For a while now I've had this deal with AlterNet where if they like a WF post they reprint it, and link back here. This deal has made me fabulously wealthy, in the sense that the stuff I write basically for free gets published somewhere else basically for free. But there are some very substantial benefits, namely, that AlterNet gets some really excellent trolls of the sort I usually don't stumble across.
This post was picked up over there. I'll just republish the trolling. It's fantastic stuff.
First of all, before I posted this comment, I was shown the guidelines of alternet, which say that we should refrain from (I quote):
* personal attacks on our writers or readers
* excessive profanity
* racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language
* comments that are off-topic or irrelevant to the story or discussion at hand
Interestingly, the author of the piece on climate-gate impressively violates ALL FOUR of these. Are these rules only for comments-posters and not for authors? Or is climate preservation so important that alternet makes an exception to these four points here?
But my main point is that the author is completely overlooking the central point of climate-gate: the leaked emails show that the peer-review process itself has been corrupted by the very team of scientists who want us to believe in AGW. That is why in this case we have to investigate the issue carefully.
And we should not get too prejudiced and emotional while defending a thesis about complicated climate phenomena that nobody fully understands yet. No matter how politically correct or morally superior we feel about the issue.
SC
People who don't have the remotest idea what they're talking about sure do get smug when they hear the word "fuck."
And:
I'm sure the "author" of this "article" had many valid points to get across about the apparent non-scandal regarding hacked emails between climate scientists. Too bad their overwhelmingly sneering juvenile attitude, gratuitously pointless profanity & insistence on referring to people only by derogatory insider nicknames almost completely obscured any point they hoped to make.
Perhaps someone should tell this "Thers" that talking a lot of shit & then hoping people click on links to do your job for you does not a journalist (or even opinion columnist) make.
Ironically enough, I believe one of the main thrusts was that climate change deniers engage in suspect journalism & character assassination in order to advance their agenda.
Huh.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
Obscenity, chiefly. Not profanity. I mean, Christ, keep it straight.