Thursday, June 4, 2015

How To "Settle" A "Science"

Don't get the "correct" answer? Change the data!
NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C."
Yessir. That's how settled science is done these days. Now if aeronautical engineers fudged their data to make it look better, would you ride in their aircraft? If civil engineers fudged their data, would you use their bridges? If anyone, ANYONE does that, why would anyone else believe them? EVER?

So how will they make the extra ice pack disappear, I wonder? Photoshop the satellite photos? Nothing is sacred in the wacky universe of climate mongering.

I wonder how much political pressure was asserted to get "more correct" data? I bet some day a whistle-blower will reveal the truth on his death bed...

27 comments:

Steven Satak said...

They will monkey with it until it says what they want. We don't have to believe it. They will jigger it and jigger it and jigger it and all the while, they'll be looking down their noses at the 'deniers'.

It's about ego and cash. Never has been anything else.

Russell (106) said...

These people have put their thumbs on the scales and expect people to pretend things are fair and square.

It reads like communist propaganda.

"Comrade! We have purged the records of reactionary activities that hid the true nature of our danger! We have unmasked the tyrant hiding behind the old records which was keeping the workers from receiving what is rightly theirs: social justice! Change is coming, comrades, hot and fierce, it will lay the capitalist pigdogs low while raising the underclass up in its tidal wave of our righteousness! "


Morton said...

Perhaps you should read the actual source instead of opinion pieces. Nobody wants to purposely make global warming look worse, stop believing conspiracy theories! It would be great if the warming was slowing down, for all of us, but unfortunately it seems that the data was wrong.

Scientists work hard to understand the data and were confused by the slow down for good reasons, as it appears that lots of ship data was wrong.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

Stan said...

Oh sure. They find out over a decade later that the data which they said was TRUE was, in fact, "false". No. That is not credible in any universe. If they used false data, then they should be fired from their jobs and from the industry. Claiming to have found it at this late date is inexcusable by any standard of legitimacy.

What else will they find? What other data is false? What other measurements need to be "adjusted"? When will they find THAT data?

The most generous thing to be said is that this is gross incompetence. No other endeavor in life would allow this sort of latent "adjustment" - Banks? Tax Accountants? Well, maybe lawyers. But no one else could walk away with their heads high, claiming Oopsie.

The more likely alternative here is malfeasance, and its not like it is the first time, and its not like the lot of them are not activists at heart.

Stan said...

I love this part:

"The apparent slowdown was termed a “hiatus,” and inspired a suite of physical explanations for its cause, including changes in radiative forcing, deep ocean heat uptake, and atmospheric circulation changes"

Now they are admitting that their "explanations" were bogus, just stories created to fill the gap. But of course, at the time the stories were quite serious science, not to be questioned by anyone who is not a member of the tribe.

It's interesting that more and more people are noticing the identity signalling that is used to notify everyone of one's membership in the tribe. The tribal identity signalling cues are Climate Change (back to "Global Warming" now?), abortion without conscience or oversight, sexual rights to marriage and to persecute Christians for all sex alphabet signals, and the ever popular fem/rape.

Thirty years ago it was "Free Speech" for flag burners/defecators, but speech is now understood to be quite dangerous to the fainting goats, um, Left, and calling for McCarthyist censorship is now the tribal signal. I'm sure that questioning the Climate Data is cause for palpitations and brown bag breathing amongst tribe members. I don't want that, so I'll sign off here before the brown shirts show up...

JBsptfn said...

Here is the Blogger profile of a scientist who has a few blogs dedicated to showing how Global Warming isn't man-made:

Blogger: Dan Pangburn

Morton said...

What do people have to gain from pretending the Earth is warming? Nothing. What do oil companies have to gain to make people doubt? A lot.

Scientists have been noting that the greenhouse effect would cause warming long term. From the 60s, 70s, yet you'll claim that some predicted cooling, right? Right? ? Thats because you are fooled by what tou read, by who you read. Scientists vastly predicted warming, and more and more do so. The apparent slowing down was confusing so they researched more, you know, doing what scientists do, fixing mistakes. They could have confirmed that temperatures are stabilizing, but no, they found otherwise. Deal with it!

Good job buddy, you've been fooled by the powerful rich who know how to manipulate people like you by making you believe it's a liberal vs conservative thing, and they used just enough buzz words for you to think they are on your side. They are not, they are on their own side and nonone else's. Now you'll think it works the same for actual scientists working on real climare science? No, think again, because that's 97% of them, but you picked the 3% because it appears to fit your values. Just 'appear'.

You have been played. You're gullible. And wrong!

Stan said...

