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

D wrote:

  On Tue, 24 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

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".

 No, in todays world, that is actually impossible. I am exposed to texts
and videos 24/7 and none have managed to convince me that we're doomed.
 

As witness your response to my comments on your "five points", which as a favour to all I will not bother to respond to.

 Ok.
 

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.

 Ahh, sorry, then it is ok. Climate-hysteric! On the other hand, I am not
surprised. Anything goes when it comes to climate rationalists, but
critique of the climate nobility must be silenced, preferably with fines
and violence. The climate rationalist on the other hand, can apparently
be shot in the head. I get it.

You clearly didn't understand what I said, so here goes.
Climate scientists get death threats.  It's not rare.
The people being shot, though, are not climate scientists or climate change deniers, but people in  the third world trying to prevent ecological damage, mostly shot by owners of polluting operations.  About 200 per year, and few prosecutions result.
That's not an AGW issue, though, as most of these people are concerned with the poisoning of the local environment.

 

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!

 Yes.
 

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,

 Ahh... I hear the green boots marching on the streets.

Despite the lack of a ">" this is your sentence you are replying to, not mine.  As you should know.
If you want to talk to yourself, reply to yourself.
  On the other

hand, the nazis eventually lost power and so will eco-fascism. But I
honestly cannot blame your hostility.

Impugning the motives of your opponents is generally clear evidence of lack of confidence in your case.

You are playing politics,

By citing facts.  Oh No!
(I put in the ">" so you won't get confused again).
  and you

must say what they want to hear to get your rewards.

As I mentioned my conspiracy cash seems to be lost in the mail, and there's no progress being made on my Barony.
It's almost as if the monetary compensation I got for my work consisted of my salary, and nothing else.
For the record, only two of my papers, three at most, deal with the current climate change.  About as many as I have in solid state physics.
The majority of my work is in paleoclimate, specifically ice ages over the past 550 million years or so.
That's why I expect my conspiracy cheque to be pro-rated downwards.
Thank God for the money from the solid-state conspiracy folks.  It's not easy fooling people into believing that the relativistic component of the anomalous g-shift in Lithium is .0022 when as any fool knows, it's actually .0023! But on such things does the coming quantum-facist state depend!
  That is obvious and

entirely natural.

Oh, it's "Obvious and entirely natural" that I'm corrupt?  Come on, you can go lower than that!

 As for evidence, likewise. I've presented iron clad proofs and arguments
and you have not been able to refute them.
 Finally, it turned out, that in the end, your arguments boiled down to
models, which as we saw, is completely unscientific given the variables,
the subjective nature, and how badly models work.

You've denied, often cut-and-pasting things you don't understand. You've tackled no evidence at all.

 

That's us climatologists.  A wild and lawless bunch, the terrors of academia.

 Of the world... not just academia. The climate rationalists are the new
jews.

Well in that case you're safe, since there's nothing rational about your position at all.
William Hyde