Denialists & Spammers


I’m talking about AGW Deniers here, and Spammers. And what they have in common. Which is quite a lot. A tendency to gum up the internet with incontinent drivel that they post time and again.

On Wednesday, logging into update the site, I found 30, yes 30 spam messages. Whereas previously I’d joked about this using the Monty Python Spam sketch, the one thing that struck me about this huge pile of spam was that it was obviously a template:

I simply want to say I am just all new to weblog and absolutely savored you’re web blog. Likely I’m planning to bookmark your blog . You absolutely come with beneficial well written articles. Bless you for sharing your web page.

and:

I simply want to tell you that I am just beginner to weblog and honestly liked your web page. Almost certainly I’m want to bookmark your website . You actually have amazing writings. Bless you for sharing your webpage.

Now spammers aren’t that clever and are simply using scripts and pre-generated messages to bombard many websites in the hope a few get through. Sadly, the 30 didn’t (No Mr Spammer, I expect you to get deleted).

So what’s this got to do with AGW Deniers ?

Quite a lot. The same characters turn up time and again with their often pre-scripted comments designed to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

For example:

euangray
27 July 2012 12:10PM

Now, how do you prove that climate change is caused by human activity? Remembering, of course, that (a) the climate has always changed and always will whatever humans do or do not do, and (b) correlation is not causation.

Well that’s an easy enough example to deal with:

OfficeEd
27 July 2012 12:57PM
Response to euangray, 27 July 2012 12:10PM

Analysis of infrared spectrum shows that less heat is escaping atmosphere, and that missing heat just happens to be in the same spectrum that c02 absorbs outgoing radiation.

Declining ratio of c13 & c14 isotopes in atmosphere rule out atmospheric C02 & volcanoc action.

100 ppm rise is c02 levels is matched by a drop in atmospheric 02, to be expected from burning fossil fuels.

Co2 levels in oceans show over absorbtion of c02, so that rules out oceanic outgassing.

The planet aborbs as much c02 as it produces, but I’m pretty sure that humans do not absorb the c02 that they produce, therefore any imbalance in c02 has to be caused by the 25 gigatonnes of additional c02 that human activity produces every year, that stays in the atmosphere for decades.

Now everyone can make mistakes, I do, especially given the number of edits I have to do on this site !

However, there is a time when you know its not just a suspect bit of junk mail you get, when it really is spam:

I simply want to mention I’m newbie to blogging and definitely loved you’re website. Most likely I’m likely to bookmark your blog post . You really come with wonderful article content. Bless you for sharing your web page.

And of course it is all a mistake and they’ll never ever do it again…well not until the next time…

Oh well let’s see here:

euangray
27 July 2012 12:25PM

Response to pretendname, 27 July 2012 12:15PM
The hockey stick algorithm produces a hockey stick shape irrespective of the data input.

Hmm, and let’s see what the response was:

AlanC
27 July 2012 1:28PM

Response to euangray, 27 July 2012 12:25PM

Which you know perfectly well is simply not the truth. I say ‘perfectly well’ as I have seen you pulled up on this many times before and, your being a frequent visitor to climate change threads, have seen other proponents of the ‘any input numbers make a hockey stick identical to Mann’s’ meme told that they are spouting rubbish.

You know, or should do so, that such ‘random input’ hockey sticks were produced by discarding all outcomes that did NOT produce a hockey stick! The old million monkeys + typewriters scenario.

Here’s a collection of hockey sticks, not just the original that makes skeptics/deniers get itchy pants. Can they all be ‘wrong’ in the same way? Is there perhaps a reason why anti-AGW campaigners haven’t been able to turn the hockey stick upside down using the same data since they claim loudly that the world is really cooling?

So really, the spammers are the hooligans of the internet, and the AGW Deniers are the scientific hooligans. neither has an iota of honesty about their actions and will continue to repeat their actions for their own obscure reasons much to the irritation of the rest of us.

Original postings on CiF.

Of course none of them directly claim there is a conspiracy, it’s just that:

  • it’s not happening
  • we don’t know everything about the climate, therefore we know nothing
  • well ok, we know a lot, but it is something we don’t know about, like the sun, nobody’s checked the sun recently have they ?
  • if it is, it’s not us
  • if it is, then it’ll be ok
  • they’re only it it for the money
  • it’s all a scam
  • the data is not available so we can’t check it out
  • the data when it is available has been fiddled with
  • it’s all part of the fascist/communist (?) eco plot for one world government
  • anyway I know more about the first and second laws of Physics than all the world’s scientists for the last 100+ years put together do, and I’m not going to explain it to you because I’m in a huff and…
  • Look ! Behind you. It’s the pope !

Repeat ad nauseam.

Sweet & Tender Hooligan – The Smiths

He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
And he said that he’d never, never do it again
And of course he won’t (oh, not until the next time)

He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
And he swore that he’ll never, never do it again
And of course he won’t (oh, not until the next time)

Poor old man
He had an “accident” with a three-bar fire
But that’s OK
Because he wasn’t very happy anyway
Poor woman
Strangled in her very own bed as she read
But that’s OK
Because she was old and she would have died anyway
DON’T BLAME

The sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
Because he’ll never, never, never, never, never, never do it again
(not until the next time)

Jury, you’ve heard every word
So before you decide
Would you look into those “Mother me” eyes
I love you for you, my love, you my love
You my love, you my love
Jury, you’ve heard every word
But before you decide
Would you look into those “Mother me” eyes
I love you for you my love, you my love
I love you just for you, my love
Don’t blame

The sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
Because he’ll never, never do it again
And …
“In the midst of life we are in death ETC.”
Don’t forget the hooligan, hooligan
Because he’ll never, never do it again
And …
“In the midst of life we are in death ETC.”

ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC!
IN THE MIDST OF LIFE WE ARE IN DEATH ETC!
ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC!
IN THE MIDST OF LIFE WE ARE IN DEBT ETC!

Just will you free me ?
Will you find me ?
Will you free me ?
Will you find me ?
Will you free me, free me, free me, free me, free me, free me, free me ?
Jury will you free me ?
Will you find me ?
Will you free me ?
Will you find me ?
How will you find me, find me, find me, find me, find me, find me, find me ?
Oh ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC!
ETC! ETC! ETC! ETC!
IN THE MIDST OF LIFE WE ARE IN DEBT ETC!
Oh … oh …

One Response to Denialists & Spammers

  1. Erundina says:

    excellent post. many thanks for sharing this resource. thanks so much for everything you’ve put into it this blog has me coming back time and time again.http://www.boliche.com.br/email.htm

%d bloggers like this: