David Roberts’ 17 Minutes

I’m on record as having Grist’s David Roberts at the top of my list of people I consider trustworthy about climate change. The things he’s concerned about strike me as things worthy of concern, and his take on those things strikes me as clear-headed and justified.

Recently, he tweeted something to the effect that, “the climate change issue is simple. I could explain it in 15 minutes.” Someone called him on it, and the result is this (okay, 17-minute) TEDx talk:

Sources and additional interesting meta-commentary at Roberts’ blog: Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed.

27 Responses to “David Roberts’ 17 Minutes”

  1. enkidu Says:

    Obviously you weren’t listening when he said “I’m just a blogger… ” 8m22s

    Or noticed that the F˚thermometer chart was up on screen behind him for quite a while. 21.6˚ F or about 12˚ C. And he is right, if some or all of these tipping points/feedback loops start a cascading failure, then we could indeed be seeing temps along the equator in the uninhabitable/nonsurvivable range. The Tauregs are good at surviving 120˚ F heat, but they’ll have no chance as a human civ at 160˚ to 180˚ F.

    So if this IS a natural cycle (and I am aware of absolutely no scientific explanation for the current temp rise that is explained by natural causes) why wouldn’t humanity try to do something to adapt or mitigate the damage? If an asteroid were heading towards Earth you’d be demanding action. You wouldn’t be arguing about the calibration setting of the taxamagical flibbertigibbet on your imaginary telescope. Was his message too snarky for you? (he dissed Moon Emperor Gingrich’s moon base! he’s using METRIC!) No, your objection is fueled by a lifetime intake of rightwing bullish!t and there is no hope of convincing you of anything. Ever. Like you said before, no amount of scientific evidence will ever persuade you.

    Dimwitted or the faithful… talk about irony.

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb does not understand that the impact of a 12 deg C avg global temperature will mean different levels of temperature change in different regions, and also seems to miss the point about positive feedbacks.

    Then he gets out his stopwatch to measure the duration of a thermometer on the screen, LOLz. Mr. Robert’s must have had him in mind when referring to people who want to know the thread count on an approaching enemy’s uniform before agreeing to any defensive or evasive actions.

    Brings to mind the old old saying about if shcb speaks then it must be false…

  3. shcb Says:

    Sure it was on the screen behind him, but he is talking to an audience of what, maybe 20 people. The audience that needs to be deceived is the hundreds or thousands that have seen the video, those are the people you can fool with editing.

    He dismissed all the natural causes in the beginning of his talk, he called them myths, but of course sunspots, water vapor, the Medieval warming do or did exist, so yes there is plenty of scientific evidence this is natural, with man having minimal effect. Of course if you just blame that on the boogy man Republican then it doesn’t exist, handy.

    In the Paleocene
    era temperatures were as much as 15 degrees C higher than today and we have had an ice age since then, so there is no reason to believe in this nonsense of us reaching a “tipping point” where the white ice turns blue and absorbs more heat to the point where it gets into an endless spiral. The earth has been warmer than now, warmer than the scientists say we can make it by a bunch, even warmer than the alarmists hope it will get, 12 degrees warmer. And guess what, it eventually got cooler, a bunch cooler, wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger cooler. Reasonable science and common sense says it will again.

    One other thing, I’ll bet you can find someone that said 4 to 10 years ago we only have 4 to 10 years before we can’t stop it, and 4 to ten years from now there will be someone saying we only have 4 to 10 years left to make changes. It they said it 4 to 10 years ago and we haven’t fixed it by now then what the hell, we’re doomed anyway.

    To your point of “I’m just a blogger… ”, my remarks weren’t directed to David, they were directed to you. David is honest about who he is, the problem is you all lectured me to death about how no one but a phd in climatology can have a valid opinion but suddenly a Philosophy major is the go to guy, not much consistency there.

    Tell you what, I’m flying over Greenland in a few weeks, booked my seat so I’m on the right side of the plane both ways, I’ll give you a scientific analysis of the melting from 40,000 feet and 560 knots.

  4. enkidu Says:

    So you are saying it’s some unknown and unknowable natural process (whatever the heck it is, it isn’t greenhouse gas emissions from an increasingly industrialized planet, nope, *anything* but that, anything). And humanity should do absolutely *nothing* about the possibility of impending disaster, nope. Asteroid hitting Earth? Hey, it’s natural!

    I have no idea why you bring up the Paleocene. 56 to 65 M years ago… in the video he says we may be looking at a climate shift to temps that haven’t been seen in 30 million years. Over the course of a couple hundred years… but it’s totally natural! Nothing to see here folks.

    Ice turn blue? I didn’t hear that, perhaps it’s is wwnj garblespeak for melting ice/snow (high albedo) reveals more soil/water (lower albedo). Since this is obviously a facet of knowledge you failed to absorb in your edumakashun, perhaps you could use your 1337 reading abilities and brush up on the subject
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
    Note the chart. Snow reflects between 40% and 85% of incoming sunlight, ice around 35%, water down around 8%. All right class, can anyone tell me the implication this might have for a warming planet? No lil Ricky please stop yelling “flibbertigibbet taxamagical sociamalism”. Again.

    I bet you are all worked up in a lather about Fast and Furious (Wide Receiver). “Ets Obammy’s plan ter take away mah guns! Flibbertygibbit!”

    Plus he’s givin cityzenship ter them that Aliens! mud hut folk!!1!1!

    I just read a NYT article about how air conditioners are the new dowry item in India. The refrigerant is a powerful GHG but there are alternatives (which have performance and safety tradeoffs vs existing refrigerants). Hey lets just let the market decide! $0.20 cheaper = more profit! Who gives a flip about the environment, right?

  5. shcb Says:

    I had a rather heated argument with a liberal friend yesterday about this Arizona immigration law. It is funny how she followed the same pattern that you do. It started off as a nice rational discussion then she misstated or exaggerated several of my points then there was a series of meaningless platitudes, finally she called me a racist. Do liberals take classes to argue like this?

    As far as my mentioning the Paleocene age, Roberts mentions the albedo effect in his talk. He says we’re at a stage where as we warm the earth will reach a tipping point because the ice melts which creates a dark surface which attracts more heat, which melts more ice etc. My point is that it has been much, much warmer than it is now in the Paleocene era, scientific evidence shows it was 15° warmer Celsius. The point is if it were 15°C warmer way, way before man was ever invented and the earth came back from that and in fact had an ice age there is no reason to think that the earth won’t come back to have itself another ice age if we or nature decide to increase the temperature by 12°. Which brings up another interesting point, did you notice how Roberts said that most climatologists believe that we are going to increase our temperature by 2 to 4° , somewhere in that area, but then he said the some think it might go as much six, then to one report that says it could get as much as 12° warmer than it is now. Then he bases the rest of his talk about what would happen if temperatures are 12° warmer, I thought we were supposed to listen to the advice of the majority of scientists. You guys have told me over and over again that 98% of climate scientists believe in global warming therefore they must be right no matter how right or wrong the other 2% are. Just for arguments sake lets say 98% of climate scientists think we’re going to get 2 degrees warmer the other 2% think your going to get 6° warmer save one who thinks you’re going to get 12° warmer. Why would you use the view point of that one person? This too seems to be a liberal debating tactic. Maybe it isn’t a liberal tactic, just an alarmist tactic.

  6. shcb Says:

    So you are saying it’s some unknown and unknowable natural process (whatever the heck it is, it isn’t greenhouse gas emissions from an increasingly industrialized planet, nope, And humanity should do absolutely *nothing* about the possibility of impending disaster, nope. Asteroid hitting Earth? Hey, it’s natural!

    So let’s dissect this, this is a good example of overstating what I’ve said or just plain making it up, then framing your argument around those over statements or lies.

    “So you are saying it’s some unknown and unknowable natural process” it isn’t unknown, we know about all the processes involved, we don’t know everything about them because that is science, you never know everything, so I didn’t say that, it would have been nice if I would have since that could be use against me in so many ways.

    “(whatever the heck it is, it isn’t greenhouse gas emissions from an increasingly industrialized planet, nope” I’ve repeatedly said, man has an effect, the question is how much. The question also is how much does nature play, one way we determine this is how much change took place before man, the answer I have seen is quite a bit, about as much as we are seeing now.

    “And humanity should do absolutely *nothing* about the possibility of impending disaster,” I’ve said no such thing, we should do things that make sense, that solve other problems, and things that don’t damage the economy, since without expendable income we can’t make the changes that need to be made for this or other problems.

    “Asteroid hitting Earth? Hey, it’s natural!” Good point, if an asteroid were heading for earth what would we do? Is there a solution? If we are causing all the warming what is the solution? Tax the rich and give it to the poor? How does that fix the problem? I’ve said repeatedly give me a solution that doesn’t include socialism.

  7. enkidu Says:

    So someone called you a racist to your face? Good for her. Call a spade a spade ;)
    Maybe she said you were spouting your usual borderline racist bilge and tried to point out, oh, I don’t know, facts? So lib.

    If we are causing all the warming what is the solution? Tax the rich and give it to the poor? How does that fix the problem? I’ve said repeatedly give me a solution that doesn’t include socialism.

    You were doing pretty well until the last there. Sociamalism! Tax-a-rich-n-give-ter-da-poor! I don’t think you have any idea what the hell you are talking about when you say ‘socialism’. Like war criminal and enthusiastic torturer Rep Allen West (FL- crazytown) saying there are 80 card carrying communists in the Democrat caucus.

    If we simply priced in the environmental costs of carbon based fuels, we would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Simple rules to reduce or control GHGs (see earlier example about air conditioners in India and elsewhere). Taking simple, not very expensive steps now gets us started on the road to a cleaner energy future. I wonder if all the talk about large scale geo-engineering is just to point out the actual scale of the problem. It is a serious threat to our nation and human civilization. We can argue about the thread count on the enemy uniforms but we should at least take some prudent action now while costs are low and payback high.

    Dang. Sorry. Just checked the Wingnutosphere-scope and it seems my last paragraph translates to something like ‘wwnjs being eager to be the last guy with the ammo and tinned meat so screw y’all city dwellers!’ I dunno, the settings on this thing are scrawled in wwnj.

    Let me try again. Er, uh ahem… Lock n load there’s a bogie in the wire and we’s better beat the @$&$%%^ outta them damn dirty apes before we sink the whole damn planet in monkey blood! grrrrrrr! Burnin sand π!@@#& juice is un#*$&%!patriotic ya hears! We declares war on stupidity and stuff and should listen to egghead scientists to tell us energy and stuff and sh!t… uh… Blargh!

    OK, now I’ll check the ‘scope and… oh dear

  8. shcb Says:

    Actually I didn’t say anything racist, I very rarely do. I said I didn’t care if the Mexicans come here to work or study as long as they do it legally, get a work or student visa, just like people from other countries do. She then used the old canard of “we are all immigrants, except for the Indians” (oops, politically incorrect, she had to correct herself to native Americans) (was she just racist?). To which I replied that I suppose you could make the point that Adam and Eve immigrated from heaven. She was loosing (had to give you that one) the argument so she just exploded and said all I cared about was keeping the brown skinned out of this country. Huh? I just said I don’t care where they come from as long as they are here legally. Oh well.

    In 371 words you did make one debatable point “If we simply priced in the environmental costs of carbon based fuels, we would go a long way towards fixing the problem.”

    How would you determine the “environmental costs” and where would that tax go.

    How would higher prices fix the problem?

  9. enkidu Says:

    alright class, pop quiz, someone who makes racists statements
    (not in a comedy, satire or editorial format) is a:

    (fill in the blank) _ _ _ _ _ _

    begins with an r, nope not Republican, six letters

    Well it least you didn’t smash your glass in her face, whack a hatchet into her, impale her on a spike (or worse!) etc etc etc. Were you carrying your concealed gat? Just in case you needed to stand your ground against the fiendish assault of facts and reason! grrrr!

    I’m not qualified to set the pricing and so on, but as a broad brush policy statement, current energy inputs have very little of the environmental impact priced into them. Virtually none if you want to take the worst case climate scenarios and scare folks that this *could* happen if we don’t start making some smart decisions. Like Mr. Roberts *clearly states* at the outset of his talk.

