More Sexist, Racist Filth from the Guardian

Posted on by Geoff ChambersIn Uncategorized1 Minute Read

The Graun really is worse than you thought. This article by John Gibbons plumbs new heights.

Under a fetching picture of Gigi Love’s fluorescent bottom, Gibbons drools bile over the Irish Climate Science Forum, Richard Lindzen, retired male engineers and meteorologists, deniers, aging contrarians, conservative white males, elderly white men, elderly engineers, and elderly white male climate deniers. Just in case you don’t get the message, the Guardian provides a photo of Nigel Lawson below Gigi Love’s left buttock.

The Guardian, unusually, doesn’t give any information about the author of this thoughtful piece, which is filed under climate change (science). Is it John Gibbons the dishy young black transexual who sells her body to elderly engineers in the washrooms of Dublin public houses venting her understandable spleen? Or is it John Gibbons the environmental activist and former environmental columnist at the Irish Times, sacked in 2010, much to the dismay of its highly educated, mainly elderly white male readership? I think we should be told.

She blogs at http://www.thinkorswim.ie/author/jgibbons/ , for those who like that sort of thing.

Tags: ,

67 Comments

  1. Climate obsession correlates strongly with racism, imperialism, anti-democratic and misanthropic views and actions.
    “Nothing corrupts like corruption.”
    And we see this proven over and over and over by the climate community.

    Like

  3. There are a few good comments:

    “What an extraordinary ramble of hysteria, fact-free scaremongering, and good old-fashioned prejudice and intolerance.

    How ironic that the author’s appeal to scientific reason is drowned out by his own emotional over-reaction to a set of computer forecasts about which he presumably knows little or nothing.

    And why does he provide no analysis of the recent criticisms of the failure of these models to do the one thing they really have to do well, which is to predict the future?

    And why does he not even seem to understand – let alone address – the key point about Nigel Lawson’s stance, which is that even if you accept the case for AGW, the proposed remedies do more harm than good?

    All in all, this is a shocking, highly damaging and ultimately rather sad article from someone who clearly has issues that are nothing to do with the climate.”

    Like

  4. I’m sorry, Paul, but even without looking, I can tell that comment is from an elderly white male who is also – shock horror and worst of all – an engineer. Please clean up your act.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I started reading some of the comments associated with this news column (I haven’t done this in a little while) and was overcome by sadness and regret (and so remembered why I don’t usually delve into the Guardian undergrowth). All those, otherwise intelligent people, misled and wasting their concern upon a non-problem. Wasting their efforts when then there are so many problems around the world that would deserve their concerns so much more. Of those responsible for this waste, most deserve our pity not our scorn, for they are self deluded.
    Off for a wee dram to drown my sorrow.

    Like

  6. The comments are hilarious, and provide wonderful insight into why AGW belief is a religion, and the next thing in line for obsessive liberal hand wringers.

    Like

  7. Alan, just read your comment. Don’t pity them, its happened throughout the ages. People just need something to obsess and worry about and this is the next big thing. The point that deserves concern is the impact on energy bills for those on a low income – caused by these self serving liberal idealists.

    Like

  8. Oh my giddy aunt:

    “These same ageing contrarians doubtless insure their homes, put on their seatbelts, check smoke alarms and fret about cholesterol levels.

    Why then, when it comes to assessing the greatest threat the world has ever faced and when presented with the most overwhelming scientific consensus on any issue in the modern era, does this caution desert them?”

    The author’s answer: Elderly White Male Syndrome -backed up by some obscure pseudo-scientific sociological ramblings.

    The hypocrisy and arrogance of these people is simply breath-taking, not to mention extremely insulting to the considerable number of sceptics who are not elderly white males, who don’t conveniently fall into their moronic ‘that explains it’, imaginary demographic.

    I could rewrite the title:

    “Climate fanatics want to protect the status quo that is making them rich”.

    Like

  9. The Sunday Sport never ran a story so sorry – and this under “climate change (science)” as Geoff points out. It is genuinely hard to know how to react. Freddy Starr did eat that hamster or I’m a banana, as Ian Hislop might say, if only he himself hadn’t drunk the climate kool-aid. (And note silence in the face of such poisonous inanity, from all such bien-pensants of our culture, is enough. Complicit.)

    I’ve been thinking about the reference to the Irish Climate Science Forum’s guest speaker Richard Lindzen. According to the Guardian’s chosen scribe “retired physicist and noted US climate contrarian” and, according to any right-minded reader, Gibbons swung so low here he’s incapable of reaching boots he isn’t worthy to lick.

