich without being like ME!!!!!”. Because to the right success means you are right and if you are right you must agree with the rightwinger or they might be wrong, so if you’re successful (which to the right means wealthy), you must either be a rightwinger like them or have scammed people which means you’re not successful you’re just a crook and they can ignore the weath as unearned.

    Rich envy from the right.How pathetic.


  10. “when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter! ”


    It’s not based on one parameter. However you may be thinking of that denier loon Mad Christ Monkfish whose “model” was like an engineers’ caricature of one and where the one parameter to work on was the climate sensitivity which he made to be very low then used his “model” to show that the climate sensitvity was low.

    Climate science models do not use only one parameter.


  11. Haha!

    Your leftist thinking is funny.

    But I find your writing difficult to read.

    I know you’ll try to insult me for that, but I think you’re a bad writer.

    I’m sceptical of whether your style is acceptable in academic circles.

    I really must highlight this bit! (haha)

    “Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too.”

    I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you’ve mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence.

    I hope you will read your comment again and see how wrong you are.

    I do admit to misusing the word “parameter”

    I meant “a line of evidence”, meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry.

    I did not mean to imply that models use only one parameter.

    I hope that clears that up.

    Since your mind is obviously closed on the climate science aspect of the AGW hoax, perhaps I can get you to acknowledge a different aspect of the issue?

    The Big Climate unelected government-corporations are pushing for shutting down of fossil fuel sources in place of inefficient and expensive renewable sources, which only result in two things:

    Less reliable power, and

    Increased cost of power.

    The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity and fuel and groceries, etc, but the poor cannot.

    Why would Big Climate be doing this?

    Since you are closed-minded about the AGW hoax, I wonder if we could have a technical discussion about the various forms of electricity production and why it’s against physics to be closing down fossil fueled power stations?


  12. “But I find your writing difficult to read.”

    Well, yes, a lack of education makes your reading skills inadequate to the task.

    “I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you’ve mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence.”

    Determining the chemical characteristics of a molecule requires computation in quantum mechanics. 100% mathematical models and only capable of being done in a computer due to the massive amount of calculation done.

    “I meant “a line of evidence”, meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry.”

    Then your claim was meaningless babble. Nothing new there.

    “Less reliable power”


    “Increased cost of power.”


    “The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity”

    But not if you use renewables because they make more cash when you buy fossil fueled power which is only possible from their sources. Oil fields under your house are not yours.

    Funny how you follow fake money and ignore the real money trail when it leads right to the rightwing nutjobs who feed you the line to keep you snookered.


  13. ” inefficient”

    Irrelevant. Since no fuel is burned it matters not how efficient it is at turning a photon in to electrical potential.

    And SPV at commercial scale is already as, or more, efficient than the internal combustion engine.

    ” and expensive”


    “which only result in two things:”

    Wrong again.

    And i will note that you have yet to fulfill any obligations on proving any of your claims that have been questioned before. Also that you insist on making it based on party political lines, making the ones patently wrong on the subject you and your ilk.



  14. Are you well-versed in the technical aspects of electricity generation?

    You seem to think that solar and other renewables are more powerful and/or more efficient than fossil fuels?

    I’d love to have a technical discussion with you on the various efficiencies and physics of all forms of electricity generation if you’d like?

    Part of the reason I know AGW is a political hoax to feed the greed of UN elites, is that they are shutting down coal-fired power stations as a matter of “urgency”, in place of renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker, more expensive and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production, as well as being inefficient at producing electricity.

    You’ve been well and truly duped by politicians, wow.



  15. The low educated misinformed is named Adam and has no clue about electrivity generation, but suffers from untreatable logorrhea.


  16. “renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker”


    “, more expensive”

    The reverse of reality.

    ” and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production,”

    Complete codswallop.

    ” as well as being inefficient at producing electricity.”

    Still wrong. See previous. Repeating lies don’t turn them into truths.


  17. “You’ve been well and truly duped by politicians, wow.”

    Says someone who has been duped by the righwing politicians…



  18. Haha!


    You are actually weaker than I had thought.

    Your responses are child-like.

    To be honest, I think you and your ilk are sad and pathetic, and I mean that in a genuine and sincere way.

    I don’t mean it as an insult.

    I feel a bit sorry for you, even after all your nastiness and carrying on.

    I hope you’ll keep following your religion, until it becomes so embarrassing, that even you can’t stand it anymore.

    The entire AGW hoax will be a half-day primary school subject in 300 years time.

    People will study all these comments on the “ancient internet” and wonder how they evolved past such “global brainwashed thinking”.

    Keep up your good work Adam.

    It seems you’re a lone-voice these days, even on this blog, and I do feel sorry for you.


  19. “Your responses are child-like.”

    Since your argument is infantile, I see no need to put effort into it, freddy.

    “I hope you’ll keep following your religion,”

    Again you’re the only one going on about religion.

    “I don’t mean it as an insult.”

    Bullshit. It’s your only desire. Hating the science, those who know it and those who say what it is.


  20. Do you think I’m Freddy?

    I can assure you, I’m not.

    Your reply has cemented my previous comment regarding your aloneness and your childishness.

    I do feel a bit sorry for you, mate.


  21. Sure you’re freddy. Just like I’m adam.

    Your confusion is really your creation, not mine. Live with. You put a lot of hate and anger into believing it’s all a hoax because you’ve been fed lies.


