Saturday, February 20, 2010

A Poem for the Unknown Blogger

The Man with the Hockey Stick

Whatever the truth is - you will hopefully never be right.
Reading your contributions makes me want to clean the screen of my laptop.
Over the years you have turned into a weird conspiracy theorist.
You are uttering ugly words, mumbling strange numbers and acronyms that nobody does understand except your friends who are like you.
Your mind is full of bitterness, scorn, hate, and the will to destroy.
You are not connected anymore to what you once cared about.

Do you realize that you have made these arguments already a thousand times before?
Do you realize that you permanently repeat yourself?
Do you realize that you have not even read the books you talk about?
Do you realize that you cannot live without your hockey stick anymore, even when you want to get rid of it?
Do you realize that there is not one reader left on the blog?
I bet you don't.

16 comments:

mazibuko said...

Interesting poem. I am not sure of its target, but perhaps you mean it be directed at both the man with, and the man against, the hockey stick?

Anna said...

Hm, I think Hans von Storch will have to add another category to his participant survey: Poet!

Werner, are you suggesting that hockey sticks are addictive?

(perhaps a good title for a new book:

The Hockey Stick Addiction :-)

Got a good laugh, and I think there is some truth in your poem.

P Gosselin said...

Dear Werner,
You really need to sit down, put on some cheerful music and have a nice glass of wine or two.
Really, you sound like you've become quite frustrated by the views you do not agree with. There's really no need to become desperate about it. Taking the high moral high road, appointing oneself as some kind of high authority with the power to condemn and pass judgement on others may feel good - but it is really very unscientific.
Yes. I'm proud to say that the blogger does have a name: P. Gosselin for one, and thousands like him. But don’t worry, you didn’t hurt my feelings at all. You tried to, but it doesn’t work. You can put us down, try to summon up a posse of like-minded to go after us, try to turn the townspeople against us, but we are not going to go anywhere - not until convincing data are put forth. That could be a very long time, lol!
But this is not really what AGW alarmists want, is it? What they really want is for us to be excluded from the discussion. They wish to take our voices away, to silence us. They wish to discredit us, and so they call us names like deniers, flat-earthers, oil industry shills, repeaters, tea-baggers, conspiracy theorists, haters and so on. But all the while we will stay right here and keep asking: "WHERE'S THE PROOF?" Hopefully someday we’ll get more than a tirade of names.

This moral-high-road tactic is a big problem in the climate science issue. We've seen it used by the Team, Al Gore and others - the elitist behaviour of: “we're enlightened, you're not, and so we will tell the rest of you what to do”. Where has it gotten us? Your post I think is really revealing.

And please don't blame us for the hockey stick; we are not the ones who produced it. The house of Mann gave it to us. And you're right - we probably could not live without it - just like the IPCC could not live without it earlier. Ironically, those who lived by the hockey stick, are now dying by it. And it looks like it is going to be a very long and painful death indeed.
I think we should skip the urge to preach down on others in the future. Frankly, I don’t know what this blog was thinking when it posted your comment. Seems it’s trying to provoke. But I'm glad it did post it.
Anyway, I look forward to an open discussion in the future.

P Gosselin said...

For Werner, some humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Come Werner, a little bit of humour. The winter has been a long one. Too long for some of us. So cheer up!

Hans von Storch said...

Werner,

thanks for this contribution. It is spelling out the problem we are facing here - namely that some participants use the ZWIEBEL to voice again and again the same points. It would be good if we could generate the joint understanding that just staying silent does not mean acceptance; that name calling is doing nothing but creating aggressions, that words like "stupid" and "liar" are unnecessary. Also, people should stop writing as "anonymous", but should use their name or adopt an alias, so that one can identify different posting of the same person as such.

I will add something along these lines to the general discription of the blog. I will also more often use the tool of deleting unhelpful ranting postings; also lengthy explanations of amateur-theories will be deleted.

Hans

P Gosselin said...

"Your mind is full of bitterness, scorn, hate, and the will to destroy.
You are not connected anymore to what you once cared about."

Prof. von Storch, with all due respect, voicing an argument in this blog "again and again" does not warrant the kind of lanugauge used by Werner. Surely you can agree.
When unreasonable alarmist claims are made "again and again", then the arguments have to be repeated "again and again", until they penetrate and sink in. People should not be scandalised for performing the courtesy of repeating speech to deaf ears.
In the meantime, we have to be patient until new arguments emerge. Also note, that one side was denied a voice for years, and is now thus compelled to get the message out. There's some catching up to do.

