Ouch DuJour

This time it’s on me.

There have been some trolls coming around here all of a sudden insulting my writing based on some typos they’ve found (and some admittedly sloppy writing here and there). Thanks to a reader I came across this post from a German based blog named “Sadly, No”, which claims to be humorous. But it spends a lot of time demeaning conservatives because of their views. Such as mocking the fact that Charles Krauthammer is in a wheel chair, as if that’s a reflection of the value of his politics. Ooh, cripple humor!

They went to town on me. And they found some good ammo. I have been sloppy lately. I should do a better job of proofing my site, but I am so busy sometimes I often post things without rereading them. Obviously, that’s a mistake.  And I should never do that.

So, even though that site was very insulting and sent a bunch of trolls my way (what does that say about their audience?), I’m glad they showed me the error of my ways.

Which brings me to a point I’ve been wanting to make about lefties. They really have this fixation with demeaning people they disagree with to a ridiculous extent. They are especially fond of cherry picking pull quotes from speeches and holding them up as an example of how stupid so and so is.

In the 80s their targets were Ronald Reagan and Dan Quayle. And they’ve had a field day with Bush these days. But the fact is, when someone does a lot of public speaking, they make mistakes. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have made plenty of stupid quotes, also. It’s only human to trip on your words every once and awhile.  But somehow, the lefties think this is proof that the conservatives are stupider than they are. Or, at least, they want to believe it.

Hence, this is what this attack was really about. They start off by comparing me to a pile of dirt and go from there. It’s all about demeaning my views, by mocking my mistakes. They found some good examples of bad writing on my blog. I can’t deny it. But, in a typical lefty fashion, they don’t argue with the logic. They just have to hold it in contempt because that’s all they’re good for. High handedness and conceit. 

No wonder they keep losing elections.

...except for 2006.

I object to your awful science comprehension more than your bad writing.  Peak oil is a myth?  CO2 is OK because it’s natural?  Those are nothing more than conservative/GOP talking points that are so false as to be laughable.

Oh, and I wouldn’t get so outraged about lefties making fun of folks.  Conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have made blatantly racist comments and implicity incited violence against their opponents, and they are much more powerful a voice than a blog.  When was the last time Sadly, No guest-hosted a cable television show?  Ms. Malkin has…

Posted by  on  11/11  at  10:08 AM

Your own message reveals exactly the kind of mentality I was talking about. You call my views “laughable” and then compare me to Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

Based on your views of them, you don’t understand their position on things. You just reiterate the lefty talking points about them.

In other words, you’re doing what you accuse me of doing.

As for my “awful science comprehension”, again you’re just insulting people without offering any points of your own. because you think your views are above reproach.

They aren’t.

PS: You need to stop labeling people. My politics don’t fit neatly into the conservative box. People aren’t the clichés you seem to see them as being.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  10:24 AM

Oh Dear God James,

I was teasing you in my comment #3 on the hollywierd post.  I AM one of those trolls.

Did you not notice the horrific writing in my comment?

You should know that “Sadly No” does not mention typos, but rather details your fundamentally deficient sentence construction.

“...when it’s a natural process of nature” is not a typo, its poor writing.

I’ve read enough of your stuff today to conclude that “Word Warrior” refers more to what you do TO the words, not what you do WITH the words.

Let me be clear, the combination of your horrific writing and your propensity to repeat the broad, fallacious, clubby and clumsy characterizations of anything liberal, and the absence of substantive criticism of the same, really just begs for condemnation.

That doesn’t make you a bad person, but it does say something about the lowered literary standards in the Pajamas media and on this blog.

You may call me an elitist, but at some level you must admit, good writing is a good thing and bad writing is just that.

So James, I admire your earnest desire to publish but I must admonish you to seek some professional feedback and coaching.  While it is not easy to become a good writer so late in life and without a solid foundation (which you clearly lack), it is not impossible.

I also suggest reading some Henry James, Charles Dickens and some modern writers like Tom Wolfe and Norman Mailer.  This will help you learn to respect good writing and hopefully help you understand that in the realm of the written word, the quality of the message is as much a function of it’s execution/expression as it’s substance.

I probably won’t be back. But if you do decide to make an attempt to improve your writing, I would be pleased to see your progress.  Just drop a notice in a comment at OneUtah.org.

PS: Do you really believe what you are suggesting by “No wonder they keep losing elections?”.

There’s a perfect example of the very behavior you ascribe to “lefties.”

No one criticized you personally, just your writing.  Can you see the diff?  Gos forbid you should go through life thinking you are a good writer.

Posted by Cliff  on  11/11  at  11:09 AM

BTW: I am not the same Cliff as the Sadly No post author.

Posted by Cliff  on  11/11  at  11:14 AM

Hey, Cliff. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I’m sorry to see you’re another hater.