    But this reminded me of another, more amusing, and rather more instructive, reference to Lindzen. And the context might just help. Cue Science of Doom in February 2015:

    If you are convinced that [climate sceptics’] motives are evil, come out and say it:

    Instead of saying “These people are climate science deniers“, try “These people are wrong about climate and they know it”

    If you want to make it more colorful, instead of “These people are climate science deniers“, try “These people wouldn’t know the quasi-biennial oscillation or its importance in climate if it bit them on the arse“. Obviously, you couldn’t use that particular one on Richard Lindzen (seeing as he kind of figured it out), but I’m sure there’s another one for him.

    John Gibbons, it’s time to give up use of the word denier. It harms you and makes you stupid. You may never understand the quasi-biennial oscillation as well as Richard Lindzen does but this step would improve you. The rest of what SoD says in that thread should help.

    Like

  10. “It is genuinely hard to know how to react.”

    Meh. I would argue the bottom’s not as “fetching” as one would expect from the Guardian…

    Like

  11. Has Gibbons discovered anti-gravity with his writing? “This article by John Gibbons plumbs new HEIGHTS”.

    Like

  12. ALAN KENDALL
    It’s a long time since I did physics A-level. I meant “scales new depths” of course.

    SY COMPUTING
    That’s a very Guardian bottom, cut off above the crutch. In the far off days when the Guardian had a Woman’s Page, they used to have articles about the new bikini fashions, with the photos cut off at the thorax. I’m working on a psychoanalytical paper on Climate Catastrophism as a Manifestation of the Castration Complex: The Consequences of Ignoring Lower Values, or, Hide the Declivity.

    Like

  14. Talking of bastions of the truth
    Look at the begging bowl banner of The Conversation

    by Combat ….they mean CONSTRUCT
    by Independent ….they mean CONFORMIST

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Climate alarmism is
    the fault of marxist
    recisivists in
    green apparel,
    of feminist agonists
    and those other
    ass-orted ‘ists’
    from the school of
    resentment.

    Like

  19. Here’s a good paragraph from Ross Clark in the Spectator (thanks Stew)

    If there is a link between age and climate change scepticism it might have something to do with experience, of course. Older people have been around long enough to remember that we had hurricanes, floods and heatwaves before anyone thought to blame fossil fuel emissions for them, and therefore are less impressed when someone tries to cite a single extreme weather event as evidence of climate change. John Gibbons, author of the Guardian piece, quotes as an apparent example of an elderly white male climate change denier Richard Lindzen, a retired physicist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Is there any other field of knowledge where the most experienced people are dismissed on the grounds that they are old? Gibbons also notes that many of the people he labels ‘deniers’ are meteorologists. Aren’t they exactly the sort of people whom we should be listening to on climate change, rather than the gobby comedians whom Gibbons quotes in support of his case?

    Then he mentions the same ageism over Brexit which I tried to highlight in my review of the past year on Twitter in January – including the brisk “I don’t give a fuck about the history” I received from a bright young thing for my pains. Clark rightly sees the same disdain for experience here – with Gibbons now desperate to tie his ageist prejudice to the even more powerful stereotype of white racism. (And for an antidote to elite Brexit racism propaganda last year see Guy Adams’ landmark The great hate-crime lie: The Essex street brawl death of a Pole after the referendum was seized on by liberals, the BBC and Remainers as proof Brexit provoked racist attacks. Only one problem: his death had NOTHING to do with race in the Mail Saturday morning.)

    Liked by 1 person

  20. GEOFF:

    Sounds like a great paper.

    Speaking of catastrophic castration due to climate change, I found a more fetching “bottom” that you may find interesting as a sample case.

    Like

  22. Our follicles
    Do conspire
    To brand us sceptic.

    Our neurons
    Do prevent
    acceptance of modelled tat.

    Our rheumy eyes
    See alternatives to the stupidity
    Of the common crowd.

    We are the white haired men of legend
    Almost extinct in academie,
    Drowning in “The Conversation”.

    Chemistry aids the follicles
    Of like-minded women,
    But their neurons spark as bright
    And their eyes miss little.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. In case of confusion I’ll have you know that “more fetching bottom” about which I was speaking was the state of Mr. Nye’s career as shown in the vid above.

