14 March, 2011

A Photograph for Doubters

Some people have accused me of being not a real high-school student but a concoction by some big company.  As you can see,  this ID card* is from last year, when I was in Grade 7—the term is used interchangeably with “Year 7” and “First Year” throughout my school.

* class photographs have not yet been taken this year at my school.


  1. You do not have to prove who you are. That's private.

  2. On Bishop Hill, a commenter didn't say he didn't believe you weren't you. He said an *adult* wrote the account, not you. Others agree with that assessment.

    Whether you wrote it or not, it's quite obvious that you are just repeating claims by others, not anything to do with the science of climate change.

    Perhaps you will learn that disagreeing with political policies does NOT mean the science was made up by thousands of climate scientists who have somehow magically managed to independently invent a "hoax" and keep it secret for the last 30 years to "take away your rights and get your money."

    The overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates that AGW is real. Those like Bishop Hill and James Delingpole are trying to evade that they can't make their political philosophy wrap around the idea that global government cooperation of all the world's governments, no matter if they are democratic or totalitarian, have to cooperate. They hate that idea so they HAVE to pretend the science is a conspiracy and not real.

    So, Alfred, when you pretend a reality is not real you are telling the world you are not going to participate in solutions, but will sit on the sidelines, content to let those who promote policies with which you disagree to take your place.

    You can learn this on your own if you choose to learn to think critically for yourself. You'll find the real hoax is being played on you, that you are being used for political purposes by those like Bishop Hill and James Delingpole, that they depend on you being gullible and credulous.

    The choice is yours.

  3. This guy 'bjedwards' is just creepy.Plain creepy.

  4. It's easy to show why Alfred shouldn't be taken in by climate science deniers like you, ItsFairComment.

  5. Climate Science ...HA HA ha ha hah

    Get back in your box watermelon and leave this kid alone. He's fighting the good fight.

    Remember Alf, if you want to annoy a capitalist, tell him a lie. If you want to annoy a socialist, tell them the truth.

  6. Alfred should be beginning to see why people like Tardkiller want to convince him that science is "all politics, all the time", that climate science is not real but only a competing matter of ideologies. These people are desperate to convince you that the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW is real is nothing more than a massive conspiracy of thousands of scientists against you.

    Beware of those charlatans, Alfred.

  7. It is people like bjedwards who are making climate science a matter of ideologies, and not a matter of actual science. Quoth he "The overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates that AGW is real."
    'peer-reviewed': how many scientists are actually involved in the 'review'? 'overwhelming': who many are actually involved and how many actually disagree? 'science': where is the actual evidence?
    Where is there any untainted evidence for increasing temperatures? In 1986 James Hansen predicted that we would see average temperatures from 2 to 4 degrees F above 1986 levels. Actual change? Maybe down a couple of tenths...How many tenths? Well that's a difficult question to answer because roughly three-quarters of the stations then existing are now ignored or shuttered and *there is no standardization for the numbers reported*.
    Alfred, keep on questioning. bjedwards response is totally typical of those *who do not want you to think*.
    If numbers of adherents actually meant anything *in science* (as distinct to other areas of life), we'd all eat shit, 'cause billions of flies do.

  8. Well, to be fair, a big company could easily fake an ID like that...just joking, I trust you!
    Not that it makes much difference, because clearly your previous post was NOT about climate science, but what they call "climate science" at your school, which is
    (a) very different from the consensus, no matter whether the consensus is correct or not; and
    (b) not of much interest to me, since I do not live in Australia.
    But the story made me laugh, so I thought I'd write this comment to cheer you on.

  9. "Anonymous said...

    It is people like bjedwards who are making climate science a matter of ideologies, and not a matter of actual science."

    Good point, also put forward here:

    "The problem with climate science is that, as with any religion, there are diametrically opposed beliefs, each of which has its followers, and each of which vociferously claims to represent the truth. Research is moving away from active questioning of the science toward manipulation of public opinion. Playing the game of politics is much more fun than continuing with what is turning out to be fairly mundane research. Running ever-bigger computer models of an inherently uncertain climate system is not as intellectually rewarding as it was. "

    Night all, :-)

  10. Our bevy of climate science deniers here won't be able to tell Alfred how one is to determine what the science of climate change says. Deniers don't have a scientific methodology; they can only make claims and hope others will accept them.

    The scientific method is anathema to science deniers. They can't produce the science to demonstrate they are right. They can cherry-pick, move the goal posts, repeat debunked nonsense ad infinitum, but they cannot refute the science.

    An editorial in Nature this week sums it up nicely:

    Nature | Editorial

    Into ignorance

    Journal name: Nature, Volume:471,Pages: 265–266
    Date published: (17 March 2011)

    "Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in US Congress."

    "It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible."


  11. Naomi Oreskes: Scientists Who Lie
    19 Mar 2011, 11:00

    "Ever since climate scientists first began examining the evidence that our planet was heating up and that human activities were probably to blame, contrarian experts have appeared on the media circuit to spruik an alternative case. They question the data, attack the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who collect and explain it and create confusion when clarity is needed.

    "Naomi Oreskes outlines the history of a deliberate and well-funded campaign to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge of not just climate change, but also the link between smoking and tobacco, coal smoke and acid rain. Over the last four decades, these 'scientists who lie' have skewed the public understanding of some of the most critical environmental issues of our era. So why do they do it?"

    Continued at:

  12. @bje For at least the last three years you have stalked several blogs with essentially the same material that you are using here. All that you do is target any blog that disagrees with your view on any point (holocaust, tobacco, mercury, animal rights, creation, flat Earth....) and claim that people who disagree with you are holocaust-deniers and/or are "suffering" from some "disorder" (denialism). You then carpet-bomb the blogs with the same material repeatedly, differing from the previous blog only by changing the topic name. Please desist.

  13. @bje Naomi Oreskes appears to be some Californian politician or other and the Australian video you linked to is purely internal party politics with no scientific input at all. Even then it does not address either the CAGW fraud itself or the problem of extricating the Western countries from the economic, political and engineering muddle that has resulted from the fraud.

  14. I'm confident that Alfred is beginning to see the nature of denialism and why those people like deschildrenedfathered and ItsFairComment don't want you to see the fraud they are perpetuating on Alfred.

    Alfred will note that Naomi Oreskes is a professor of History and Science Studies who exposed those who deliberately lie about climate science. Her book, "Merchants of Doubt" exposes the frauds an charlatans. More here: