When low-wattage ideologues retort

Gribbit hates it when I call him on his lies and errors, which has led him to do everything possible to not even know when I’m doing it. Typical of nutjobs, he’s banned my IP address (not even a small inconvenience) and tried to disallow hotlinking from this domain to his (ditto). But because no one–present sad company excluded–pays him any attention, he can’t resist the urge to call me out when he thinks he has me and the anti-wingnut world on the whole over a barrel, so he’s come up with another bad interpretation of an already slipshod FOX News article about Antarctic ice levels.

I’ve been saying it for years … Undoubtedly that imbecile Kevin the Chimp or Kemibe or whatever he wishes to call himself this week will again leave a message for me on Twitter and the #TCOT

Blogging tip: When you’re Gribbit, don’t use yourself as a source.
Undoubtedly I spend precious little time on Twitter (Facebook is enough of a time sink) and I have no idea what #TCOT is, but Gribbit never lets such considerations stop him. I will, however, write a post about him. In terms of his yen for being punished, the guy is like a starving man chowing down on Ex-Lax, and now he’s not even pretending otherwise.
No kidding he’s been saying the same thing for years. He’s also been relying on “news” and inspiration from WorldNut Daily, Michele Malkin, and Ann Coulter for years. He’s been living off the government teat, sitting at home and blogging about the evils of taxation and socialism, also for years. What Gribbit spews continually is not a mystery.
Of course, when you read the article he links to, you see that it doesn’t express what Gribbit claims it does, biased though it is. Gribbit’s post is a direct result of reading headlines of stories and, at most, one paragraph of those stories, and then letting fly with feral-grunt posts that render him a laughingstock, inasmuch as anyone notices.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast … ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

Then there are alternatives to FOX News, not that this wild concept resonates in dipshittian circles.

Australian Antarctic Division ice expert Dr Tony Worby says there’s been a very significant decrease in sea ice and a net loss in shelf ice in Antarctica.
Sea ice is different from shelf ice on the continent, and its melting does not affect sea levels.
Fresh research from the British Antarctic Survey says Antarctica’s sea ice surface area – not volume – is increasing, in parts.

From Reuters:

The U.N. Climate Panel says seas could rise by 18-59 cms (7-24 inches) by 2100, without taking account the possible acceleration of a melt of ice sheets in Antarctica or Greenland.
Even a small thaw of Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea levels since together they lock up enough ice to raise sea levels by about 65 meters (215 feet) if they all melted.
Following are responses to questions from Reuters by a leading glaciologist as part of an ad-hoc global series of top climate change scientists, policy makers and academics.
Ian Allison is leader of the Australian Antarctic Division’s Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate program and a researcher within the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center.
He has been involved in Antarctic science for over 40 years.
“I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.

Teaching point, Grib: This is what people mean when they say climate change. It’s not a cop-out substitute for global warming. I know this is difficult for parochial-minded rage-a-holics to understand, but the temperature of the planet does not have to rise uniformly in every region of the earth in order for net warming to occur. The extent to which human activity has engendered this is an open scientific question. Idiots who have never seen the inside of a college science course slamming the door on the idea merely because they hate Al Gore and Negro presidents is not.
Of note is that Gribbit constantly wails about the bias and untrustworthiness of the International Panel on Climate Change and other scientists who present data opposing his position, yet has no problem accepting at face value claims made by similarly experienced and credentialed scientists that (he thinks) support his preconceived, solid conclusions. This is a cardinal sign of ignorance and ideological commitment, not that Grib hasn’t displayed this in IMAX brilliance a hundred times already.
Wingnuts as a group have no problem maligning scientists the 95 percent of the time science lays waste to their foolish ideas, while quoting the the other 5 percent. Gribbit, like his equally blinkered peers at shitblogs such as Stop the ACLU and elsewhere, is as dishonest as he is stupid, although I really wouldn’t want to have a horse in that race.

  1. #1 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on April 23, 2009 - 9:14 am

    Top Conservatives on Twitter would be my guess.
    Which, is hilarious.
    I wonder if they have a twitter channel for conservatives that identify as bottoms.

  2. #2 by Lofcaudio on April 23, 2009 - 2:22 pm

    I have no idea who Gribbit is and why he has become somewhat of a notorious celebrity on this blog. Despite that, I did find something worth noting in your salvo aimed at the aforementioned Gribbit.
    Following are responses to questions from Reuters by a leading glaciologist … Ian Allison … has been involved in Antarctic science for over 40 years.
    “I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.”

    Perhaps you did not provide the entirety of Mr. Allison’s quote, but the above quote most certainly does not answer the question that was asked. In fact, all that quote does is eerily defer to the IPCC with the typical mumbo-jumbo about man-made emissions. So what actually has Allison discovered in his research outside of being able to repeat the IPCC talking points?

  3. #3 by Kevin Beck on April 23, 2009 - 3:27 pm

    I have no idea of the extent of Allison’s published work or his credentials, but the Q & A on the Reuter’s site (I kind of buried the link previously) suggests he is no less credible than any other geoscientist. It’s actually an informative piece.
    Sure, you can argue that there’s no tangible science involved here. But it’s a wire-service article, and I suspect that even were links to scholarly articles provided, you would be skeptical of their veracity.
    At some point it’s worth considering that these people aren’t merely repeating IPCC talking points woven out of whole cloth; they are the original source of such information.
    I have no particular investment in human-caused climate change being a legitimate phenomenon. It’s easy, and tempting, for someone with left leanings to take up arms against warming denialists, since virtually all of them are right-wingers, and the ones I seek out are boisterous halfwits as well. But if it were up to me, the whole concept would be in error.
    More than arguing in favor of any science, I posted what I did to illustrate that Gribbit is fond of misunderstanding the very people he quotes. He’s incurious to the nth degree and doesn’t give a shit about facts. This itself is probably a fool’s errand, but that’s a different issue entirely…

  4. #4 by llewelly on April 23, 2009 - 10:20 pm

    The extent to which human activity has engendered this is an open scientific question.

    Depending on the time period under discussion, that’s rapidly becoming less and less true. Over the last thirty years, the data is good enough that nearly all non-anthropogenic effects have been properly accounted for, and they are all either tiny or short-lived in comparison to anthropogenic effects.

  5. #5 by hopper3011 on April 24, 2009 - 4:15 am

    This is Ian Allison: http://www.acecrc.sipex.aq/access/page/?page=94
    My own view of the matter is that he probably isn’t equipped to answer that particular question. His area is climatology, he can probably model quite accurately what will happen to the Antarctic, and what the results would be to the world’s climate, but catastrophe modelling requires a different skill set, including knowledge of infrastructure, distribution systems, etc., (for example, if sea levels rose to such an extent that the Port of Rotterdam became unuseable, what back up distribution system exists? When you consider that Rotterdam is the port used for most food imports into the European Union, you can see that the EU could be paralysed quite rapidly by a sea-level change. That’s what the question asks, and assessing the damage caused by climate change is not a climatologist’s forte). In a professional setting he probably would have declined to answer, but (and having been in his position on numerous occasions – not for anything as exciting as Antartic ice shelves – I can sympathise) he obviously tried to help out the journalist by giving him/her something rather than “I can’t comment”. Dr. Allison could probably give you chapter and verse on the damage that global warming is causing to Antarctic and Arctic ice levels, but an assessment of the damage to the man-made infrastructure of our modern society from that global warming is probably beyond him, which is why he referred it to the IPCC.

%d bloggers like this: