Monday, 6 April 2009

Why do I have a Climate Stalker?

I have a comments stalker whose sole task in life seems to be to gainsay any of the science I post demonstrating that climate science is fraudulent and that its adherents have ulterior motives.

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:
  1. discount the science because it hasn't been peer-reviewed;
  2. 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);
  3. 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");
  4. 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
  5. 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?

(Nothing Follows)

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the world of paid trolls. A few years ago I worked for M**O*.o** as a well paid troll counter blogging a obscure coal producing blog site.. As a conservative it was an instructive lesson on how the left media works. I got paid in cold hard cash, at a local coffee shop, about $30 for every day my comments appeared. I wore dark glasses and a cap and presented myself as rock hard eco- freak needing a gig for food, I told them of my tree spiking in the Sequoia National Park--the idiots didn't know that here is no logging in the park- and deep love for Saul Alinsky. They ate it up...
I was so over the top with my comments, that I was sure I would fired any day.....rather i was paid more the heavier I slammed Bush, Republicans, coal, clean coal, coal mining deaths, black lung , made fun of the cartoon-like stupidity of coal mine executives..... this lasted two months until I realized that the site would never kick me off, no matter what was written---which is what should have happened-and I could never write anything too stupid to get myself fired. Got bored one day and went on to more interesting things.

Some blog sites have been destroyed by trolls....Powerline Forum used to have 4 different paid trolls posting under 8 different names. Charles at LGF policed his way clear of most of 'em. I also found that CAIR had trolls for many of the talk shows like Savage, Hannity and Levin, I also found that Media Matters was the source of my troll funding, as well as most of the other trolls, through the Tides Foundation.

So ban the damn bastards, they don't want free speech, they want to frustrate readers and have the site fail.

hoppers said...

I rather like Fudgie. I think that being stalked by a swivel eyed leftie loonie kind of validates your blog.

Anonymous said...

You are extremely paranoid. You should probably see a doctor - there are pills that you can get that might help you.

Jack Lacton said...

Hi Fudgie,

Good to see you give the prepared answer.

Is there anything original that you post besides the profanity?

Kaboom said...

It really is peculiar how "F"udgie shuts up, as soon ask I ask him how he defines the "Scientific Method" with respect to the scientific analysis of data obtained from an open-system model like the climate.

Just go back to any of Jack's posts on "climate change", and you will see the vociferous Fudgie disappear when I attempt to raise this "inconvenient" truth.

Fudgie, you are a scientific 'tard
and to this extent, you are fair game.

Come on, this thread, which is MADE for you, a decent debate. Let the world see your "scientific" background, and your intelligent responses to debate.

I wish.

Anonymous said...

"...any of the science I post..."

You've never posted any science.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for? Who do you work for?

neko said...

Looks like Fudgie didn't answer Kaboom's question again.

Anonymous said...

Way to go, Jack. I've often wondered what sort of fella would find his way here merely to satisfy the desire to debunk your debunking. Who has that much spare time in their life to so faithfully present themselves when you post on a particular topic?

I happen to enjoy almost all your topics. I skip over the weekend rock unless you happen to be reporting a Duruflé concert or a survey of magnificent Australian historic pipe organs. For example the Sidney Town Hall Hill & Son instrument would be worth a trip to hear someday.

However, my point is that I enjoy your blog. I invariably learn something interesting from it. So I read it every day.

But why else other than as a paid stooge would someone read it otherwise?

It was clear to me some time ago that Fudgie's grasp of the material wasn't robust. So you can quickly discount him as an actual scientist. But it has been the pervasive nastiness that has given him away as a doctrinaire looselugnut lib.

That's just how they are. You can't really argue with them. The facts are irrelevant. It's all about the power. And when cornered, as would any mangy dog, they get nasty and ugly.

It gives them away every time.

It's all about them getting their hairy monkey paws on the levers of power and manipulating our lives to suit their unholy objectives through any means possible.

I'm glad you finally dragged him out into the open for a nice scrub down and a hosing.

--Krumhorn

.....

Jack Lacton said...

Ha! Some great responses here. Thanks fellers and, especially, anonymous who posted his experience of being a paid troll.

I hope Fudgie is donating his money to a worthwhile charity and not spending it on anything that would result in CO2 emissions increasing.

"swivel eyed leftie loonie" is a corker, hoppers, as is krumhorn's "doctrinaire looselugnut lib".

A couple of keepers, there.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Jack, it puzzles me that you consider your blog minor, somehow not worthy of attention...though I can imagine you'd prefer not to have the attention of a troll. Your concentration on climate science and politics makes you more effective than you might realize.

Bloggers who specialize in one or two areas of interest, rather than spreading their efforts over a wide variety of topics, become known for their specialties. They're cited and quoted by the less specialized sites and the "concentrators." They become known as topic resources.

Apropos of your troll(s), remember that Saint Paul rejoiced that he had an imp of Satan to buffet him; it reassured him that he was doing the Lord's work. Or in a more modern, military idiom, "if you're taking flak, it means you're over the target."

Keep up the fine work.

Jack Lacton said...

Thanks, Francis.

I based my comment on the fact that I'm hardly a Powerline or LGF, am I?

It shows what levels the left will stoop to in order to ensure their lies are promoted when they assign someone to me.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives and conservative forums like Powerline Forum don't seem to understand the internet. They whine about trolls, then collapse. Powerline Forum is dead and the owners have said they probably won't revive it.

Qinan Chen said...

20160920qiujie
louboutin pas cher
ugg boots clearance
louis vuitton outlet online
ed hardy outlet
cheap jordans for sale
ugg boots sale
coach factory outlet online
fake rolex watches
air max outlet
burberry outlet online

hoxn Ln said...

after using Replica Rolex Watches the brand new design concept, re interpretation of contemporary aesthetics, a retro style timepiece designed to UK Replica watches reproduce the aviation technology enlightenment in early twentieth Century. This series includes to watch Vintage WW1 watch works of Designer handbags conceptual design, and we described here the watch works PW1. The PW1 RepetitionMinutes Argentium watch handbag replica with simple retro design, as well as five points two ask Watches Replica .