Hans von Storch said...

True, when one side says something "again and again", the other is tempted to do the same. That is exactly the frustrating circle we have to break. The problem is not deaf ears but disrespect for other people's opinions. We are not fighting a war but try to establish a unique discussion between rather different groups, sceptics and warmists, lay people and scientists, natural and social scientists.

We all know by now, P. Gosselin, that you are a strong skeptic, fine, be it - and be invited to discuss issues beyond the "closed/open case".

Hans

Werner Krauss said...

P. Gosselin, just to clarify:
this is 'A Poem for an UNKNOWN Blogger', and it is called 'The Man with the Hockey Stick'. It is not called 'P. Gosselin'.

P.S. Just imagine it were about your favorite alarmist-enemy (one of those you want to see die slowly and painfully - see your above comment). It should work.

Pedro S said...

Werner krauss said:
"P.S. Just imagine it is about your favorite alarmist-enemy (one of those you want to see die slowly and painfully - see your above comment)"

Unfortunately, this thread seems to be evolving (or destined to) towards name-calling and accusation. The original text by P. Gosselin did not state any such desire. It stated
"Ironically, those who lived by the hockey stick, are now dying by it. And it looks like it is going to be a very long and painful death indeed." The use of a metaphor is evident, and such mis-attribution of words to P. Gosselin (as well as the attribution of "bitterness, scorn, hate, and the will to destroy" to one side (whatever that one is, though from previous contributions by Werner Krauss I have an inkling what he means ;-)) makes me consider that "disrespect for other people's opinions" will be hard to overcome around here.... I was expecting rigorous arguments, clear identification of climate-related information, et.
Unfortunately, I guess I will have to look somehwere else for that.

Werner Krauss said...

Pedro S.

I agree, P. Gosselin used a metaphor. I used irony. Do you agree?
No, it is not one sided. It is not about sides. It is poem for the unknown blogger.

Henk Hak said...

Werner,
A proposal; it would be interesting to see how bloggers here
feel they fit in the spectrum between "alarmists", "warmists", "lukewarmers" and "deniers", and "don't know"(and we definitely have to come up with better terms than these quotes)."Skeptic" is not in here as everyone with a scientific bent should be a skeptic to some degree.
Not an extensive survey, but just answering a few questions. Including a bit of a commitment regarding what kind of changes we feel are needed -if any- regarding mitigation /adaptation.
Personally I can only say regarding AGW that I don't know it is a real threat but that the possibility exists. I think it is somewhat unlikely, but the consequenses are potentially very serious.
As far as what action to take: I think carbon credits and carbon tax are futile and the wrong way to go. Of the alternative energy sources nuclear power is the most likely to be helpful(unfortunately)
I agree with Bill Gates ( see Pielke jr's post)that our major effort should be in innovation.

I realize this sounds a bit pedantic as I do not give any qualifiers, but this is what a profile could look like. A survey cannot ask every individual for his/her reasoning, that would be too unwieldy.
Just a suggestion
Cheers
Henk

Henk Hak said...

One correction. I think it is somewhat unlikely: meaning it is somewhat unlikely to be a problem in the future. That could be because there is not going to be AGW or if there is it may not be that consequential.
So should read: it is somewhat unlikely to be a problem, but the consequences if there is substantial AGW could be potentially very serious.
So a question what people think would happen if there is going to be AGW could also be included.

Henk Hak said...

And people should be able to remain anonymous in answering if they want to

itisi69 said...

"Do you realize that there is not one reader left on the blog?"
That would be very, very sad. This blog is very recommanded for it's Open Mind (pun intended) and moderate tone. Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita deserve every credit and respect for their initiative.

Hans von Storch said...

Henk/13 - using an alias is not contradicting the wish/need to be anonymous.

Hans von Storch said...

Pedro S/9 - come on: Werner's poem was obviously addressing the two groups in our discussion, which seem not to be willing to listen to arguments but simply know it. Knowing Werner quite well, I am certain that he means both sides. Admittedly, I personally like the poem.
Also, I do not see that "this thread seems to be evolving (or destined to) towards name-calling and accusation", in particular when we all try to avoid that :-).
When you say "I was expecting rigorous arguments, clear identification of climate-related information, et. Unfortunately, I guess I will have to look somehwere else for that.", I wish you good luck. Good bye.
Hans

PS: This comment was oriniginally falsely listed under "is climate physics" and has been copied to this location on 26. February 2010.