    Maybe a carbon exchange would actually help set real prices on this, the monies raised from polluters would be used to clean up their mess and help fund replacement technologies. Oh, right, the bush admin placed a bet on Solyndra, Obama backed them too so all green energy is bunk… ignoring the fact that the Energy Department has a broad portfolio of investments and Solyndra was just one of them. Maybe it would have worked out if the Chinese hadn’t poured billions into the PV panel market, collapsing prices by flooding the market? http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9c64a876e9abc4304268c0d5f728ac67
    Solyndra had some teething problems scaling their tech and the price of silicon went down by an order of magnitude just as they were ramping up their alternative. The market happens. I imagine they’d still be in business today if we poured $30 billion in (or mb not).

    China’s boom is fueled by enormous debt spending, rock bottom slave wages, zero environmental protections and an authoritarian regime. Your wet dream wwnj! Rmoney has so much experience sending good paying jobs to China, maybe he can figure out how to bring the jobs he shipped overseas back to the US? Oh, right, lower taxes… and…

  10. shcb Says:

    So in all that, this is the only part that was legitimate, the rest was just bashing me or Republicans.

    “Maybe a carbon exchange would actually help set real prices on this, the monies raised from polluters would be used to clean up their mess and help fund replacement technologies.”

    This was close to being something that could be discussed “I’m not qualified to set the pricing and so on, but as a broad brush policy statement, current energy inputs have very little of the environmental impact priced into them.”

  11. enkidu Says:

    You don’t write the rules of engagement for the inter tubes. No one needs to play by your constantly shifting clown team rules.

    ‘Debate’ with wwnjs is like playing football with a squad of retarded clowns: every time you get the ball you just run to the sidelines and spike the ball. Or to use another sports metaphor, wwnj plays blurnsball while every other team is playing baseball. Of course, you are the world champions at blurnsball: undefeated! Stoopid libs!

    I’m sure the lady who dared to disagree with your eminence would have an entirely different take on your conversation (you can be honest, just this once, did you call em ‘sand π!@@#&$’ or ‘prairie dogs’?) So, were you packing heat? Your local sheriff says you don’t have a concealed carry permit and after that incident where it fell out of your drawers and shot your neighbor’s dog, he won’t be able to cover it up again.

    Hey since we’re having a swell ‘debate’… how do you like your CO fires matched up with Mitt Romney thinking we have too many firefighters? Discuss.

  12. shcb Says:

    You misunderstood, I’m not asking you, certainly not telling you to behave any different than you wish, why should I do that? You are the poster child of the poorly mannered liberal. I’m just pointing it out.

    Crews that fight forest fires are a small elite number, some of the only firefighters that are paid by the federal government, and would certainly not have their jobs cut. Romney was referring more to the general bloat of government jobs.

    Just to be clear, I have never uttered a racist comment here, you have mischaracterized my comments to be racist, but it hasn’t come from me.

    My friend’s issue was that a family member had come here illegally, was issued amnesty by Reagan and is now afraid to go to Arizona where her family lives.

    In the first place, you can’t make policy based on personal issues, but she is a liberal and thinks with her heart. I said if her family member is here legally now why is she afraid to go to Arizona? To which she replied her family member doesn’t want to carry her papers with her every where she goes, then she invoked the Nazi Germany crap. So I asked her, if she has been here since Reagan why hasn’t she become a citizen? That was about the time I was called a racist. Oh well.

    It was also funny that when she mentioned Reagan there was truly hatred and venom in her voice “saint Ronny was such a hero Republican and he gave my (don’t remember the relationship) amnesty!” I didn’t quite understand that, she seemed upset, and yet Reagan had helped this family member. Oh well. I told her that while I had great admiration for Reagan that didn’t mean I agreed with everything he did. I wouldn’t want to give amnesty to hoards of Hittites if they were coming here illegally. Nothing racist.

  13. enkidu Says:

    So many goofy wwnj tropes it is hard to know which is the most redonkulous, but this is an easy one to point out, you know, the facts.

