spEak You're bRanes

Unfocused Rage30 Jul 2009 11:44 am

By Alex

Thanks to James for this comment on spying.

Graeme Gibson wrote:
The UK government needs to spy on the people.
Islam is spreading with her global plan and it doesnt matter if she uses violence, as long as all cultures get consumed for allah and the counterfeit that is their sharia law.
Many of the ordinary people likewise simply wont behave themselves.
Many teenagers have gone feral and refuse to work (its the same in Australia).
Society is slowly fading.
Give the police a break…let them spy without complaint.
If the people are going to become a rabble and terrorism is going to spread hard discipline will be needed lest civilisation falls.
You police can start with an attempt to ban that foul pornography, that creates so many sex criminals.
It has to go for the sake of the women and children.

You forgot the global warming hoax. Idiot.

120 Responses to “(Almost a) Full House”

on 30 Jul 2009 at 11:50 am Lady Islam

At least he only wants to ban the foul pornography, I don’t want to lost my Emanuelle collection.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 11:58 am Hootie McBoob

Hang on a minute…No fucker told me Islam was female? I knew it would end up being my fault somewhere along the line.

Fucking wimmins, being violent and fucking up society! If only we had all stayed in the kitchen!
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:07 pm Mim

So is gay porn harmless or does Graeme just not care about men?

And I don’t think calling Islam fat will help. Silly man.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:09 pm Topically Humourous Name

“going to spread hard discipline”? If it’s anything like hard butter, she’d better leave it on the side for a bit, unless she wants ripped bread.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:10 pm My Foot Hurts.

I agree with the foul pornography point.

Those poor chickens…
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:22 pm Very Tenables

“Society is slowly fading”

Graeme is channeling Philip K Dick.

It’s that, or he needs to see his optician sharpish.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:34 pm alt-f4

You police can start with an attempt to ban….

Yes, the police should decide exactly what is and is not legal. Then we could do away with all the politicians and be saved from becoming like those islamist police states.

If you like police states why don’t you….oh never mind.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:35 pm Tim

Click here for foul pornography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3lMvBHNM_Y
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:46 pm Rich

This must have been generated by the twat-o-tron. It covers too many of the core bases.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:55 pm Hunter Hillman

And even when Jihad is among us, the bastards at al-Beeb won’t mention it. Oh…they have. But they’re still bastards. And they still won’t talk about subjects that they’re talking about. Bastards.

http://opinionbeyondeducation.blogspot.com/
on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:12 pm Chris

Yeah, and while we’re there, let’s make daily lashings mandatory. Can’t have people going around having “privacy” and walking around without doing whatever the hell they like. That’s just making a fucking mockery of democracy.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:14 pm sophie

HARD discipline, yeah! A good hard spanking. None of that noncy soft Nu-Labour discipline nonsense.

And also, does anyone else suspect that the plonker has honed his knowledge of feral Australian teenagers from Neighbours?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:27 pm pigfrottage

Won’t someone stop thinking of the children?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:34 pm millie

To be sung to the tune of ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing’ (but needs a bit of tweaking)
on 30 Jul 2009 at 1:40 pm Clovis Sangrail

Methinks Graeme started that as off as a ‘pome’ – another literary rant about the state of the world so beloved of the twatbasket denizens of HYS. Bit of iambic pentameter, couldn’t get the hang of it (come on Graeme, read it OUT LOUD! one TWO, one TWO!), chopped up the lines a bit, couldn’t find any rhymes (Allah? Law? h’mm, Allaw?), tried a bit of imagery with Islam as a woman (misogyny in there too; nice one Graeme, two birds etc), some fancy words (feral – he had to look it up): but in the end it was less vers libre and more vers merde. If I’m right – I’m still confused by the teleporting chameleons of Afghanistan.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 2:15 pm Luke

And the gays! Don’t forget the gays!
on 30 Jul 2009 at 2:43 pm Bawheid

I’m confused now. See, I was totally against Google Street View because loads of people said it was a really good way of helping Muslim terrorists scout locations to do more terrorism in, but now I’m thinking it’s a great tool for our wonderful government and police officers to spy on us without complaint, especially if it catches someone doing some foul pornography.

But then on the other hand, this is surely an example of 1984 returning 4 real, which I’m led to understand is not a good thing.