  22. I must say that for someone who seems to have ruled this forum with the iron-fist of a leftist dictator, you are surprisingly non-intellectual.

    I s’pose you’ve spent a lot of time pondering the fact that you’re the last alarmist here?

    Maybe Coby is keeping the blog active just for you?


  23. For someone who lives inside their own anus, your claims there are nothing unexpected. It’s meaningless whine and whinge, proposed because your arguments have been nonexistent and destroyed with little effort.

    So you’re attempting to make me wrong by the fact I’ve posted.

    Sorry freddy, this won’t float.

    Just like your other “ideas”.


  24. Haha! You really do think I’m Freddy!

    I assure you, Adamwow, I’m not.

    You can’t use that as an excuse.

    I really must say I’m taken aback by your ineptitude regarding your ability to argue for your religious beliefs.

    You are a typically weak-minded leftist who really has no idea of anything except your political religion, which is diminishing in its popularity and credibility with each passing day.

    Algorehu Akbar!



  25. Sure. Just like you really think I’m Adam.

    “You can’t use that as an excuse.”

    An excuse for WHAT?

    “religious beliefs.”

    The only one calling religion and partisanship is you, freddykaiborismike. And you insisted that this proved the side making the claim of that absolutely wrong.

    So you’re merely proving your denial of AGW is a fraud.

    “political religion”

    And you’re doing it again. Making batshit claims twice doesn’t make it any less batshit or any less wrong.

    Sorry, your rightwingnujob ideology is incapable of handling reality, but AGW is real and your denial of reality is a cranial infarction brought about by your stupidity and ease by which you are programmed by the politicians who are using you to keep lining the pockets of themselves, their friends and their donors.


  26. sigh

    For what? ….

    as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought in defence of AGW.

    I am not any of the other people you seem to think I am, wow.

    How ’bout this?

    Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?

    That’s a simple question. Let’s see if you can give a simple answer, with only reasoned thought and not insults, or diversions.


  27. “For what? ….

    as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought ”

    How on earth would you be freddykaiborismike be an excuse for that?

    And I’ve already managed far more reasoned thought than you have in your unreasoned and irrational batshit crazy attacks against reality. But you don’t WANT reality, since it doesn’t conform to your political outlook.

    “Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?”

    If I answer, then what? JAQing off is what you#re doing and answering this will merely garner another twenty questions, all leading.

    If I answer, then what?

    Why is answering even necessary? Already been answered many many times.


  28. I’ve answered your asinine and meaningless questions before, yet all that’s happened is you’ve spammed “religion” “politics” “religion” “politics” “religion” “politics”.

    So what if I DO answer that one? 20 more questions?


  29. “the AGW alarm”

    That would be denier blogrolls like WtfUWT and co2scam et al.

    You know, the sites YOU get your political hack job disinformation from.


  30. I’m only asking 1 question, mate.

    You’re attempting to divert by making excuses for answering questions that don’t exist anywhere but inside your paranoid, leftist mind.

    Do you trust the IPCC?

    The UN IPCC is the source of AGW alarm that is based solely on computer modelling.

    Do you trust the politicians to give you, personally, the true and correct scientific advice on AGW?

    It’s a simple question, mate.


  31. And I’m only asking questions. My post #56answered your earlier ones, out of many, yet here you are bleating “alarmist” “religion” “leftwing” “politics”.

    So if I answer, what then? 20 more questions? More “religion” “politics” “religion” “politics” “religion” “politics” “religion” “politics”?


  32. i take it you don’t believe Inholf when he says that there is no AGW, then, moron? He’s a politician. And you will not trust them at all. So you must think that AGW has to be real.


  33. “based solely on computer modelling.”

    And you know this is a lie. Yet still you repeat it. Proof all on its own that climate denial such as yours is fake and a fraud.


  34. Oh, well, I guess you do, implicitly. and faithfully, follow the teachings of the politicians at the IPCC.

    I’ll take your lack of answer as a resounding YES!

    OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?


    Sorry, I shouldn’t laugh.

    I’m feeling more and more sorry for you, wow.

    You’re a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here at A few Things Ill Considered.

    Is there no one that will speak up in support of you, the IPCC, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and Bill Nye?

    The confusing but fascinating thing about your behaviour, is that you can be the only voice representing your beliefs on this blog, yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant.

    From a psychological point of view, it’s fascinating.

    From a political point of view, it makes perfect sense.


  35. It’s a pity you’re so batshit crazy that you don’t even comprehend what you’re saying.

    I take it that you accept SENATOR Jim Inhof’s word that AGW doesn’t exist, moron? Or do you reject the claims of politicians?


  36. “OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?”

    It is.

    Sorry. Just because you “think” (in the loosest sense of the word) otherwise does not make it so.


  37. “yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant.”

    You deserve nasty,shithead. If this offends you, try not being a scum sucking toerag.

    And it’s not arrogance when I do know more than you, it’s plain fact. Try learning something and put some effort into catching up.

    And neither nastiness nor arrogance are evidence of me being wrong or you being right. But you being wrong is in the evidence of reality in front of us. Even if you deny it.


  38. “You’re a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here”

    And you’re the lone voice of insanity here on AFTIC. Therefore you are inherently wrong, apparently.


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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s