    Just to be clear, I have never uttered a racist comment here, you have mischaracterized my comments to be racist, but it hasn’t come from me.

    So you deny you alluded to Mexicans as ‘prairie dogs’? that you wanted to use nukes on? You deny blaming the financial crisis on ‘negroes and mexicans’? The muslim hatred? The ‘mud hut countries’ racism? Your bigotry towards anyone who doesn’t immediately kowtow to your intellectual eminence? (with your amusing backflip that anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is a ‘bigot’?) I’m sure you use the word π!@@#& any time you think you can get away with it, it’s just your nature. Like Jon Stewart said, not all Republicans are racists, but if you are a racist, you’re probably a Republican. It’s just your nature. The toxic rhetoric. The bottomless need to blame the Other. Denial of reality. The whole wrong wing nut job schtick.

    Same old same old.

    Just search ‘(phrase in this post)’ site:lies.com

    It isn’t poor manners to point out the truth: you are a bigot, a racist and a wwnj tool. It’s just your nature. So is it good manners to threaten others with death or physical harm? How many times have you – jokingly har har har! – threatened me, others here or acquaintances with harm or death? I’ve lost count. But I’m a bigot for saying you’re a bigot? whtvs

    Also, ACA Constitutional.

  14. shcb Says:

    Well, let’s take em one at a time

    Mexicans as ‘prairie dogs’, no, don’t remember that, I think I compared terrorists or at least dealing with terrorists to dealing with prairie dogs, and I stand by that, but not Mexicans

    Blaming financial problems on negroes and Mexicans, no I blamed the financial crisis on politicians that forced banks to write notes to people that were not credit worthy strictly because of a person’s minority status, filling quotas, but that is certainly not the individual negro or Mexican’s fault. Nor do I wish them any ill will for taking the money.

    Mud hut countries was of course directed at the types of governments that lead people to be forced to eek out an existence in a mud hut, not anything to do with racism. That one has taken on a life of it’s own no matter how many times I have explained it differently.

    “Your bigotry towards anyone who doesn’t immediately kowtow to your intellectual eminence? (with your amusing backflip that anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is a ‘bigot’?)” boy, you got me there, guess I would have to have an example.

    I don’t utter the word nigger in any instance other than to illustrate it is just a word or as an example of one group’s (blacks) ability to call each other niggers as a term of endearment but anyone else uttering it is a racist, that always struck me as odd.

    That Stewart quote is just deliciously idiotic on so many levels.

    You are more than welcome to prove me wrong if you would like. I think if you bother to do the search you suggest you will find that you have mischaracterized or just plain lied about what I have said in every instance above, on many instances of each, if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth… but you have a sympathetic audience here so you get by with it.

  15. enkidu Says:

    prairie dogs site:lies.com
    http://www.lies.com/wp/2010/10/08/it-is-a-bad-sign/#comment-211379

    no one missed your simple minded imagery that prairie dogs = mexicans
    clumsy racism is still racism

    - – - -

    negros and Mexicans site:lies.com
    http://www.lies.com/wp/2008/09/14/in-which-i-write-a-cranky-letter-to-cathleen-decker-of-the-la-times/#comment-107998

    You almost tripped me up there as you misspelled “negroes”
    I’m sure it took you three or four tries not to type π!@@#&s an $P!©$

    - – - -

    If you seriously think ‘mud hut countries’ isn’t just the teensiest bit racist…
    well of course you don’t.

    Shall I keep searching for the rest? These are just some of your biggest hits, the casual day to day racist crap hardly registers any more.

    I haven’t lied. I’ve just quoted you. Verbatim.
    Look it up.

  16. shcb Says:

    To anyone but you and Smith I think it is clear your second example is exactly as I described it above so we won’t go into it.

    The first example, congratulations, you found a comment where I mentioned the words Mexican(s) and prairie dogs. I had forgotten about that conversation. You get a point for that, but clearly I was talking about a criminal element of the Mexican population and the inability or unwillingness of the Mexican government to control it. You have sense spun that into my wanting to exterminate common citizens because of their skin color.