Can someone tell me what to think please?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 2:56 pm Dr Feelgood

In the spirit of the Twat-o-tron, have just come across the Daily Mail-o-matic:
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Generates random Daily Mail headlines; e.g.
COULD RUSSELL BRAND GIVE BRITAIN’S SWANS DIABETES?
HAVE PAEDOPHILES MOLESTED YOUR MORTGAGE?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:01 pm That Bloke in the Corner

So if the police, MI5 BBC et al get any of this foul porn, will it end up on late night channel 5? I do hope so. What does Gobbler think of foul porn? is it better than canine?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:02 pm That Bloke in the Corner

ooo paedo’s molesting my mortgage- I feel abused and dirty now.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:03 pm Clovis Sangrail

@Bawheid – I appreciate your concern, but remember – if you really are going to worry about such things, the important thing is not to THINK at all. Just WORRY.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:07 pm Bawheid

Ah yes, of course. I must remember that I should never attempt to apply logic to my worries or expect them to fit together in anyway.

Don’t think, just opine, VERY VERY LOUDLY.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:16 pm Mr Cat

I think Graeme Gibson is another one who could do with being read by a William Shatner voice
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:36 pm markie126

“Many of the ordinary people likewise simply wont behave themselves.”

Oh what to do? Make them do lines? A severe ticking off? I know make them all stand on the naughty step. That’s it get Jo ‘bloody’ Frost in she will sort all these great unwashed. Bet she could handle the mass of feral Australian teenagers who are collectively refusing to do the washing up or put their dirty Aussie Bums in the laundry bin.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 3:36 pm That Bloke in the Corner

Graham forgot the cameras in the wheelie bin to catch the Muslims stealing them? Fuckmonkey.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 4:35 pm Frump

‘let them spy without complaint’

Some security officers do that anyway. At my work somebody’s getting done for using the CCTV camera to watch a couple in their back garden shagging. For ten minutes.

His defence is that he thought she was been attacked and was in danger.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 6:13 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

I’m back from my hols, bitches – did you miss me? Wait; don’t answer that…

Islam is spreading with her global plan and it doesnt matter if she uses violence, as long as all cultures get consumed for allah and the counterfeit that is their sharia law.

Does this remind anyone else of the end of Akira?

(Note: for the ultimate viewing pleasure, Akira should be watched in the manner in which I first saw it: namely, at 3am in a uni common room whilst monged out of your brain on hash-angel delight and drinking pomagne out of a crusty’s boot. It made sense in the 90s).

PS Am worried about the ‘foul pornography’ – do I get to keep my Tom of Finland books?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 7:13 pm Chelsea

“Many of the ordinary people likewise simply wont behave themselves.”

Oh what to do? Make them do lines?

Wouldn’t making people do lines make them misbehave?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 7:36 pm ligne

PS Am worried about the ‘foul pornography’ – do I get to keep my Tom of Finland books?

yes, but only if you tipp-ex out the willies.
on 30 Jul 2009 at 7:40 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

Don’t think the UK has that much Tipp-Ex in stock…
on 30 Jul 2009 at 9:42 pm Felix Castor

I would welcome being spied on. I have notihng whatsoever to hide. Unlike those bastards that got to the toilet in private. What are they hiding, Graeme, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 10:20 pm Bit Special AKA La Speshi

@Felix – is the correct answer: a massive panblocker?
on 30 Jul 2009 at 11:46 pm gilbert wham

But I like foul pornography! It’s my favourite sort.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 12:23 am Pirate Pete

I quite like foul pornography too – but it’s not as good as the real thing.

And just to mention, William Shatner’s version of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” is an absolute classic, as is just about everything else on his “Transformed Man” album Most of it is on youtube for your viewing pleasure – you won’t regret it. Much…
on 31 Jul 2009 at 1:45 am Clovis Sangrail

Bit Special – OK, I may regret this but but it’s hot here and I’ve sunk a few beers – who or what is Tom of Finland?
on 31 Jul 2009 at 3:19 am Ed aka Kelvin

You probably will regret it: Tom of Finland:

Tom of Finland (May 8, 1920 – November 7, 1991) (born Touko Laaksonen in Kaarina, Finland) was a fetish artist notable for his stylized homoerotic art and his influence on late twentieth century gay culture.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 8:12 am alt-f4

WANTED

Tub Girl. Suspected leader of the Islamic Terrorist on-line Foul Pornography Brigades.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 8:30 am framlington

I didn’t need to be Mystic Meg to predict which way this thread would lead. Smut and innuendo.

Keep it up.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 10:00 am markie126

I am Tom of Finland and so is my wife.

(I’ll get my coat)
on 31 Jul 2009 at 12:27 pm Neil Craig

All of Graeme’s paranoias are about how the government should be telling us what to do more than it is currently.

Since “catastrophic global warming” is very useful to help persuade us what a good thing it is that the government do more of this telling us what to do I am sure Graeme would not be so unpatriotic as to have any scepticism about that particular lie.

