I’ve been alerted to some comments made by a poster whose language – directed at me and others – was offensive. I had given that individual sufficient warming.
The three strikes rule has been applied to Richard Ryan. Richard has three months to reflect upon the comments he has made.
I’ve been watching the comments for some time and would ask all readers and posters to ensure they are familiar with the guidelines established for interacting on this blog.
Standards for commenting on this blog are here.
These guidelines are applied equally to all, regardless of their views on climate change.
Watching the Deniers 
can you tell us what his offending comments were or point us there? i think it reasonable for your readers to see if they think your application is fair.
Well we could rely on you to give an unbiased opinion.
Tony Duncan says:
September 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Typical warmist propoganda.
I have READ Marc Morano and I have NEVER once heard him use the word “like” in that way. You guys are SOOO paranoid and gullible. I bet it was Peter Gleick, that lying scumbag fraudulent cheating Commie, who sent you a FORGED transcript of the interview. and you are now passing it off as a real inteview
And while I KNOW climate change is a fraud, NONE of you have ever answered any of the questions regarding the faked moon landing. I watched the video proving the fake and it is so convincing that I don’t need to know anything else about it.
another ryan conspiracy theorist
John,
Wow, my schizophrenic past is coming back to haunt me.
If only I could pretend I was dripping sarcasm with that comment.
of course with the comments i have seen from Climate deniers, it does make sense it would be hard to tell the difference.
Apologies tony, you do an excellent imitation, “tony duncan watching the deniers”
and that comes to the top. shit I have some of those out there
His remarks included offensive language personally directed at me and other readers. For example: “You’re a c***** Mike”
That crosses a line and results in a 3 month ban. Note, that is not censorship: that is ensuring readers and commentators feel safe.
Sounds good to me. though “Cooley”, is a rather antiquated insult and I didn’t know you were of Chinese extraction. It is also my girlfriends last name and she is rather cute.
Are we there yet? NO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960
Here’s some interesting reading for all the alarmists….
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/08/global-warming-hasnt-stopped-but-it-has-stalled-says-new-prediction-from-british-national-weather-service/
Suck it up boys and girls, the world really has stopped warming… although they choose to use the word ‘stalled’. Doesn’t matter what word they use… no temperature rise is still no temperature rise.
What a load of nonsense
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/decadal-forecasting
Of course, the question as ever,is, ‘Are these creatures ignoramuses and cretins, or cynical and wicked disinformers’. The latest polls of opinion seem to show that, even in the Western capitalist kakistocracies (some redundancy there) that public opinion is finally getting the message. The denialists are being reduced to a real hard-core of extreme Rightwing zealots, although the MSM psychopaths will battle on to the bitter end, to earn Rupert’s shilling, or thirty pieces of silver. The extremity of the denialist rump’s expectorations is growing, not just because they are losing, despite the deck being stacked their way by Big Business patronage, but also, I would say, because their paranoid little limbic systems must really dread what will come as the public wake to the reality of disaster, and the more typically Rightwing elements start looking for scapegoats. I imagine that the process will be exacerbated by various denialists, looking to divert the mob, turning on their erstwhile mates and shouting, ‘He’s one! He was a denialist!’, while slinking away. It won’t be pretty.
I have big problems with the right wing per se being hit with the denier tag
I refuse to accept that right wing means that a person is unable to accept science,
there has to be something else added .
a friend sent this letter to the paper and reckon that it is getting closer to the truth
Dear Sir,
As we presently sweat it out in record breaking temperatures, the Bureau of Meteorology creates new gradations to take into account higher maxima, jellyfish blooms around Australia never before seen, irukandji found well south of their accepted known habitat etc etc; Mr Truss, the Member for Wide Bay blithely states – “there will be talk of climate change when the temperatures rise a bit”.
Crikey, that is profound ! Casual research reveals that at an Annual National Prayer Breakfast held at Parliament House in 2008, Mr Truss declared he sought God’s assistance for – “tough policy decisions that must be made, the important speech, searching for the right answer to the questions of a challenging journalist (and) a solution for the problems of a troubled constituent I can not find a way to help.”