  17. shcb Says:

    You see, this is what I have been complaining about since the first I started writing on this site, some of you, not all, but enough to maybe not be a majority, but certainly close, pick a few key words and determine a person’s position on a subject from those few words. This is also extended to a phrase or position in other venues. Take Stewarts comments for instance. Now Jon is a really smart guy and pretty level headed in many ways so I hate to put words in his mouth but I’m going to anyway. Jon says if you are a racist you are probably Republican. Granted there are plenty of Republicans that are racists, I know a few, they are not only racists they are overt, and really don’t even know it, they just think it is proper to have the views they have. We had dinner with a friend some time ago, she had been in DC for a dog show and said in idle conversation that they had visited the Black House, paused, of course my wife and I gave no response so she proceeded to explain her little joke. I told her I understood, I just didn’t think it appropriate.

    If we believe stereotypes there are also many Democrats that are also racists, I won’t go back so far as the KKK which was primarily Democrats since they were also conservative Democrats so that really wouldn’t apply or at the very least would confuse things. But in modern days rust belt union members for instance would stereotypically be both Democrat and racist.

    Blacks are certainly the most Democratic block in America, at least when it comes to presidential elections, so virtually every racist Black would fit the racist Democrat description, and there are plenty of racist Blacks.

    What has to be explored is what constitutes a racist in Jon’s (or people like him) mind(s). My guess is he wouldn’t consider any Black a racist since they are the minority group. He would however consider anyone white that opposes affirmative action as being racist, no matter how well they articulate their position that they don’t believe anyone should get special privileges. When he says if you are a racist you are probably a Republican he is probably referring to his circle of friends and acquaintances. People who will say the right things at cocktail parties and vote the proper way but wouldn’t be caught dead riding MARTA through Atlanta’s Five Points at 8:00pm because there is a really good chance you might be the only white person on the train at that time. Does that make those good Democrats racist?

    Back to my first sentence, at the time of the prairie dog analogies I was talking about how to handle the enemy in the Mid East, I had compared it to eradicating a prairie dog infestation, saying you have to kill them all, and you have to keep killing them as they pop back up, you can’t “control” them with fences or other non lethal methods. I extended that to dealing with the drug cartels that were terrorizing the border towns. Now in neither case was I talking about eradicating entire populations, although you could infer from my comments you would have to kill deeper into the gray area of the Mid East population than the Mexican population.

    But you and Smith are great at taking a few words (high tech now with search engines) and turning it into whatever fits your argument or biases.

    Yes you have used my own words, that is what is misquoting is all about, this is one of Hannity’s favorite tricks, he will yell at his guest “those are your own words!” you are keeping good company these days.

  18. enkidu Says:

    whtvr

    You are a racist. It isn’t like some big discovery: you’ve been spewing your longwinded crap on this blog for years and you’ve got quite the collection of racist garbage to back up that simple statement. The problem isn’t that you are a racist, oh no no no! It’s that blacks are racist, dems are racist, evil Mooslims are racist, I’m a racist, anyone but you.

    It isn’t poor manners to point out the truth: you are a bigot, a racist and a wwnj tool. It’s just your nature. So is it good manners to threaten others with death or physical harm? How many times have you – jokingly har har har! – threatened me, others here or acquaintances with harm or death? I’ve lost count. But I’m a bigot for saying you’re a bigot? whtvs So I’m a liar for quoting you verbatim? Does that make you a liar or just a fool?

    There are (sadly) fewer and fewer reasonable right wingers worth discussing things with. You simply aren’t one of them. No amount of science will ever convince you that ACC is a reality. So why bother to ‘debate’ someone who will never ever admit they are wrong? That their world view has been so poisoned by decades of gobbling down extremist wwnj bullish!t that even simple facts (up is up, 2=2=4 etc) are lib lies.

    I could search out each of your Greatest Racist Hits and a dozen more besides, but it will always be someone else’s fault, someone else’s racism or intellectual failures. It is kind of jbc to try to engage you on certain issues he cares about. But each time acres of e-ink are wasted before he realizes, once again, that you aren’t ‘debating’ you are just blathering on w wwnj talking points, racist gibberish and not so very clever bullshit.

