The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
Glenn Reynolds! Exposed! As a sock puppeteer!
- Odd socks always seem to get lost in the wash, but where do they go?Posted by splice on 2007 02 03 at 01:31 PM • permalink
- I’d rather be a flying monkey than a plastic turkey.Posted by miriams ideas on 2007 02 03 at 02:12 PM • permalink
- I won’t waste my time visiting the site and commenting on it here …rats!Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 03 at 02:19 PM • permalink
- So that’s what Glenn does when he’s not making puppy smoothies!Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2007 02 03 at 02:35 PM • permalink
- Does anybody really do the sock puppet thing anyway, honestly?
In any fiscal quarter there’s a double dozen business ideas, ready to exploit, but there’s only one paco. We have the calculus of multiple variables to describe the expansion of substance and energy in space and time, but there’s only one wronwright.
When a pipe of the ship’s mead is rationed amongst the crew, there’s only one mainbrace to splice.
Although… um, where’s Stoop Davey Dave. Or is it Huck Foley?
And who is the_real_JeffS?
- ”… the end is near.”
So said the 4th blind man when he found the elephant’s tail.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 02 03 at 03:43 PM • permalink
“I should be more precise: Roughly comparable, that is, after ice dynamics are included.”
—Deltoid poster.I can only hope that the post is ironic.
Isn’t “ice dynamics” the mechanism of sea level rise, and don’t the numbers already account for that? If the post is ironic, it is brilliantly spot on. This is exactly the kind of scientific sounding nonsense that posters there often favor.
- Actually, I read further on, God help me, and found out that the potentially large unpredictability of “ice dynamics” means that they can still tout the scary scenarios. You know why it wasn’t included? Because nobody understands it, apparently. This is of course no bar to using it for scare purposes.
This is exactly the kind of scientific sounding nonsense that posters there often favor.
LOL. This is my favorite:
About the effects of rapid climate change and other anthropogenic processes on the ecological services that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales that sustain us?
Why, yes, Jeff, I do understand that human activity can affect local, regional and even global ecosystems. I do understand that human activity can affect the symbiotic relationships that homo sapiens share with the rest of natural world (of which we are a integral part, don’t forget–homo sapiens, after all, are the evolutionary non plus ultra, the jewel in the evolutionary crown).
What mystifies me is your cocksuredness. What mystifies me is how you can state with unequivocal quantitative and qualitative accuracy which of the changes you have observed and measured (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) are anthropogenic in nature and which are not. Have you ever wondered, for instance, if human machination has kept a species alive and kicking when Mother Gaia had it programmed for extinction? Are not endangered species protections an “anthropogenic process”?
And why are so many geologists GW skeptics? Could it be because they have a geological record that stretches over millions and millions of years (how’s that for a temporal scale) that makes apparent the ravages of weather and climate change long before industrialized man came along?
Some scientists (well-credentialed and well-respected) who believe that a cooling trend is imminent and that we’ll then be exceedingly grateful for every bit of greenhouse effect we can get. What if they’re right?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 03 at 05:34 PM • permalink
This is exactly the kind of scientific sounding nonsense that posters there often favor.
LOL. This is my favorite:
About the effects of rapid climate change and other anthropogenic processes on the ecological services that emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales that sustain us?
Why, yes, Jeff, I do understand that human activity can affect local, regional and even global ecosystems. I do understand that human activity can affect the symbiotic relationships between/among homo sapiens and the rest of natural world (of which we are a integral part, don’t forget–our species, after all, is the evolutionary non plus ultra, the jewel in the evolutionary crown).
What mystifies me is your cocksuredness. What mystifies me is how you can state with unequivocal quantitative and qualitative accuracy which of the changes you have observed and measured (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) are anthropogenic in nature and which are not. Have you ever wondered, for instance, if human machination has kept a species alive and kicking when Mother Gaia had it programmed for extinction? Are not endangered species protections an “anthropogenic process”?
And why are so many geologists GW skeptics? Could it be because they have a geological record that stretches over millions and millions of years (how’s that for a temporal scale) that makes apparent the ravages of weather and climate change long before industrialized man came along?
Some scientists (well-credentialed and well-respected) believe that a cooling trend is imminent in which case we’ll be exceedingly grateful for every bit of greenhouse effect we can get. What if they are right?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 03 at 05:46 PM • permalink
- How bizarre–that first post wasn’t there the last time I looked. Honest. Sorry.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 03 at 05:48 PM • permalink
- Why yes, Salty, I have received that memo..a number of times in fact (but not the meme, Rebecca, so t’weren’t me…I…whatever). Guess I’m a slow learner.
Hey, here’s an idea: Why don’t we relocate all the Bangladeshi who are scheduled to drown when the creeks rise to Greenland now before the global warming rush.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 03 at 08:36 PM • permalink
- Allow me to hereby propose what will be known as Reynold’s Law: That if (sp) = sock puppets operating, (n) = a given amount, and (m) = maturity, then n(sp) is inversely proportional to n(m).
Seriously. Sockpuppetry? At his age? On my forum, we call that kindergarten behavior, and some of us aren’t even out of high school. Grow up, Glenn.
Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2007 02 03 at 09:55 PM • permalink
- MarkL – I noticed that you posted a comment over on RWDB remarking about the ‘warm Roman period’.
That got me thinking – Hannibal crossed the Alps back in them days with elephants and such. Yes, it was a nasty journey and a lot of men and ephelants died on the way over, but make it over they did.
However, whenever I see a documentary on Hannibal, it presupposes that the climatic conditions at the time were exactly the same as they are today. That is, historians always seem puzzled that he made it over the Alps at all, particularly with heffalumps in tow.