I believe the troubled constituent is the population of Australia; there aren’t enough ‘challenging’ journalists and if politicians can’t start making decisions and policies that benefit our environment and decrease our use and sale of fossil fuels; then it might be time for them to move on. Perhaps a poll could be distributed to all sitting M.P.s questioning their understanding and beliefs on the matter of human induced climate change.
Mr Truss wants ASIC to make an example of the activist who sent out a fake press release regarding investment in a proposed Tinkler coal mine. While I don’t think the young man will ever be knighted, I applaud his stand.
I suggest that if the current temperatures continue for a while longer, there’ll be quite a few demands on God.
sincerely, John Rourke.
Skeptical,
I for one think it is just possible that there is some sort of “stalling” of temperature rise. But I do not see how that is in any way a disproof fo global warming. As soon as i see a celar trend of temperaturws downward, in the next few years I will certain consider that possibility. Also I find the explanation for this trend to be quite reasonable, and to me pass the test of being explanations rahter thna rationalizations. the Aerosols form pollution (see “Beijing pollution warning off the scales” today), the storing of heat in the oceans, the solar minimums and lack of sola r activity in past few years, and La Nina dominated ocean.
I have always considered the possibility of mitigating factors that are not well known, such as clouds or underdetermined biological factors, such as bacteria, or feedback cycles that we do not properly understand that could limit either the degree of wamrin or the timescales.
Yet unitl I see real empiricl evidence of such things I do not “believe” them, and take the consen sus position as the most likely that temps will increase from 2-6°C in the next hundred years.
If that IS the case I do hope that the people who have been so actively inovlved in preventing action that could have decreased the damage be properly villified, and their example used as a spur to improve education and upbringing away from ideological dogmatic thi
nking
letter, reply
RE Geoff Cass ( SCD Jan 14 ) The Global heat content is increasing by the equivalent energy of two Hiroshima bombs every single second of every single day and has done so for the past 16 years, Levitus (2012).
Who then is your authority for your claim that there has been no warming over that period, apart from an absurd opinion piece by a journalist in a British newspaper?
Tony Duncan,
Do you know what real empirical evidence is? Global temperature readings are real empirical evidence and they show no warming over the last 16yrs. You make the assumption that CO2 caused the warming in the 80’s and 90’s. If this was true, then global temperatures would still be rising in response to the ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere…. where clearly they’re not. Climate scientists now want to consider natural variability to explain the lack of warming, yet won’t consider that same natural variability as being the main cause of the previous warming. Can’t you see that there’s something wrong with the scientific method?
If you really want to consider the possibilities then chase down the data yourself, look at how much CO2 has risen over the last 16yrs and compare that to how much the temperature has failed to rise over the same period… and you’ll see that all this environmentalist propaganda you’ve been fed is rubbish. Stick to the empirical evidence and ignore crazy theories… like the latest theory that all the missing heat is being absorbed by the ocean and then somehow drawn down into the abyss where nobody can find it.
I don’t see why you’d be so concerned about the extreme climate predictions for 100yrs from now… If the climate scientists can’t get their predictions even close on a decadal timescale, what are the chances of their 100yr predictions being worth anything?
We’ve only just passed the peak in the warming phase of the cycle, so you’ll have to wait another decade or so to see real cooling… but, of course, when this happens you’ll see it as a temporary cooling in a warming world. I doubt you’ll ever be able to accept the reality that mother nature controls the climate, not us.
If you don’t care all that much about empirical evidence and believe it’s your duty to save the world, regardless of whether or not it really needs saving… then you should be taking meaningful action like trying to stop China commissioning a new coal fired power station every week. Can’t you see the futility in dumping a carbon tax on a few million people here while there’s more than a billion people increasing their CO2 emissions over there?
Statistical significance means that the warming is not due to natural variability, that there is an underlying cause beyond natural variability.
so to claim that natural variablility is not considered is just more nonsense,
Usually when people calim that mother nature controls the climate then that is a dog whistle for GOD controls the temperature
so why do they think that only the greens accept climate science, eye opening comment from a denier to follow.
‘
John Byatt,
Do your parents know that you’re using the internet unsupervised?
A very telling reply skeptical,
Keep digging
Well there’s your first mistake.