Of course, as we are all told so often, there is a complete consensus among scientists on it, apart from the 31,000 petitioners, & the NIPCC, & those who resigned from the IPCC in disgust & …. the world’s biggest single scientific society http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed
on 31 Jul 2009 at 12:35 pm -273

Boing boing boing clonk!
on 31 Jul 2009 at 12:52 pm I Marxed Karl

Neil,

Perhaps I would listen if you could write anything resembling a coherent sentence.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 12:56 pm Kelvin

The BBC still hasn’t denied that you waggle your willy in the church collection box, Neil. Dirty boy.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 1:40 pm Another Paul

Do we have to ban gay porn too? It doesn’t affect the women
on 31 Jul 2009 at 2:17 pm norman foster fanclub

Good that Neil is joining in the spirit of things and sending us links to comedy websites. This one is pretty funny as well:

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
on 31 Jul 2009 at 2:47 pm Kelvin

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

Oh boy, that’s great! From the post about how NASA, not man, is melting the Arctic Ice (and having spent the last ten paragraphs explaining how it’s not melting at all, acksherlee):

But worse we find out these satellites are using microwaves to measure ice! As an experiment I took a glass of ice and put it in a microwave oven. This of course proves nothing, but it does raise some questions. I figured that 30 seconds in the microwave oven would be at least equivalent to 30 years of satellite microwaving. Well my microwave didn’t tell me how thick the ice was (of course immune from Team Science I never thought it would), but I did observe the microwaves melting ice.

Rigorous. I can’t think why anyone would disagree with the “blog scientists” they’re always so quick to agree with.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 3:00 pm norman foster fanclub

And we also learn that that the Oregon petition that Neil refers to might be setting the bar too high and excluding numerous highly qualified bloggers:

From the Petition Website we learn that various people can sign:
A Civil Engineer can sign because they are “trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.”
A Doctor can sign because they are “scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.”
A Web Designer can sign “Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences [including computer science] are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.”
And yet the Petition Project has only 31000 signers after years of operation. In short the rules are too strict for signing.

It is interesting that tv gardener Alan Titchmarsh, who is cited by Marc Morano of climate depot fame as a leading international scientist opposed to the AGW consensus, is not qualified to sign the Oregon Petition. It’s a scandal.
on 31 Jul 2009 at 3:28 pm Kelvin

After doing some reading I discovered that mobile phone use Microwaves too. As an experiment I put my mobile phone in the microwave for thirty seconds. This of course proves nothing, but it does raise some questions, such as “then why the hell would you write about it?” I figured that 30 seconds in the microwave would be at least equivalent to 30 million prayers. Well, my microwave didn’t ring (of course God probably left his phone on the sofa while he went for a poo) but I did observe that mt mobile phone melted and sparked at lot, which is odd for something emits lots of microwave radiation because you’d think it would be able to handle it. I am now turning to page 3 of my elementary science textbook, which is labelled “power and intensity.” I wonder what I will find?
on 01 Aug 2009 at 2:14 am Mr Tickle

From http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

“I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs”

Fair enough, but my money’s still on labs, telescopes and computers. Oh, and vivisection.

Sorry to join the chat so late, but this foul pornography won’t download itself, you know.
on 01 Aug 2009 at 3:20 am Chris

Neil Craig
All of Graeme’s paranoias are about how the government should be telling us what to do more than it is currently.

You know Neil, if this blog were my chips, you’d be a constant stream of piss.
on 01 Aug 2009 at 3:36 am Ed aka Kelvin

Chris, are you saying he’s not?
on 01 Aug 2009 at 11:37 am Neil Craig

Karl I very much doubt if there are any circumstances under which you would read something you thought would conflict with your prejudices.

Alex’ automatic suggestion that Graeme would be a global warming sceptic when he is obviously very trusting of every other scare story seems another example of prejudgement. I think he would fit in well here.
on 01 Aug 2009 at 1:53 pm Chris

Alex’ automatic suggestion that Graeme would be a global warming sceptic when he is obviously very trusting of every other scare story seems another example of prejudgement. I think he would fit in well here.

You’re quite right. But remember, SYB is a community only in the same way as intercourse is rape.
on 01 Aug 2009 at 4:28 pm Ed aka Kelvin

Neil, go sit on the idiot stair. There’s a good numpty. You’ll be allowed back when you can think.
on 02 Aug 2009 at 1:36 pm Neil Craig

No Kelvin aka Ed I won’t join you.

Gosh all this witty repartee is so demanding.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 12:12 am Neil Craig smells of poo

TELL ME ABOUT IT
on 03 Aug 2009 at 12:17 am Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

That’s a gross slander. Mr Craig doesn’t smell of poo.

But his mum does.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 1:42 am Nick Craig's fapsock

Lol wut? Where’s the parteeee?
on 03 Aug 2009 at 1:45 am Neil Craig's discarded fapsock

Well, an ‘edit’ button would be handy right about now.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 4:12 am Admiral Grovworth, III

oh right so we can go about censering our selfs too its not enoug that they are cencering us you want usd to do it FOR THEM SO THEY SDON”T HAVE TO IT”S PC GONWE MAD U COLDNT MAKE IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

…or words to that effect.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 6:00 am Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

If you’re right.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 9:45 am Admiral Grovworth, III

And I am – you can tell by all the capitals.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 10:32 am pigfrottage

I don’t post anything for two whole days, and look what we have descended to. That Geezah fellow is totally missing the point.

Is there a point? Yes. Apparently Facebook is the work of Satan.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=6827&edition=1&ttl=20090803103030&#paginator

No wonder he’s against social networking, how do you indoctrinate the kids if they socialise like that rather than go to church on a Sunday?

Dave, Edinburgh

Recommended by 93 people

Won’t someone think of the children?
on 03 Aug 2009 at 11:10 am Simon

Won’t someone think of the children?

Won’t some just think!?
on 03 Aug 2009 at 11:11 am Simon

Won’t someone think of the children?

Won’t someone just think!?
on 03 Aug 2009 at 12:53 pm Neil Craig

All those kids going to Church to socialise with cool folk.

By cool I don’t mean dead.

It wasn’t how kids behaved in my youth – they are probably going to church to socialise as it is the only place that isn’t sweltering because of the global warming branes here are experiencing.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 1:10 pm anonymous and seemingly censored by Neil C

Hey Neil. Get back to your blog and publish my 2 comments. You know, the one that tells you how atrociously written your blog is, and the second pointing out the complete idiocy of your claim that funded science is inherently unreliable and amateur “science” is inherently more reliable.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 4:07 pm ligne

Neil, your blog is truly fascinating. especially this piece: http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/07/medieval-science.html

of course, your point falls down because climate science is very strongly backed by the evidence. not exactly to standard model-levels, but a hell of a lot more than most of medicine, for instance. the consensus exists because the alternative hypotheses are not supported by empirical evidence. in the same way that a consensus exists that the earth is not flat, that the oceans are made of water and not coca cola, or that the moon is not a paper circle glued to the sky.

incidentally, assigning probabilities to pieces of information *is* a key part of empirical research, whatever Haapala may think. it’s called “statistical analysis”, and it’s how you get from the “crapload of experimental results” stage to the “how well does(n’t) it match the hypothesis?” stage.

gosh, this post was a bit serious. flange toss piss fart big hairy cock. there, that’s better.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 4:34 pm norman foster fanclub

Hate to come back to the topic of Neil Craig, but this is just too hilarious.

It seems ‘Professor’ Craig’s lack of scientific expertise was exposed recently when he fell spectacularly for a scientific hoax that claimed climate change is caused by “saprotrophic eubacteria”:

http://lowcarbonkid.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-geoclimatic-studies-hoax-and-what.html

Quote from “Prof” Craig:

this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory

eu bacteria – must be every HYSers deepest fear.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 4:53 pm Mim

I realise I should have been keeping up better instead of spending all my time asleep or eating crisps, but when did we acquire a Neil Craig? Did it follow us home? Are we keeping it?

That is “we” in the sense of “a blog on which I comment sometimes and have somehow convinced myself is some sort of actual social group of which I am a member”. I feel much the same about shouting at the telly.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 4:58 pm norman foster fanclub

I said prof Craig was found out recently, actually it was a couple of years ago.

Apologies.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 5:02 pm ligne

SYB is better, because the telly never shouts back.
on 03 Aug 2009 at 5:14 pm Mim

The telly only never shouts back because I don’t have a cool enough mental illness. No one even bothers to hatecrime depressives, although that may be because we don’t leave the house enough.

censoredanonymousperson, that’s a bit unfair. It is his personal blog and he is free to tailor its content to his own vanity as he wishes.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 5:19 am Chris

@norman foster fanclub

Yes, but did you see Professor Craig’s response to this?
on 04 Aug 2009 at 9:50 am Admiral Grovworth, III

The telly only never shouts back because I don’t have a cool enough mental illness.