Yes, there were some grammatical errors there. But you’ve just admitted you aren’t familiar with my work, so your attempts to damn me based on a few posts typical troll behavior. You don’t even know the context of my arguments because you are unfamiliar with my blog.

Then you go on with this patronizing lecture on needing an education and reading certain authors (who I have read extensively and have leather bound copies of some of their books at home, incidentally).

Typical of what I was saying. You guys are walking self-parodies.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  11:38 AM

“Hater?” My God James.  That’s a bit harsh don’t you think?

How on earth can you hold yourself out as a serious writer with such simplistic dismissive characterizations?

Do you really believe that the entire community of progressive thinkers are just “haters?” Do you want to be seen as a tribalist?

How do you come to equate liberalism with hate?

I have never been able to understand this. )I have also yet to encounter anyone who will attempt a serious explanation or answer to that question.

Posted by Cliff  on  11/11  at  12:22 PM

Some future day in the future, people will look back on this mistreatment of you the way they look back at the Nazis and the Spanish Inquisition.  As whacko!

Posted by Ex-Fed  on  11/11  at  12:23 PM

Grow some thicker skin, man.  I (rightly) point out that ‘CO2 is natural, therefore it isn’t a pollutant’ is a ridiculous premise (by drawing a parallel to pollutants currently regulted by the CWA and CAA).  If that’s not “offering any points of your own” I don’t know what is.  Is it insulting to point out that you are incorrect?

And if you read carefully, I wasn’t comparing you to Malkin and Coulter (as a matter of fact, I find your support of the writers union strike and criticism of the drug war to be laudable positions).  I was saying that Sadly, No!’s ribbing is kinder than some conservative pundits (you *not* included), and perhaps you should take a “grin and bear it” approach.  As for “my views on them”, if you really think I am misrepresenting what those two have to say, we can explore it further, if you’d like.

As for your last statement re: labeling people, you jumped the gun.  Did I call you a “rethuglican”?  “Wingnut”?  No, I didn’t.  I don’t think you’re a bad person, I merely criticized your science comprehension skills.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  12:45 PM

Cliff,

You aren’t a liberal. I am a liberal. Liberals have open minds. You apparently don’t. I am wiling to listen. You are willing to lecture people what to think.

Haters are people consumed with hate for those who disagree with them. You feel compelled to insult my entire career based on a couple blog postings, then turn around and accuse me of simplistic generalizations.

You tell me what my politics are without apparently understanding them at all.

There is a huge difference between leftists and liberals. The leftists like to call themselves “progressives” now, to disguise their shame for all the people leftists like Stalin, Mao and Castro have murdered. Meanwhile, true liberals have to call themselves Libertarians now because the word has been sullied by crazy leftists.

You ask me why “liberals” are called haters. Take a look at the comments your buddies are leaving here. Look at all the invective on your friend’s blog or other lefty sites like Democrat Underground and Daily Kos with an open mind, and tell me those people aren’t filled with hate.

I don’t hate you or anyone else. I merely disagree. I don’t feel compelled to spend my Sunday insulting the intelligence or literary skills of a total stranger. That would be creepy.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  01:09 PM

verplanck,

OK, truce. Wading through the comments on your site was like being a black man at a KKK picnic, all because of the way you characterized me and your readers starting making all kinds of assumptions about me.

For the record, I am an independent. I don’t favor any political party. I am somewhat of an iconoclast libertarian.

My issues with GW is I don’t like ideology rammed down my throat. I don’t like more laws and taxes, especially based on unproven science. And yes, we will have to disagree there.

Human output of CO² is minuscule compared to nature. A couple of volcanic eruptions can easily outdo all of the 20th century’s output.

My objections are to the hysteria of the GW movement and the eagerness of bureaucrats to use it as an excuse to raise our taxes and limit our freedoms and choices.

I don’t believe the hype and I can give you a ton of cites why.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  01:18 PM

If I were to try to correct every example of poor grammar on the internet, I would lose my mind. (Please note that I’m using the subjunctive here for the pseudo-grammar police out there.)

I would think that there are more worthwhile endeavors on the net than trying to prove oneself morally superior by ridiculing someone else’s grammar. I think it’s a rather specious attempt at sabotaging someone’s character and reveals more about the speaker than the object of his derision.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  01:37 PM

Creationists quote-mine to attack the work. Leftists quote-mine to attack the worker.

Posted by Alan Kellogg  on  11/11  at  02:11 PM

James--
I’ll keep this brief and fact-based:

You stated: “Human output of CO² is minuscule compared to nature. A couple of volcanic eruptions can easily outdo all of the 20th century’s output.”

This is incorrect.

As stated by none other than the U.S. Geologic Survey:
(http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference)
Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

To repeat: Human activities release more than ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TIMES the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes in a year.

