Last year I wrote that all anonymous commenters should be referred to as 'fudgie' when people respond to them.
However, one commenter was so prolific in his contribution supporting the pro-AGW argument and so distinctive in his style that I dubbed him big F 'Fudgie'.
I doubt that there was ever one climate change post to which Fudgie did not respond with a counter argument based upon the 'consensus' science of the IPCC and its contributors.
Fudgie had a bit of character, too, and was clearly smart enough even though he was afflicted by the mental condition that sees one end up on the left side of politics.
Fudgie did out himself one day by putting up a comment using what I presume is his real name and then deleting his blogger profile shortly afterwards. Given he had always posted anonymously I didn't see it as my place to refer to his real name even though had I done the same thing on a left wing blog they would have splattered it all over the place with glee. Such is the difference in quality and maturity between those on the left and right.
After a little while I worked out that Fudgie was not just some ordinary citizen concerned for the environment but an activist assigned to my blog by one of the Big E environmental groups to make sure that there was always a counter argument made to the anti-AGW posts I wrote.
If there was one thing that could be said about Fudgie, and it can be said about all of the Climate Faithful, and that is that he never let the facts get in the way of his counter argument.
The pro-AGW methodology followed by Fudgie seemed to be:
- discount the science because it hasn't been peer-reviewed;
- attack the scientist for some affiliation or other that isn't currently politically correct (Big Oil, being at a conservative think tank, being Christian etc etc);
- Cherry pick the data set that best supports their response (i.e. NASA GISS data set shows an higher trend than others due to Climate Lunatic James Hansen's "adjustments");
- provide links to articles by mainstream climate scientists such as Schmidt, Mann, Tamino etc even though the science in the articles has been well and truly debunked; and/or
- modify the response to the main argument being made by me by shifting the goal posts.
A classic example of that last point is the Climate Faithfuls' response to the claim that there's been no warming since 2002.
In response to this completely incontrovertible statement they come back with graphs showing a positive trend for the period 2002-current by moving the starting point of the trend back to 1979, which is when satellite data first became available and which was at the tail end of the 1940s-70s cool period, leading to an enhanced positive trend.
For a number of months things were pretty consistent. I'd post a climate change article, Fudgie would jump in all guns blazing, there'd be some back and forth between Fudgie and my commenters and then it would die down after a few days.
And then something odd happened a few months ago.
I, and my merry band of commenters, noticed that Fudgie's tone changed.
He became much more aggressive. He started referring to me as F*cky, which is another example of the quality difference between left and right; the left swears far more (in an article I read recently by some university that had done a study into profanity on the left and right wing blogs their conclusion was that those on the left used profanity at something like a 14:1 ratio compared to those on the right...which surprises nobody on our side of politics). His use of the English language also plummeted from at least a college level education to something that could be written by a 14 year old who only averaged a C in English; and his understanding of the science diminished significantly.
And then it struck me.
I had been assigned a new Fudgie.
So now I ask New Fudgie who he works for when I'm responding in comments. Unsurprisingly, he ignores the question completely and accuses me of not providing a response to whatever scientific blather he has picked out of his backside that particular day to supposedly counter the argument I was making.
Which makes one wonder.
Why is it that a little old blog like mine - hardly one of the mainstream, high visibility blogs - garners such attention from the Climate Taliban that they would assign a stalker?
Readers of other conservative blogs that regularly write about Climate Astrology will notice that there are commenters whose sole purpose seems to be to defend the orthodoxy. Andrew Bolt has DanR, for example, and Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit had quite a few before the hollowness of their arguments coupled with Steve becoming much more legitimate in the mainstream media meant they couldn't compete at the intellectual level required to post there so they pretty much gave up.
It's clear that the organised Left is trying to make sure that no argument opposing their position gets through unchallenged, which has been exposed recently in articles on that subject, regardless of the popularity of the blog.
Hopefully, Old Fudgie has been promoted by his masters to stalk other sites that are more popular than mine, such as Jennifer Marohasy , for example.
New Fudgie - can you please ask your boss to give me a New New Fudgie if for no other reason than you give your side a bad name?