Yet. Don’t lose hope.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 1:49 pm Neil Craig

Mous, for reasons you are clearly incapable of appreciating, I don’t publish something if it is purely rude. At the least some intelligence is required as well.

ligne if global warming is proven “a hell of a lot more than most of medicine” I assume you will not be using any new fangled lotion to minimise that nasty case of sunburn you got yesterday in the record breaking heatwave that is “proven” to be on us. Personally I think the empirical evidence that the Earth is not catastrophically warmer, that sea levels have not yet flooded London, that malaria has not yet overwhelmed John O’ Groats & that Holland has not yet disappeared under the seas http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1 to be fairly convincing but you are entitled to disagree. Perhaps you should take an aspirin.

Modesty requires me to admit the “truly fascinating” article on science wasn’t written by me but by an arguably even greater expert.

Mr fanclub, if you had actually read the article you found (good research since I blogged about it day before yesterday) you would find that the quote you give wasn’t actually from me.

You are quoting the alleged author of the warming alarmist hoax & therefore of the quote, quoting himself on his blog, quoting a newspaper, quoting Reuters, incorrectly quoting me as having originated the quote which actually was me quoting the hoax article which the alleged author clearly hadn’t read.

I thank you for providing yet another level of misquotation to this – may I quote you.

Arguably such hoaxes aren’t normally required by scientists whose findings are so much more trustworthy than that of brane surgeons.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 1:57 pm pigfrottage

That’s you told.

Nothing to do with global temperature trends at all, but just observing the weather in the UK on individual days in August 2009 will prove that it’s all a big hoax by people who want to make us all poorer and less happy.

So there.

NERNERNERNERNERMYDADCANBEATUPYOURDADNERNERNER.

!!!One!!!

If Neil’s right, which I strongly suspect he isn’t.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 2:58 pm Alex

Awww, Neil’s ACTUALLY using the weather to disprove Global Warming. I thought only pisstaking environmentalists did that.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 3:51 pm Simon

‘Neil:
Weather ≠ Climate.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 6:56 pm saprotrophic eubacteria

Neil, genuine scientific scepticism cuts both ways. As you admit on your own blog, you swallowed the hoax hook, line and sinker. Anyone with a basic grasp of the concept of the carbon cycle would immediately spot problems with the claim that increased CO2 levels are down to emissions from ‘saprotrophic eubacteria’. Where was your scepticism?
It just confirms what I have always thought. That you are ignorant of the most elementary scientific concepts required to understand AGW, and certainly are in not remotely qualified to provide a critique. You confusing weather and climate is further evidence of your ignorance. Like I said in the post you censored, you are simply another gibbering Internet idiot. In fact, you are special instance of the gibbering Internet idiot.
on 04 Aug 2009 at 7:34 pm ligne

can’t fault that logic. a 5-year-old pentagon report was wrong, so by mathematical deduction, you must be right. fuck you, scientists, you’re all wrong wrong WRONG! you should have saved all that time you wasted measuring temperatures and modelling hypotheses for something more useful.

by the way, thanks for your concern about my complexion. but as a fully paid up internet user, i’m not allowed out in the sun, so my skin is just fine. scorchio!
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:18 am Chris

For nine months of the year here in NZ you can’t go outside for more than half an hour without sunscreen. You’ll fucking fry. You’ll end up so red, cars will stop in front of you if you stand still on the pavement.

The UV here in New Zealand is so intense because we’ve been gang raping the ozone layer to flavour our own sweat and the temperatures have been increasing by mechanisms I don’t pretend to understand, but by mechanisms I trust other people to interpret for me. They also tell me it wasn’t always like this.

These people are meteorologists, biologists, chemists, scientists. They invariably do not sell comics for a living and do not believe in conspiracies because they have better things to do.

Neil, on the other hand, does sell comics, believes that there’s some kind of alternative advantage to be gained by lying about science, even though no one actually says what it is. Neil also lives in Scotland. He has only seen the sun once, on a trip to Carlisle. On that occasion he was stunned and blinded – so fascinated was he by the mystery of the great ball of fire in the sky, he could do nothing but stare.

It’s really easy to deny global warming when you live on a hill at 55 degrees north and don’t go anywhere except on the internet. It can’t possibly have any relevance, so you can spread your fucknuggetry far and wide without fear of reality contradicting you.

And fuck you if you live on a small island, or if you actually get to see the sun more than 3 times in your entire life. You can go fuck yourself. Neil has a position to defend and a lifestyle to uphold, even if that lifestyle involves flogging comics out of a run down ghetto shop and wanking into a sock three times a day with his 100w incandescent lightbulbs on twenty-four hours, because no-one will tell him what to do.

