Blog powered by Typepad

« The lull before . . . the what? | Main | Brother, can you spare a dime? »

Thursday, 20 August 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Likely some methane too.

So, being an annoying liar is literally your goal in life? Well, mission accomplished. Now what do you do with the remaining empty years?

Unsupported assertions are the very stuff of debate here at D&N. Mr. Delgado, but when accusing someone of lying it is usually considered good form to provide at least a fig leaf of evidence.

As to me being "annoying": guilty, sir, but my plea in mitigation is that usually I only annoy those who thoroughly deserve it.

(By the way, hate to mention it but entre nous, I just had a quick look at your photo and wondered if you realised that your mascara is running? I do hope that it wasn't my news telling you that Greenpeace are a bunch of lying liars that upset you.)

Kind of like damning with faint praise, the fact that the best evidence of Greenpeace lying is this twisted farce of a scandal indicates your predjudice is likely unfounded.

The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase "arctic ice" which is commonly used to mean arctic sea ice and clearly was used that way in Greenpeace's press release. No remotely thoughtful person could possibly believe they were claiming anything about the Greenland Icesheet.

The ones who are thoughtful enough to understand the difference between GIS and arctic sea ice and who still use this episode to beat up Greenpeace are the real "lying liars", which of course includes David Duff and Anthony Watts.

"The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase "arctic ice" which is commonly used to mean arctic sea ice"

First, Coby, "arctic ice" means, er, arctic ice, that is, ice within the arctic circle. Now, is there anything about the words 'arctic' and 'ice' that you still do not understand?

Second, the difference between Greenland ice and arctic sea ice is not "the whole thing" or even part of "the whole thing". The whole lying thing rests entirely and specifically on the fact that the head of Greenpeace admitted "We as a pressure group have to emotionalize issues".

I am happy to open my lexicon of euphemisms for the verb 'to lie' but I feel certain that 'to emotionalize' will be found there, somewhere. Forget the ice, Coby, just concentrate on "emotionalize the issues" and then tell me again who is the lying liar.

"First, Coby, "arctic ice" means, er, arctic ice, that is, ice within the arctic circle."

Perhaps it should, but a quick read of the climate literature (the real stuff not what Greenpeace writes) reveals that that is simply not the case. When the term Arctic ice is used one must use context to determine what precisely they are referring to. 9 times out of 10 they will be referring to arctic sea ice, as was the Green peace press-release in question.

Here's an example of emotionalizing an issue: "A prime example may be examined, downwind and at a safe distance, in the form of Greenpeace, an unmitigated collection of liars and fantasists in whose direction nothing should be aimed other than sundry fart noises, rotten veg and offal."

And look, it is being done by a liar. Perhaps you are right after all.

But, Dan, it is the Greenpeace use of the term "arctic ice which is under discussion, not other people's and in the interview, which you appear not to have seen, he fails to make any distinction.

And if, as you seem to suggest, those who write what passes for "climate literature (the real stuff not what Greenpeace writes)" are incapable of writing clear, precise English on what is, after all, a scientific subject then I can not be held responsible for their infelicities.

Anyway, there appears to be surfeit of the stuff given the number of canoeists, yachtsmen, and so forth who keep getting stuck in it!

The lie on your part is this very post, Duff; it illustrates your belief that it's proper behavior to call people liars sans evidence; the part about your mission being to annoy instead of persuade is in the text at the top of the blog.

Coby, I am me, an individual with opinions more or less based on experience (sometimes more, sometimes less), I am not a mass-membership, agitprop group seeking to change the minds of the dim, the dumb and the daft (which includes most governments - and you, by the look of it). It was their leader who admitted that they "emotionalize issues" of a scientific nature. You swallowed his emotionalizing whole. You only receive, because you only deserve, a small amount of sympathy from me. We have all been taken in from time to time but most of us eventually wake up to the fact, the spectacularly obtuse carry on believing despite the evidence. Which are you?

Marion, is all that running mascara getting in your eyes because you appear to have difficulty reading? It was the leader of Greenpeace who admitted lying (or "emotionalizing"), all I did was agree with him. By the way, if you are having trouble with that mascara in the shower go over and visit my sweet friend 'Sister Wolf', she's a bit of a 'fashionista' and I'm sure she'll point you in the direction of some water-proof eye-liners - er, but, ask nicely, she can sometimes be a bit fierce!

The hallmark of a liar is that when they are called on it they double down. Consider yourself identified

How very odd - only two minutes ago I hesitated over your blog title, Eli, but then decided it would probably consist of the usual Rabett droppings and so passed on. I am not at all sure of the meaning of your Americanism "double down", perhaps you could elucidate, I am always eager to learn. At the same time as you give me that language lesson you might also care to explain why 'emotionalizing scientific issues' is not lying - I mean, you being a scientist(?) and all that!

The comments to this entry are closed.