    Like

  24. Another example of ageism ie poor understanding.

    https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/how-millennials-think-about-climate-change

    From this puff piece we are told that while millennials are less likely to do stuff that is within their ability to influence – ‘recycle, ditch plastic water bottles, and adjust the thermostat to save energy’ but ‘they are significantly more likely to support companies that they perceive to have strong environmental values.’ Like Tesla. Sure, because most millennials can afford a Tesla. NOT.

    So to recap. These caring, sharing youngsters who won’t do easy, cheap stuff they CAN do but are all in favour of stuff the CAN’T do. Hmmm. And we believe that when they can do those things, they’ll get right on with it?

    I think I’m detecting a pattern and it’s not “Millennials are worried about the future, and they’re looking outward from their own abilities to effect change to see who else can help them make it happen better and faster,” said Lee Ann Head. I think it’s “people with too few real worries, fret about stuff that it’s fashionable to fret about but when it comes time to put a bit of effort in, their worries evaporate.”

    When I was a uni there were many caring, sharing course students. It was the home of Peace Studies. Back then being a Tory was evidence you were in league with the devil and yet when I gave £20 to the uni’s Christmas kids charity, you’d think I’d donated half a million, the collectors were so used to low donations. It seems caring and sharing never went higher than a single drink at the bar. It was then that I realised that the bulk of altruism only exists in principle, not in practice.

    The only thing that changes as people age is they usually become more honest about their own commitment. Those that don’t vote Green.

    Like

  25. In a rather similar theme, here’s a sentence from the conclusion of a new paper
    Alliance of antagonism: Counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication

    Second, the skeptic counterpublic is not restricted to voices pertaining to climate change but forms an alliance of antagonism with other extreme factions such as misogynists, racists, and conspiracy theorists, that is, radical positions which are also not represented in mainstream public communication.

    Like

  26. Paul tis amazing the extent of my ignorance. Taken by the word “counterpublic”, and successfully predicting it would be one of those unnecessary words devised by “experts” to keep the hoi polloi from their gates, I pursued it with aid of friends Wikki and Google. Soon I came across “Queer Theory” and did a quick retreat. There are some avenues of knowledge that my particular sat-nav refuses to go.
    We physical scientists are not adverse to creating our own language elements (I am responsible for one) and quantum physicists are especially whimsical with their efforts, but why do social scientists feel impelled to create whole dictionaries for themes and concepts that can be easily described using basic language? Tis a puzzlement.

    Like

  27. ALAN KENDALL
    …and it’s not even their own language they’re improving, since the authors are German and the subject is scepticism in German media. From the Abstract:

    We find that skeptics form a counterpublic that is only loosely connected to the mainstream as neither skeptics nor the mainstream want to be affiliated with each other. Skeptics, thus, are mostly excluded within the German online climate network.

    So it’s our fault if we’re stuck in the counterpublic with the racists because we just refuse to join in. This could be important because of the German election, with the Greens likely to join a coalition government, and the success of the far right AfD, who are apparently climate sceptics. That’s all we need.
    Paul, any chance of having a copy of the paper?

    Like

  28. Geoff. But, but, but who is it that is placing us in the SAME counterpublic as the racists with their insistence of applying to us the epithet “denier”? Certainly within the abstract of the paper there seems to be a major non sequitur.

    Like

  30. Geoff:

    …the success of the far right AfD, who are apparently climate sceptics. That’s all we need.

    Is it correct to call them far right? A fellow of All Souls, no less, thinks so:

    Nazis in the Reichstag again? A German academic I follow on Twitter isn’t so sure

    https://twitter.com/K_Niemietz/status/911995820836315137

    Having been called a Denier for so long I’m cautious about such claims.

    I also read this on Twitter this morning, from one reggaewarrior84

    This kind of thing – verbal intensification of the “punch a Nazi” meme that has been going viral of late, with “Nazi” in one case meaning a 60-year-old feminist filming radical trans activists at Speaker’s Corner two weeks ago, who was duly beaten up – also makes me hesitant.

    Like

  31. The whole way that the “Nazi”-word is used these days in political contexts is very strange. The “Nazis” organise a march and get beaten up by anti-Nazis….back when Nazis were real, they would have beaten up anybody who dared to interfere with a march. The extension of the “Nazi” word to parties such as UKIP and AfD and also to Trump and Farage is either a complete failure of history teaching, determined ignorance or just using a label to enable you to enact violence against people whose views you oppose. And mixing up Nazis and Fascists is just as annoying.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. RICHARD DRAKE
    They’re far right all right. To the right of Merkel, who is a rightwing politician. Their leader referred to her on telly this morning in terms that sounded pretty strong. But their ex-leader, Frauke Petry, who speaks excellent English and seemed a sane sort of person resigned last night and will sit as an independent. A similar split has just occurred in the French far right Front National, where the sane, intelligent and openly gay Florian Phillipot has been driven out by Marine le Pen in a “back to basics” move.
    But I’m using the term “rightwing” in its old, non-pejorative way, the way it was used a few months ago, before the kind of people whose tweets you quote decided that all political discourse had to be spat out in a rage of hate.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Geoff: I take your word for it. Or, to be more accurate, I combine your view with that of Dr Niemietz into a cloud of unknowing that I will look into when time allows. I can work with your non-pejorative use of far right.

    As Paul helpfully points us to one interesting times.co.uk article in my earlier thread I’ve just read Matt Ridley’s from this morning. Here’s an excerpt:

    This is not just about Islam, though it is curious how silent feminists are on Islamic sexism. The enforcement of dogma is happening everywhere. Members of a transgender campaign group have refused to condemn an activist for punching a feminist. Anybody questioning the idea that climate change is an imminent catastrophe, however gently, is quickly labelled a “denier” (ie, blasphemer). How bad is this spasm of intolerance going to get? Perhaps it is a brief hiatus in rationalism, a dimming of the hard-won secular enlightenment, which will soon re-brighten after doing little harm. Or perhaps it is like China’s Cultural Revolution: a short-lived but vicious phenomenon confined to one part of the world that will do terrible harm then cease.

    Or maybe the entire world is heading into a great endarkenment, in which an atmosphere of illiberal orthodoxy threatens the achievement of recent centuries. “The world simply cannot afford an American descent into illiberal tyranny,” says Professor Weinstein.

    Matt goes on to talk about a book of history he’s recently read that has been fuelling some pessimism in the author of The Rational Optimist. The post-Constantine church comes out very badly and (I assume) fully deserves to. But that needn’t detain us. I was struck and indeed blessed to see Matt’s implicit support for Maria, the lady punched in Hyde Park, after I’d just mentioned it here. Followed right away by climate and the baleful influence of Denier. The global battle against endarkenment. There it is.

    Like

  34. RICHARD DRAKE
    I can”t read much of the Ridley article before it’s hidden by the Endarkenment (or Cloud of Unknowing) of the Times paywall. Any chance of having it by the usual channels, under plain envelope?

    And how come no-one, in the past six centuries, hasn’t grabbed the URL cloudofunknowing.com?

    From what you quote, Ridley’s comparison of the use of the word Denier to the Cultural revolution (which killed several million) seems a bit over the top. And I’d like to know more about the book of history he’s been reading. The history of the post-Constantine church may well provide the key to understanding the whole sorry story of climate hysteria.

    Like

  35. The plain envelope version should have winged itself to you.

    That cloud computing hasn’t snapped up cloudofunknowing.com is, as you say, a mystery of both marketing and epistemology.

    Although I used the term post-Constantine church, from an ideas point of view it was the post-Augustine church that did such damage. It’s not too far-fetched to see our precious freedoms in the West as a return to the love to Jesus, in my view. But the fragility is always there.

    I deeply appreciate you and the other regulars on Cliscep. Work beckons. I probably got a few details wrong in my interventions in the last seven days but it was, as always, fun 🙂

    Like

  36. Curiously, you can find all of Ridley’s article by googling a sentence from it (not the title) and then clicking a link to The Australian where it is reposted under the title “Blazing saddles dim memory in new dark age of censorship, witch-hunts”. But a direct link doesn’t work – it takes you to their paywall.

    I agree some of that is a bit OTT. He may have to rename his blog The Rational Pessimist.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Pingback: Climate denial and the ‘white male effect’ | ThinkOrSwim (the Climatechange.ie Blog)
  38. Pingback: Climate denial and the ‘white male effect’ | Climate Change

  39. Geoff, many congratulations. Gibbons has declared that of all the responses, yours “certainly had the best headline”. See pingback above.

    Like

  40. Indeed, Paul, and Gibbons ends his first sentence “some of Ireland’s leading (I use the word advisedly) climate contrarians”. Exactly the kind of rewording I did advise. Credit where credit’s due.

    Like

  41. I’ve posted a reply (in moderation) at Gibbons’ blog, offering to discuss scepticism (or denialism) at our respective blogs. Hope that’s alright with the rest of you. All those who are not conservative elderly white males (a majority,I think) will be called upon to participate. In fact, come to think of it, I don’t think any of us are conservative elderly white males.

    Like

  42. I’d be very cautious about Ridleys comments about Christianity. The dark ages may have had more to do with the destruction of Roman works than Christianity. Paganism deserved to die anyway. Christianity was vastly preferable in its moral precepts. Bear in mind too the later empire was a violent brutal tyrant.

    Like

  43. I went over to read his blog post at ‘Think or Swim’. Couldn’t help asking..
    “How the hell can you tell what gender these people identify as – from a photo from behind?”

    Like

  44. David:

    And the Celtic church on Iona speaks of the heroic preservation of civilisation in the face of the dark ages, as CP Snow and others have seen it. The phrase mixed bag doesn’t remotely do justice to all this.

    I was the one who pointed to Matt Ridley’s article, and that was because he mentioned the incident of a 60-year-old feminist recently being punched, at Speakers’ Corner, of all places, because she was deemed to be a fascist by trans activists, just as I had mentioned on this thread. The very next sentence he mentioned climate and “Denier” as signifier of being excommunicated for blasphemy in our main area of concern on this blog, much as I had on this thread. Unreasonably excited by this conjunction, I didn’t think it was fair on Matt to quote this part without saying what he went on to write. And thus Christ and the -ianity attached to him, by very fallible human beings, has become one aspect of this thread.

    I respect Matt a great deal. The horrors he writes about, after reading a new book of old history, were real. For centuries since they have put people off something wonderfully good, IMHO. And they largely sprung from one wrong idea from a very influential thinker – at least, that has been MHO from the age of nineteen. As Geoff suggested, perhaps with tongue in cheek, there may be lessons in these messy foundations of what we hopefully call western civilisation – which Gandhi famously thought, when asked, would be such a good idea.

    Like

  45. The problem with John Gibbons is that he is obviously a person with no scepticism as evinced by this quote from the blog:

    The evidence suggesting that the world is hurtling towards a mass die-off event of unparalleled severity fills me with horror. This isn’t just about climate change. Biodiversity is in freewill; ocean acidification, pollution and surface heating is threatening to trigger a global marine catastrophe. Two thirds of all the wildlife that existed in 1970 are now gone. How long before the remainder are wiped out? Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by over 40% in the last 60 years, and are now at the highest level in at least 3 million years. Global fresh water resources are plummeting. Deforestation continues unabated. Every cubic foot of water in the world’s oceans now contains hundreds of pieces of micro-plastic.

    The old ocean acidification stuff when there is no dataset to justify it as a couple of sceptics (Latimer Alder and Radical Rodent) demonstrated for Richard Tellford:

    remind us why taking only 800 measurements in total from 3 sites only, all within a 10 degree band of latitude and temperature and two of which are volcanic islands is – in your mind – sufficient to tell us everything we could ever want to know about oceanic pH changes?

    Two thirds of wildlife are now gone, it seems (perhaps he means species?) – and yet every year another few million species of beetle are found in the “rapidly-decreasing” Amazonian rain forest. 40% rise in CO2 over the last 60 years, which is strange because measurements of CO2 have only been going for 59 years according to Wiki ” in March 1958 the first ongoing measurements were started by Keeling at Mauna Loa.” Also “as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels”. Perhaps he thinks that pre-industrial times means anything before 1960. In other words, he is a bit of an idiot.

    Like

  53. Richard, There are always wars, massacres, monuments destroyed, and bad ideas. The problem here is that if you look hard enough for these things and ignore the other side of the ledger you cannot approach truth.

    1. The later Roman empire was a tyranny dominateded by an incredibly cruel, violent, and warlike pagan culture. Millions of innocents were slaughtered in wars. Crucifixion was a truly barbaric punishment. Torture was routine, corruption was the rule and not considered a problem, the powerful simply took what they wanted by force. The Emperors were often violent and illiterate gangsters, whose sole preoccupation was conquest and getting more money to spend on debauchery.

    2. Christianity represented a vast improvement in its universalism and emphasis on persuasion and a better morality. Paganism in fact has no real moral principles. Christianity has always had a concept of separation of church and state, despite the tendency of European kings to pretend they represented the church. Christianity made modernity possible and kept Islam contained. If you want an example of a bizarre and primitive religion, Islam certainly qualifies.

    3. I know that Europe is a post-Christian culture. It seems to have essentially no common ideology other than Green ideology, with its neo-pagan elements and a penchant for covering up the truth with regard to Islam. It is therefore not surprising that this anti-Christian prejudice infects even people like Ridley. He should think more clearly and read more carefully.

    Like

  54. DPY. I think you simplify and ignore much. You consider Christianity in its best lights and Islam in its worst. But recall the relative behaviours of the two religionists to each other in the Holy Land during the time of the Crusades, or the way Islam and Christianity treated Jews. Most religions change over time – look at Buddhism today.
    Personally I don’t consider Greenity to be a religion, but certainly a cult.

    Like

  55. MAN IN A BARREL
    Did Gibbons really say that biodiversity is in freewill? I think by “Two thirds of all the wildlife that existed in 1970 are now gone.” he means numbers (or possibly tonnage) of large mammals in the wild. It’s true that numbers of rhinosceroses and elephants are going down and sheep and cattle are increasing as we eat more and better. And I don’t think a few million species of beetle are found in the rain forest every year. Let’s spare AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS from slapping himself to death.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Gibbons is responding to comments from both Geoffs and Jaime. I have just posted a comment that ends with
    “Maybe when you grow up, you will be a climate sceptic too.”

    … which he has now approved.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Yesterday I attended a matinee performance of Northern Ballet’s “The Little Mermaid” (wonderful, I sat next to a 2 or 3 year old who was absolutely transfixed by the ‘magic’). Looking around I noticed the overwhelming predominance of grey-haired women who were alone, or attending in pairs or small groups (the volume of chatter initially quite put off my young temporary companion). I wondered what this audience told me about ballet? Not much I concluded. The lack of most young people (under 60) was probably due to it being a matinee, most younger people being at work. Evening performances, in my experience are more mixed. Most men were with their wives but there was a scattering of male couples. The audience probably tells us more about the way ballet is perceived than about ballet itself. Commonly it is falsely considered effeminate, so explaining the gender imbalance (yet once again, evening performances are more balanced). The scarcity of very young children was regrettable, but possibly explained by ticket costs which were high.
    I wonder how the Irish audience might be explained by other causes – time of day excluding those working; topic appeals to (and is promoted as appealing to) limited and specialized audiences, etc. I have given talks to local communities about climate change, and found no gender imbalance. Women are just as interested in climate matters. Hi Jaime.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. J.B.S. Haldane
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/23/beetles/

    The actual quotation is even better:
    There is a story, possibly apocryphal, of the distinguished British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, who found himself in the company of a group of theologians. On being asked what one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation, Haldane is said to have answered, “An inordinate fondness for beetles.”

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Alan, Here’s a thoughtful writeup from a seasoned prosecutor on the subject of Islam.

    https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/

    Does a good job of showing how one man’s view changed as his knowledge grew. That’s the problem I think in Europe and among the American left. The ignorance of religion (both Christianity and Islam) is very deep. The only way to understand feminist support of Sharia law is deep stupidity.

    Like

  62. Dpy. I have already read your recommendation. I prefer to rely upon my own experience – of working many years in Egypt and having research students from Iran, Morroco, Pakistan, Saudi and Jordan. These students varied in their religiousness from fully committed (forcing us to stop in the desert to pray) to having cirrhosis of the liver. My conclusion has been the fault is not with the religion but with those who venture to interpret it. That affects all religions.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. ALAN KENDALL ’29 Sep 17 at 4:35 pm)
    And I was at a showing of a film about the history of black jazz vocalists where almost the entire audience was composed of elderly white females. They weren’t elderly enough to have seen Duke Ellington at the Cotton Club, so what can have been their psychological motivation? Luckily for them, no Lewandowsky has been financed by the taxpayer to find out.

    It’s always nice to discover that our contributors have a life outside climate change. Paul Matthews once revealed the fact that he sings in an early music group. If I had my life over again I’d write the script for an opera/ballet in the style of Monteverdi starring Michael Mann, with Steve McIntyre descending from the skies in the role of Jupiter, and Judith Curry as Athena.

    Like

  65. Geoff. How about Oreskes as an emoting Aida buried in a vault in the Temple of Climate with her beloved Lew as Radamès ? I’d watch it!

    Liked by 1 person

  66. Geoff. Went to another ballet this afternoon (Ballet Rambert’s extremely powerful “Ghost Dancers”). Although another matinee and the same theatre, the audience was very different from that thart attended “the Little Mermaid”. Much more mixed with a preponderance of middle aged couples.
    Judging the support for climate scepticism by only considering the makeup of only a single audience in Cork must be fraught with danger.

    Like

  67. Pingback: Ongoing ignorance of experts 2 | Climate Scepticism

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.