Best just ignore the daft little cuntbubble. He won’t get to breed, so it’ll end with him. Hopefully he’ll lose another massive deposit if he decides to run for Parliament again, his internet will get cut off and you won’t even have to avoid the cunt.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:33 am Chris

Having said all that, my washing dries really quickly outside compared to Liverpool, so it’s not all bad.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 8:35 am alt-f4

Here is Switz a photographer recently recreated mountain pictures taken 100 years ago where glaciers were visible. In every case the galciers have receded dramatically since the original pictures.

Neil relax, I’m only pressing your denial button.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 9:52 am Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

@alt-f4

What you catastrophic global warmingists don’t understand is that it’s not evidence if it doesn’t support what Professor Craig thinks.

Instead, you must “think deeply”, like Prof Craig claims to. Interesting that there’s no objective evidence of Prof Craig’s thinking being “deep”, eh. Perhaps, Prof Craig, your thinking isn’t “deep”, merely laboured.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 11:11 am Neil Craig

I note none of the idiots here have even hinted that ligne’s claim that catastrophic global warming is a hell of a lot more proven than modern medicine is bull.

I also note that nobody has tried to produce any evidence that it is true apart from saying that New Zealand is so much warmer than Britain that it is not habitable by light skinned human beings. Right.

So commenters here, when they have a headache, try a bit of do it yourself trepanning. This explains a lot.

Since somebody hiding their name says “saprotrophic eubacteria’ is the most elementary scientific concept I would be interested in seeing a description of what it is – from memory not lifted from wiki. Surely everybody here is already au fait with the term.

Oops sorry alt44 you have produced some evidence for worldwide catastrophic global warming. Some carefully chosen glaciers in Switzerland have receded. You are clearly not aware that in receding they have uncovered artefacts from the Middle Ages which proves the glaciers were further back then & that some places which were passes in Roman times are glaciers now. If only all those Romans hadn’t been driving Suvs they might not have drowned when the sea swept over Rome.
————————–

Incidentally a Mr V. Majority, clearly from here, recently upbraided me for saying the Guardian was a government funded fakenewspaper & promised to produce the figures showing that it doesn’t get any more government advertising than similar circulation papers. This is difficult for anybody who has actually seen it to believe but I am willing to look at his promised evidence. I hope his failure to provide the evidence he promised is merely due to Mr Majority’s, or Violent to his friends, natural shyness & not some accident.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 12:05 pm pigfrottage

Neil,

I’d boycott the Times if I were you. Much more advertising by the govt in there. Especially if you take the TES into account.

Please do some research into Global Warming. You are making yourself look very silly. Whilst it is funny for a while, it is now actually a bit sad.

Good place to start:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
on 05 Aug 2009 at 12:23 pm Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

@pigfrottage

You fool! That site has nothing but “evidence” and “reasoning” and “logic”! That’s what they want to DECEIVE you with. Where’s the DEEP THINKING?
on 05 Aug 2009 at 12:23 pm Kelvin

Incidentally a Mr V. Majority, clearly from here, recently upbraided me

What makes you say he was from here? I mean, your blog’s open to the whole internet so there are plenty of channels through which people can arrive there. Popular sites (like SYB, for instance) get hundreds of backlinks a week as people read them, enjoy their content, and want to discuss it on their own blogs. We have a little widget on the control panel that tells us so. You’d have to have a virtually unread, undiscussably incoherent mess of a blog to be certain that all your visitors were coming from one source that was entirely dedicated to mocking you.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 12:25 pm Kelvin

Also, if he was from here he probably wouldn’t have bothered doing anything as posh and hoity-toity as upbraiding you. He’d probably have just called you a cunt.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 2:16 pm ligne

the mechanism of global warming has been well understood for over a century now. understanding the theory requires little more than secondary-school maths. it can be verified experimentally using equipment found in any university in the country.

by way of contrast, skim through a copy of the BNF (available from your local public library) and see how many of the drugs it contains are listed as being “mechanism unclear”, or “mechanism unknown”.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm ligne

You fool! That site has nothing but “evidence” and “reasoning” and “logic”! That’s what they want to DECEIVE you with. Where’s the DEEP THINKING?

too right! by dint of being experts in the field, they are quite clearly way too biased to be a reliable resource.

which is why i turn to scientifically illiterate bloggers for all my truthy fact needs. and my lord of the rings slash fiction needs.

gollum and treebeard? awriiiite!
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:29 pm pigfrottage

@Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU’RE COMIC BOOK GUY

I thought I’d give it one last try. I think he thinks that if he goes on about global warming being a hoax, people will think he is Jeremy Clarkson. 3:

P.S. I am also really called Ed. You couldn’t make it up !!!!one!!!
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:29 pm pigfrottage

Devil smiley doesn’t work.
on 06 Aug 2009 at 12:24 am Chris

Actually Neil, I was saying you’re a lonely little shut-in sock wanker with delusions of grandeur who couldn’t possibly look at perspectives outside his own lonely, lonely life because you’ve never seen or done anything.