Hopefully you’ll correct this in your next post. I hope you’ll also consider, given that you’re wrong about this, what other conceptions of global warming you might be wrong about.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  02:27 PM

Uh, my site?  I don’t have a website, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to attribute to me (yes, I do read Sadly, No, but that hardly makes it mine).

Global warming isn’t an ideology.  It’s a scientific theory.  Global warming legislation will do very little to hinder people’s freedoms.  The press will still be free, you can still criticize whoever you want, and you can practice whatever religion you want.  Taxation will have to be part of the answer, and yes, paying taxes is not fun.  However, we have made some pretty poor decisions in the past, and now we have to correct them.  We should be grown-up about it and recognize that we should pony up some money to fix the problem, instead of lamenting the fact that we can’t buy that new iPod.

Do you not believe the hype because you don’t believe the science?  You should recognize that you have a poor grasp of science (witnessed by your continued use of a superscript instead of a subscript for CO2), and that most of the studies against global warming are industry-funded papers with fancy words that deceive laypeople.

Or do you not believe the hype because it goes against your anti-tax philosophy?  If I may be so bold to speculate, I think this strikes closer to the target, considering you call this scientific theory an “ideology”.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  03:55 PM

Greg,

There is some debate about Volcanoes. That’s one side of the debate. They have a hard time really measuring it. Some of these science sites issue their data, which is sometimes incorrect. NASA famously had to change their record temperatures recently, which basically changed their whole global warming claims. Of course, they didn’t change their position since James Hansen was leading their claims, and he is one of the biggest proponents of it.

More here

Posted by  on  11/11  at  05:08 PM

Verplack,

Anthropogenic global warming is an ideology as well as a theory. It has become the religion of human haters and socialist types. The science is not only debatable, there is no “overwhelming consensus” of climatologists as a recent poll proved. Not that this matters, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Most of the GW argument are based on logical fallacies. I’ve been over this quite a bit on here. No time to repeat myself now.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  05:14 PM

Man, the trolls are out tonight.

BTW Stinky Wizzleteats- Why did a bunch of scientists from the IPCC denounce the report and the conclusion as a ‘political document’ made by ‘bureaucrats’ and ‘politicians’?

now I know your pat answer is to accuse them of being paid by Big Oil, but I want something original.

Of course as a professional troll, you probably don’t deal much with original thoughts.

Posted by Remulak MoxArgon  on  11/11  at  06:09 PM

It’s nice to see they have all their pre-packaged trolling written for them.

It creates the illusion of independent thought.

Posted by Remulak MoxArgon  on  11/11  at  06:16 PM

James,

Calling global warming a “religion” is inaccurate and demeaning to those who understand we are the cause of a massive climate shift.  Can you point me to a “church of global warming”?  Or are you merely belittling people who are advocating for changes in government policy?

I read that article you cited above, and found it insulting to the environmental movement, severly lacking in fact, and rich in political rhetoric.  You made up a fictitious story as to the origins of the environmental movement, then claim that campaigns against pesticide use and nuclear plant safety were concocted (read “made up") by a movement looking for self justification. 

Quite simply, you think of politics before you think of science, and your conclusions neatly fit your ideology.  You admit as much yourself:

“One of the things that makes me question a claim is when it comes from only one political side. And it’s rather curious that most crises we’ve heard about in the last 40 years were created by the left. A scientific argument should be apolitical.”

Consideration of the facts doesn’t come first, just if “one side” brings it up. 

stinky,

thanks for the clarification.  In any event, it is far from an “ideology” or “religion”

Posted by  on  11/11  at  07:04 PM

If you believe that, I’ll have to accuse you of being naïve.

The worse conceit of the GW proponents is that its based on “facts”. The so called facts have been shot down repeatedly. The claims made have been proven false. I gave plenty of cites in my article, but of course, it’s easy to just wave your hand and call it lies. Just as its easy to wave your hand over the IPCC TAR and say “truth”.

Blind belief in something is ideology. The foundation of GW is computer models and logical fallacies. Neither are facts.

I don’t expect to convince you of this, so we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Someday, however, you might wake up from your nightmare.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  07:13 PM

Remulak,

What scientists?  Links, please.  I already know a few you’ll name, and so what?  I’m not interested in appeals to authority.  I want data and actual scientific reasoning.  I think I’ll just savor the irony of someone mindlessly parroting Steve Milloy accusing someone who actively works on radiative transfer of lacking independent thought.

BTW, James, very classy of you to take down my previous comments.  Lack the courage of your convictions to try to answer my questions or respond to the actual data?  Or are you just afraid some of your groupies might make the mistake of clicking through to the data and analysis and maybe form their own thoughts on it?