Heck, could this mean that the Alpine regions were somewhat warmer back then and it was possible to trudge across with pachyderms and have only 50% die rather than the 100% mortality rate that you would expect if you did it today? Maybe, shock-horror, the snow line was a lot further up than it is today? Maybe the passes had a lot less snow in them than now?
By gum, those Romans have a lot to answer for. Thanks to them and their mighty empire, the earth got cooler and we are only just emerging from the mini-ice age that they brought on.
Personally, I blame all those triremes and their garlic and mung-bean eating crews. You fill up the Med with a few thousand triremes, climate change is inevitable.
It’s a good thing we built all those coal fired power stations and cars – if not, we’d still be shivering in furs in Gaul.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 02 04 at 12:31 AM • permalink
- OT– but… I just read Tex’s campaign manifesto over at Whacking Day.
I wish he’d tell us how he really feels…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 04 at 01:44 AM • permalink
- Sorry–I’m stupid.
I mixed up Glenn Reynolds with one of the other moonbats. I remember a sockpuppeteer lurking about, and jumped to a conclusion. Mea culpa.
Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2007 02 04 at 02:25 AM • permalink
- From the 2nd thread at Lambert’s:
Karen dear, many of us were professional scientists in the 70s, and no, we don’t remember such papers in the scientific literature of the time. Of course, if you get your scientific journals at the supermarket checkout counter, there were a few such articles, but we do get tired of folk trying this silliness on. A young whippersnapper has put together a web site on ice age claims in the 70s (everyone needs a hobby, and William has many), as well as a short post on it, and the bottom line is that there were no such papers in the scientific literature.
Having had sundry ignorant folks try to blow your nonsense about ice ages you know where, readers of these blogs tend to get a bit testy when a newbie blows in and tries it on again. Out of the goodness of our hearts we should assume that you simply did not know better, however, when in your case, it comes with an overlay of attitude people react rather strongly. Go read the links that I gave you.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | February 3, 2007 10:46 PM
There may be a shortage of (web-sourced) papers on the subject from the era but the MSM gloom-n-doom hyperbole hasn’t changed.
- I got a kick out of one of the posters calling skeptics “credulous”, yet he assures us that based on a blog post, no scientific papers on cooling existed.
There are still people talking about the possibility of a coming cooling. Actual scientists. Astrophyisicists whose knowledge of the Sun goes slightly deeper than plugging in 20 years of sensor numbers into a 1000 year climate history.
One further note. The case for AGW is based on the lack of alternative explanations and is completely circumstantial. It is only credible if plausible alternative explanations do not exist. Well at least two alternative explanations have been proposed by scientists, and neither has been disproven. In other words, this is early days for Climate Science, and the “science” has been hijacked by ideologues.
- Here are the alternatives
Solar Variability referred to above. The High Church of Global Warming objects that they have plugged this into their model based on satelite data and the effect is negligable. But cloud effects of Sun intensity are not understood. Water being the most potent climate affecting substance.
Cosmic Rays This is another manipulater of water vapor, and has the advantage of both proof of the effect by repeatable experiment, and the curious ability to explain the 100,000 year climate cycle. It takes about that long for the Sun to orbit the Milky Way, the trip varies the amount of cosmic rays Earth is exposed to in a predictable pattern.
I will stop with the pedantic rant now.
- We can fix the solar variability thing by just making everyone wear sunglasses. Reduce all the light down to a common shade of gray.
For the cosmic rays, nothing for it but to wrap the globe in a sufficiently thick lead balloon. Of course, it’d have to be a really big lead balloon because it’d have to also include the atmosphere part.
It wouldn’t make much sense to wrap the globe in a big ol’ lead balloon to protect us folk against weather variables, if we didn’t include the apart we need to breath.
Besides, all that clean air legislation would be really problematic in enforcing if there wasn’t any air to force into being cleaner and there was no one around to enforce the laws on because everyone had suffocated in a big assed lead balloon which the designers had forgotten to include atmosphere.
That’d be just silly.
- #36
Now there is the concept of global dimming overlying climate change, which again “climate scientists” say there is little formal scientific discussion about (is there any outside of the UN?) and there is debate as to whether human-caused particulates strengthen or weaken the effect (I thought that volcanic eruption observations assisted in this regard).As some of the wiser “climate scientists” observe: why tinker with such a system until you know what you’re doing vis-a-vis the cloud seeding debate: there is now argument as to whether it increased/decreased rainfall, to the chagrin of farmers.
- Sheesh! Just read the comments over at Lambert’s blog.
Now that the UN has endorsed the Church of Global Warming™, the faithful are rallying to the cause. On an odd mixture of faith, assertions, politics, probably greed, and maybe a little genuine science, but who am I to question the Oracle for the Church of Global Warming™ (Lambert) and His apostle, Jeff Harvey?
Sadly, the global goreming hysteria is in full force, and nothing short of glaciers encroaching on Mexico City will cause the hysterics to change their tune.
(Note to the Church of Global Warming™ faithful reading this: I am not saying that the Earth is cooling, I am noting that it would take extreme measures to convince you and your ilk that you might be wrong, and that there are equally viable alternative explanations for the climate changes that appear to be happening. Said extreme measures being beyond my ability to produce, I won’t waste my time.)
(BTW, Jeff Harvey is certainly very…..adamant that global goreming is upon us, isn’t he?)
And who is the_real_JeffS?
I am proud to say that I am one of Tim Blair’s Flying Monkeys&trades;, a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™, and a Global Warming Skeptic™. Operational Security prohibits me from saying more than that. 😉
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 04 at 11:02 AM • permalink
- They may have their plumage all fluffed right now, but these strutting peacocks are gonna look pretty silly post “crash”.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 04 at 01:36 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