Unless, of course, you have some evidence. (Note for newbies: Delingpole articles in the Daily Mail are not evidence)
This post contains a video that explains how warming has continued over the last 16 years and how certain innumerates have misread the data:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html
Highly recommended, even though it won’t convince Skeptical or Eric.
If you take your science from the National Post you are wilfully choosing to be misinformed. Why would you do that? How about listening to the Met Office berating the coverage? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p013n3z4
Imbecile or liar, or both. Waste of carbon.
“Stalled”? I thought it was “cooling”? Whatever happened to the “global cooling” that was all the rage three years ago?
Hi `Watching`, I am very relieved that Global Warming stuff turned out to be a fraud, according to the Limited-News Trollumnist`s. I don`t have to worry about Bush-Fires ever again, now that Global Cooling has kicked in.
I’m barricading the house against icebergs. The threat of global cooling is quite alarming. /snark
I saw a massive special on snow shovels online. It hasn’t snowed where I live for 10000 years but I reckon a bargain is a bargain, especially when its a necessity. I might buy two of them.
Speaking of snow, neven’s blog
The blanket of snow that covers Arctic regions for most of the year has been shrinking at an increasing pace over the past decade, researchers say.
A recent study found an overall decrease in Arctic snow-cover extent (snow that covers the Arctic at the end of the spring) from 1967 through 2012, and an acceleration of snow loss after the year 2003. The rate of snow-cover loss in June between 1979 and 2012 was 17.6 percent per decade (relative to the 1979-2000 mean), which is greater than the rate of September sea-ice decline during that same period,
This is what we are up against skeptical.
comment from an AGW denier
“I remain an independent thinker, however, and cherish my spiritual and intellectual freedom – the right to think and evaluate for myself. There are many branches of theology, and it is just as important to be discerning in one’s theology as it is in the field of climate science.
It is important to remember that Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free.” One of hallmarks of a cult, however, is the engendering of fear and bondage. I have come to view AGW alarmism as but another ‘religious’ cult, with its hallmark sign of promotion of fear and bondage. Its devotees, in their religious fervour, wish to enslave us all in their ‘worship’ of the false god of the environment.
It is the subversive agenda of this false religion that distinguishes it from true environmentalism. “By their fruit ye shall know them’,Jesus said. False religion engenders fear. Jesus asks us to have faith, including faith in God to oversee the natural realm. I am privileged to have experienced God’s miraculous, supernatural deliverance in times of crisis, in ways that, on occasion, have defied scientific explanation. Hence I have absolutely no doubt that He who created the natural laws can act outside those laws if He should choose to do so. Therefore I have complete faith that God in His omniscience and omnipotence is more than able to ‘save the planet’ if the need should arise. What we as Christians should guard against, however, is any complicity in the evil agenda of global domination, which the Holy Scriptures actually long ago foretold”
The crazies agree with your nonsense skeptical
Everyone’s got their own take on the world. Few, however, hold views as demented as yours.
You keep trying to link global warming skepticism to some belief in a god. I suppose in your mind anyone who challenges the teachings of the Church of Climate Change must belong to a competing religion. When I mentioned mother nature, your reply was… “Usually when people calim that mother nature controls the climate then that is a dog whistle for GOD controls the temperature”.
There are many religions, each with their own god/s. Since you are so knowledgeable in religions, would you like to tell us exactly which religion holds mother nature as its god?
Seeing that I hold no concept of a mother nature, i would never use a phrase such as ” it is not mother nature controlling the climate”
You did however, and now seem to want to take a giant step back from that
keep digging
The Rightist’s God is Death. Thanatos, dread of which is so great that, one would say perversely, the Rightist seeks to embrace it and serve it servilely all in a futile bid to placate it, to put it out of mind. The hardcore Right wants us all dead. They know that the science must be true, that there cannot be a great global ‘warmist watermelon’ conspiracy. They just want the catastrophe to happen, in order to be revenged on those living when they are dead.
Skeptical ” I doubt you’ll ever be able to accept the reality that mother nature controls the climate, not us.”
creationist above ” god controls the climate, not us”
Skeptikal, whether you like it or not, there is a solid correlation between climate change denial, and any mix of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam (in particular), conservative politics and scientific ignorance.
I can’t help but wonder why people like yourself spending your precious time debating a subject you don’t believe even exists? Your actions betray your professed claims.