Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

D wrote:

  On Sun, 22 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

I invite you to supply some.  Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.

>
I will give you 5.

>
>
General comment.
>
You should read the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers", a non-technical description of the work done.  It would save you much embarrassment.
>
And you would know what your "opponents" are actually doing.  At the moment it's like you're playing Kriegspiel, and they're playing chess.

 Obviously the public material only exists to pacify the masses.

Or to summarize your attitude:
"I won't read anything which might contradict the views that I hold".
As witness your response to my comments on your "five points", which as a favour to all I will not bother to respond to.

I don't. I can tell you many times people have been shouting, calling me
a denier, almost becoming violent.

Poor child.  Of course, it's not even news when people working for IPCC get death threats.
  The demonizing is 100% on the climate

hysterics, and what you are seeing is a reaction to that environment.

Sorry, so you mean "climate hysterics" or "eco-facists" or "Eco-authoritarians"? Or "Scientists seeking to rule us all in the new feudal state". I've lost track.  This demonizing business can be tricky!

 That, in it self, that people who disagree are threatened, made to look
like holocaust deniers,

It is for this reason that for many years I did not use the word "denier", but preferred "skeptic". I too did not like the association.
But to be a skeptic requires engagement with the evidence.  Your utter failure in this discussion to deal with the evidence I have repeatedly presented is an example.  The pattern of warming shows the long-predicted characteristics of greenhouse gases, as I have pointed out many times, but you never engage with this.  You simply deny.
Hence the label is appropriate.
  and generally tried to be stopped at any price,
That's us climatologists.  A wild and lawless bunch, the terrors of academia.

is another indicator that the conspiracy

Ah yes, conspiracy.  I must be in on it, and where's my money?
  is slowly coming to an end and

that the common man is waking up to that fact.

You remind me of creationists, who have been telling me for decades that evolution will be refuted "any day now".  Thirty years ago a conservative published a column on "ten stories the liberal media doesn't want you to know", one of which was the coming demise of evolution.  I can't recall if he had a similar point to make about anthropogenic climate change, it might not have been on his  radar then.

 The politicians and climotologists are getting desperate.

I recently had dinner with a group of climatologists (one of our conspiracy group meetings, at which we plotted against all right-thinking people, as you know) and I failed to find any sign of desperation.
Except when the 2023 fires were discussed, I suppose.

 

You even posted:
>
"scientists are scrambling to support the
narrative in the hope of becoming part of the nobility of the future
authoritarian society politicians are steering us towards."
>
which is utterly deranged.  Is James Hansen up for a dukedom? Can I get at least a barony?

 You know what I mean.

Yes, you mean to slander your opponents, as you cannot argue with them. We all know that.
But I still want my barony.  I'm calling dibs on "Baron Schwartzschild"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild's_equation_for_radiative_transfer
  - he did more than just relativity).
And having a black shield sounds cool.
William Hyde