  19. shcb Says:

    Actually, I recall once that JBC corrected you on calling me a racist, he tempered his remark by saying he doesn’t read everything but he said he had never seen any indication of my being a racist. Which of course there isn’t in any rational sense. I could say you were a member of the KKK because I’m sure at some point you have used that term here, but it wouldn’t make it the truth. I could then repeat it over and over until I believed it myself but that wouldn’t make it the truth.

  20. enkidu Says:

    geez I’m sorry you brought up that you are a racist

    Saying I’m a member of the KKK doesn’t make it true. Can you point to any language, any complete post, that would back this up? You can’t. It’s a lie. Yet you do what you just accused me of doing! Amazing.

    So these acres of e-ink are all about me agreeing with the young lady in your story that you spout racist language with some regularity? That is my opinion based on years of your posting (and posting and posting). And I backed it up with a few real world examples of your language. Verbatim. Let’s be charitable, perhaps you are so thickheaded that you simply don’t recognize it…. nah, you are smarter than that. You’ve brushed your teeth with right wing bullish!t for so long you love the taste of the lies. Just don’t ask me (or the young lady) to tell you your breath doesn’t stink like sh!t.

    You are a bit of a racist. Maybe you should work on that.

    hurf durf

  21. shcb Says:

    I don’t have a problem admitting when I’m wrong, done so here on several occasions. In my position you have to have confidence in your abilities but you can’t get caught up holding onto a dying position too long. I was watching National Treasure the other evening, the character played by Nicholas Cage quotes Thomas Edison. Someone pointed out that Edison had failed over 2000 times to find a filament material that worked in a light bulb, to which Edison replied that he had not failed, he had succeeded in finding 2000 ways to not make a light bulb. That is what I do every day, when you “fail” on a daily basis you learn quickly to admit you were wrong and move on, you can’t get too attached to something that doesn’t work. But once you find something that does work you defend it for all you’re worth until someone proves you wrong or shows you a better way, sometimes you do one of those two things yourself.

  22. shcb Says:

    “Saying I’m a member of the KKK doesn’t make it true. Can you point to any language, any complete post, that would back this up? You can’t. It’s a lie. Yet you do what you just accused me of doing! Amazing”

    That one is a keeper, do you really ever read anything before you comment? Or do you just not understand?

  23. enkidu Says:

    whtvr

    You’ll perform any amount of mental midget gymnastics to avoid the plain truth. The young lady said you were a racist and I agree with her. Statements you’ve posted (and posted and posted) bear this out. TIme to move on. hurf surf indeed

    knarly’s theorem on wwnj posts applies nearly every time. mb we should call it Knarly’s Law: If a wwnj posts it, this generally means it is false or bullshit or nonsense.

  24. shcb Says:

    Lol, this extended exchange has certainly proven that true! (That was sarcasm) It has proven you be a wise old sage (sarcasm again)

  25. shcb Says:

    Well, I think you have sufficiently embarrassed yourself here we probably better stop. I don’t mind embarrassing you, I really don’t like you much, but JBC is starting to add non Gleick related threads to push this one out of the way, and I hate to see him do all that extra work, I like him.

  26. shcb Says:

    I think Knarly took that from you didn’t he? Maybe I’m mistaken.

  27. enkidu Says:

    And in the WingNut Olympics event the “I am SO not racist!” 1000 m leap of faith, we have lil Ricki from Dipstick CO. The judges have signaled their scores now and…

    Form: 7
    Originality: 4
    Flibbertygibbit: 8
    Bullsh!t: 9

    Owwww that’s gotta hurt! He just missed the gold for yesterday, which was taken by enormous dickweed and epic dipsh!t Allen West (R- crazy town) for his comment that “Obama wants you to be a slave” (paraphrasing)

    While the dismount from this post is clearly a big win for wwnj (hey, he ALWAYS wins! it says right on the label: right wing, right?), his originality score reflects his parroting of redonkulous wrong wing nut job memes (no, YOU’RE the bigot fer calling me a bigot! also, socialism). So the judges had to give him a lower score for being a hidebound tool of the highest order.

    Have a Great July Fourth!
    Now move to Somalia. Go Galt! Now.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.