The NZ thing was an introduction. And Maori get burned too.
on 06 Aug 2009 at 11:32 am Neil Craig

Well the nearest anybody here can manage to evidence is Frottage’s link which doesn’t actually have any evidence merely further links to alleged evidence.

The first link aserts that nothing that isn’t peer reviewed counts. The 2nd is from 2004 & is Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph. That graph has long been proven not merely wrong but fraudulent (Mann had ensured that whatever figures were put in out came the same graph).

Stephen McIntyre showed this long ago & was denied peer reviewed publication until it was proven elsewhere beyond doubt. The irony should be appreciated.

So no evidence just rudeness. To which I need not rise since all commenters here have made it clear they believe is self lobotomising themselves. To be fair I must admit that it must be easier to believe in all these “very strongly backed by the evidence .. a hell of a lot more than most of medicine” findings if you have lobotomised yourself & I have confidence in you all managing:

1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times Cassandras are becomingincreasingly apprehensive,for the weatheraberrations they arestudying may be theharbinger of anotherice age1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

PS I assume Australia is even more devoid of inhabitants than New Zealand for reasons which ever dickhead it was would know if he could find either on a map.
on 06 Aug 2009 at 12:24 pm pigfrottage

I don’t remember being rude.

The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row

So? Read these…

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_warming_basics/global_warming_greenhouse_effect.html
on 06 Aug 2009 at 12:25 pm Ramon Mycock

Honestly, can we please stop encouraging these cuntmunchers?

For all we know his type of idiocy may be contagious.
on 06 Aug 2009 at 12:27 pm pigfrottage

Neil,

I don’t remember being rude to you.

Read this.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
on 06 Aug 2009 at 12:29 pm Ramon Mycock

AND, he’s taken up half the fucking page with his brain-shizzle.

Neil: NOBODY. CARES. WHAT. YOU. THINK.

And now I’m typing in upper case. I fucking told you
on 06 Aug 2009 at 2:53 pm pigfrottage

Hi Ramon,

It was worth a try, but is getting boring now. Actually the scientists are trying to tax us rather than being concerned about keeping lots of inhabited areas above sea level.

The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

Two years is hardly a trend, Neil.

Learn some basic maths, science and statistics, and review the peer-reviewed scientific findings before making a prat of yourself. Head, meet wall…OUCH
on 06 Aug 2009 at 3:19 pm My Foot Hurts.

Did anyone else decide they simply couldn’t be arsed even trying to read Neily’s last post?
on 06 Aug 2009 at 7:26 pm Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

I skim-read it, but I’m bored of his witless scientific illiteracy now. Also his actual illiteracy. His pomposity continues to entertain, but by itself it’s not enough.

I can’t even be bothered to put on my waders and venture into the 3 pages on his “clog” (guess what the C stands for) that have more than 2 comments, anymore.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:02 am Chris

No, I didn’t raead it. I just thought I’d post here and say that I didn’t bother reading it.

I read the end bit though, which conviced me.

I just quickly emailed his advice to the Met Office of NZ and the Ministry of Health to tell them all they’re wrong about the ozone layer and they’re all probably working for the sunscreen industry.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:05 pm Setle down class Professor Craig's here

Pig F I’m not sure if you read the link you put up which so thoroughly convinced you. I only got to the first paragraph which said “expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.76±0.27 degrees “. Now while I will admit I think anybody claiming certainty to those many decimal places is doing a variant on ligne’s tactic of calming absolute, absolute, absolute certainty, but if you look at history that is about the increase of the Medieval warm period, probably less than the Roman period & a significantly cooler than the Climate Optimum (9,000-5,000 BC), all looked back on as golden ages. No catastrophe then.

Next line is even better “IPCC’s climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high. Even though global warming has become mostly an academic concern now that the climate has moved into a cooling phase”. Perhaps you might care to explain how this “proves” catastrophic warming?

As regards the other quote the point being made is that though temperatures have fallen overall since 1998 they tend to go up, down or stay the same, as one would expect with random variations in a random trend, but that we have now had 2 years of clear decline.

Still PF a much better try than the 3 idiots who said I must be wrong because they find reading difficult.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 12:18 pm My Foot Hurts.

Did anyone else decide they simply couldn’t be arsed even trying to read Neily’s last post?

Sorry, Neily boy, but from where in that, the entirety of my post, do I say, or even imply, that you were wrong?

This seems to be fairly typical of your debating style: twisting facts, words and implications until they squeal in anguish simply so that you can convince yourself that you’ve scored a point. When done cleverly, that can be entertaining, but frankly, old boy, you’re not coming close.

Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I did not intend to imply you were wrong. I merely intended to imply you were boring.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:31 pm pigfrottage

Neil,

I don’t care any more. Keep believing it’s all a hoax if you like. Scientists like gratuitoulsy paying taxes, and thwarting economic growth. It’s all a big hoax to get Al Gore a Nobel Prize.

Keep repeating:

Fossil Fules = good
Renewable energy = bad.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

@pigsy

You forgot the millions of Scottish people that will be killed as a direct result of reducing carbon emissions.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 4:58 pm ligne

though temperatures have fallen overall since 1998 they tend to go up, down or stay the same, as one would expect with random variations in a random trend, but that we have now had 2 years of clear decline.

so there is a lot of fluctuation in the data, but you can still make sweeping statements about future climate based on 2 years data? do have any idea how fucking stupid your statement is?

for that matter, why did you pick 1998 as your baseline? you do know that was one of the hottest years on record, don’t you? arguing that “since summer 2008, the winning time for the 100m has been going down. hence people are getting slower” makes about as much sense.

you clearly have not the slightest clue what the fuck you are burbling about. either that or you’re being intentionally disingenuous. well, which is it, you ignorant spunkbubble?
on 07 Aug 2009 at 11:06 pm Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

Can’t it be both?
on 08 Aug 2009 at 12:22 pm Setle down class Professor Craig's here

Yers ligne you stupid cow I do know that 1998 is “one of the hottest years on record” that is the point. What is claimed about warming is that it is WARMING. Thus, if what the BBC etc assert is in any way truthful, the “baseline” running through 1998 should not be a flat line but a rising one, or even a rising curve. The fact is that we have had a fall since then (which is why 1998 was warmer). The fact that we have had 2 years of significant fall merely puts the tin hat on it.

It must be obvious to anybody who is not a self lobotomised domesticated animal, that all the statements I listed earlier cannot be true & thus that we have been lied over a very long time – the current warming scam being merely the most heavily propagandised scare story. Ganted there are a lot of such domesticated creatures
around.

I suggest you lie down & take an eye of newt.
on 08 Aug 2009 at 1:38 pm Kelvin

Setle down class

Ganted

Hey Neillllllll, can we have another of your smug little pronouncements that anyone who can’t spell your name is an idiot please? Only your posts recently have veered away from amusingly ironic into turgidly repetitive.
on 08 Aug 2009 at 5:04 pm Ed aka Kelvin BUT NOT ACTUALLY KELVIN UNLESS YOU'RE COMIC BOOK GUY

I think “Nearly Craig” is his new name.

[Nearly's] posts recently have veered away from amusingly ironic into turgidly repetitive.

Why did I read that as “turdily repetitive”?
on 08 Aug 2009 at 6:56 pm Setle down class Professor Craig's here

I’m sorry to everyone for being such a cunt.
on 08 Aug 2009 at 8:42 pm Ed aka Nearly Craig

No I’m not.
on 09 Aug 2009 at 1:57 pm Setle down class Professor Craig's here

Cloned again then. Such an honour.
on 09 Aug 2009 at 2:13 pm Professoe Craig's better looking brother

Stop embarrassing the family Neil.
on 09 Aug 2009 at 4:22 pm ligne

all the statements I listed earlier cannot be true & thus that we have been lied over a very long time

you know, never did i imagine i would live to see someone actually use the chewbacca defence in what appears to be a serious (if monumentally retarded) argument.

i doff my cap at you, good sir, and hereby award you one interweb in recognition of your awesome smarts and logics. (please note that it’s not edible.)
on 09 Aug 2009 at 4:49 pm Ed aka Nearly Craig

To be fair to Nearly, his previous vastly overlong, unexplained post was reasonably clear in its ill-thought-through attempt to show inconsistency in what journalists reported about the climate over the years. The fact that this misses more points than I care to enumerate is just par for the course.

By the way, see Clovis’s comment here, urging all SYBers to simply ignore Nearly’s spurtings from now on. I for one will actually be doing so.
on 09 Aug 2009 at 4:52 pm Ed aka Nearly Craig

The previous comment link didn’t work; the comment is on “Powers Behind the Showers”.

"If you love Terrorists so much..
why don't you go live there?"

120 Responses to “(Almost a) Full House”

About

Search

Contributors

Tags

Archives

Pages

spEak You're bRanes

"If you love Terrorists so much.. why don't you go live there?"

120 Responses to “(Almost a) Full House”

About

Search

Contributors

Tags

Archives

Pages

"If you love Terrorists so much..
why don't you go live there?"