Posted by stinky wizzleteats  on  11/11  at  07:22 PM

I don’t have time for trolls. And it’s hilarious how you GW cultists claim to believe in science when most of it has been discredited. I’ve already provided tons of links elsewhere, so no, I am not going to now. Especially when you’re such a jerk.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  07:52 PM

Oh, boo-hoo, James.  Buck up.  In science you get used to heated arguments.  But, of course, you’d know nothing about that since you aren’t a scientist.  As for your links, I wasted some time looking through your old stuff about AGW and “CO² [sic]” and I found no data, no science, no reasoning.  Just a lot of political invective and unsupported assertions.

FWIW, you won’t have to bother deleting anymore comments from me or dealing with how much of a jerk I am, because I’ve realized I have better things to do with my time than argue with a Lysenkoist.  Like maybe get back to working on radiative transfer in omicron ceti atmospheres or helping out a geologist buddy of mine on spectroscopic dating of fluorite crystals.  You know, science.

Posted by stinky wizzleteats  on  11/11  at  08:25 PM

I believe that all collective problems on our Mother planet stem from faulty communications, and that it is our duty as aware humans to abrogate said fallacious belief systems through logical discourse. Or, as someone once said-
“Science is not a sacred cow. Science is a horse. Don’t worship it. Feed it. “--Aubrey Eben
James does not have to defend the logic in his discourses, because logic is, by definition, self defensive. But lets examine this concept that global weather systems are affected by the efforts of mankind- by beginning with just how prevalent man is on this orb……..lets begin here-
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
In short, all a scientist really does is adduce a theory or hypothesis about what happened in any given case (an experiment, a daily observation, whatever), then deduces from that what else would be observed it if were true (and, just as importantly, what should not be observed if it is true, or in other words, what would be observed it it were false), and then we go out and make many more observations, and from all the evidence we get, we inductively determine the relative probability of the hypothesis being true. Then we subject our work to peer review and replication by other experts, to confirm our observations and conclusions are valid and genuine, until we develop a consensus of experts in the field. The whole process aims at reducing the probability of deception and error in our conclusions. And all the other little refinements in method or technique, at each step, in every distinct field, are directed to that same end.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THE EARTH:
Example #1 - According to United Nations 1998 world population estimates there will be nearly 6 billion people on the planet as of 1999. If you took these 6 billion people, split them up into family units of four and gave them each a piece of land 50’ x 50’, the entire population of the planet would fit very easily into the state of Montana (with over 300 billion square feet left over!).
Sound amazing? Here’s proof
• Montana has 145,388 square miles of land
• Which equals 4,053,184,819,200 square feet (145,388 x 27,878,400*) in Montana
• Each family unit gets a piece of land 50’ x 50’ which equals 2,500 square feet
• The world population is currently almost 6 billion people (as of 1999)
• That number divided by four (since there would be four persons per family) equals 1.5 billion
• 1.5 billion x 2,500 square feet per family unit equals 3,750,000,000,000 square feet needed
Square feet in Montana………………………………4,053,184,819,200
………………………………………………………….(subtract)
Square feet needed for 1.5 billion family units………..3,750,000,000,000

Left over space PROVING example #1………………303,184,819,200

Example #2 - Imagine yourself standing up in the middle of a square 1-1/2’ x 1-1/2’. If the entire planet’s 6 billion people all stood in identical squares, they would all fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida (with over 9.7 billion square feet left over!).
Sounds amazing doesn’t it?  Don’t believe me?  I will PROVE it!
• Jacksonville, Florida has 834 square miles of land
• Which equals 23,250,585,600 square feet (834 x 27,878,400*) in Jacksonville, Florida
• Each person occupies a square 1-1/2’ x 1-1/2’ which equals 2.25 square feet
• The world population is currently almost 6 billion people (as of 1999)
• 6 billion x 2.25 square feet per person equals 13,500,000,000 square feet needed

Square feet in Jacksonville, Florida…………………….23,250,585,600
…………………………………………………………….(subtract)
Square feet needed for 6 billion people………………..13,500,000,000
Left over space PROVING example #3………………….9,750,585,600
Now take these numbers and equate them with the square footage of earth available.

So, taking into consideration, that most individuals would rather parrot the emotively inflammatory rhetoric which seems to give their angst some sort of justification….why don’t you just do your own research, by applying math to the statistics at hand?
I don’t agree with James on everything, but I don’t attack him either, I attack his logic when I find it lacking. And while we’re on the subject of doing your own research….do you even remotely know the difference between the Accumulated Thermal Units of power exerted by our climate every day, in relation to anthropic ATU’s?
Didn’t think so.
Do your own math, class is dismissed.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  08:29 PM

Stinky,

If you believe in Man Made Global Warming, you’re the Lysenkoist.

And if you were truly confident in your views, you wouldn’t be so threatened by mine. Why else would you come on here and leave these long winded tirades?

Your faux smugness reveals your weakness.

Good riddance.

Posted by  on  11/11  at  08:32 PM
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

<< Back to main