"What do people have to gain from pretending the Earth is warming? Nothing"

"People" have a LOT to gain. The scientists get massive funding. The activists get to satisfy their Messiah-Class egos. The Leftists get a wonderful opportunity for world-governance, world tax laws created outside the domains of national boundaries, transfer of huge amounts of wealth from the hated western nations to the beloved Victimhood-Class nations, and the cheesy scolds like Nye and Gore get to be on the Leftist MSM TV at every natural disaster.

"What do oil companies have to gain to make people doubt? A lot."

Oil companies do not have any input to my criticism. I have no contact with oil companies. Your implication is false and is denied categorically and emphatically. You are the victim of your own conspiracy theory.

So let's get practical: There is no technology which comes into the same energy content ballpark right now. Find a pickup truck that runs on solar, go ahead. Or a locomotive. Or a semi-tractor-trailer. Or an office building full of computers. You hate oil, so what? Stop using it. Go ahead. The electricity in your computer is highly likely oil generated, unless you live near a wind farm, where the birds are exploded to generate it, at least a little of it.

"Scientists have been noting that the greenhouse effect would cause warming long term. From the 60s, 70s, yet you'll claim that some predicted cooling, right? Right? ? Thats because you are fooled by what tou read, by who you read."

I was there in the '60's and that is exactly what they said. And you have no idea what or who I read. Your arrogance is astounding.

" Scientists vastly predicted warming, and more and more do so. The apparent slowing down was confusing so they researched more, you know, doing what scientists do, fixing mistakes."

I was cognizant of such things as far back as the Geophysical Year. Your implication that I am a fool is generated by your own ignorance of me, my history, and also by your own personal arrogance. I suspect that I have generated and performed more experiments than any CC scientist, and probably anyone who comes here to explain science to me - and I have done years of computer simulations and I know exactly what their value is. So your implications are mere impudence and without any knowledge content.

And how many "mistakes" are left to be fixed? You seem to think that science is some sort of god of the truth. Science is always subject to being overturned, always contingent. Making it into an ideology is not only false it is intellectually dangerous and results in a class of self-declared gods and worshippers of a false religion which cannot be questioned without charges of heresy and condemnation. Exactly like you are doing.

I actually don't care that the climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing, always has and always will. We are still emerging from an ice age. If you want stasis, you live on the wrong planet.

Stan said...

"The apparent slowing down was confusing so they researched more, you know, doing what scientists do, fixing mistakes. They could have confirmed that temperatures are stabilizing, but no, they found otherwise. Deal with it!"

Actually, they DID find that temperatures were stabilizing, they made up all sorts of stories to cover that eventuality, and those stories became gospel in the AGW religion, but they needed an adjustment, didn't they?

Well of course they did. Are you that blind that you cannot see the impropriety of this very, very late in the game, post hoc adjustment which just happens to fall in line with all the other "adjustments" they have made to the data over the past three decades? They declare old data to be bad... just because. And so it gets an adjustment to make it "good". That is not science. Any engineer on the planet would be fired for doing that, and here's why:

Real data (in real science) has measurable, repeatable consequences. Climate data does not. It cannot repeated for April 23, 1987, can it? Of course not. It is not a falsifiable proposition to declare it either good data or bad. So they can declare the old sensors bad, measurement "normalization" necessary, change data at will, and no one will ever know the truth about it. Not even them. IT IS NOT EMPIRICAL. It is not replicable, falsifiable, accessible science, unless the concept of objective knowledge is discarded altogether. And that, of course, is exactly what is being done.

Stan said...

"Good job buddy, you've been fooled by the powerful rich who know how to manipulate people like you by making you believe it's a liberal vs conservative thing, and they used just enough buzz words for you to think they are on your side."

Really? The messiah leftists are not full-bore in support of Climate Change, panic-mode cash transfers at every environmental meeting? What planet do you live on? Perhaps you might try getting some news from other than the WaPo, NYT, HuffPo lefty news censors. There are plenty of sources, many, many which provide the news which the leftists won't allow into print. There is today a huge salad bar of news, replete with links to original sources. All supported with electricity generated primarily by oil, coal, and a few nukes, and little else.

"Now you'll think it works the same for actual scientists working on real climare science? No, think again, because that's 97% of them, but you picked the 3% because it appears to fit your values. Just 'appear'."

Using numbers like 97% indicate a probable lie. why not use 99%? And I don't often quote any of your "3%", if ever. So your accusation is presumptious and quite, quite false.

There is no such thing as 'real climate science'. It is not repeatable, it is not falsifiable, it is treated like a religion of the elite class and messiah class and is used as a sharpened weapon in the class war - just as you are doing, well trying to do. You have given no reason to believe that you are not a fully indoctrinated acolyte of the Messiah Class, here to scold and attack the hated Oppressor Class. Your religious devotion to a non-science is evidence for that.

The Climate has always changed and it will continue to change; we are still emerging from an ice age. That is the only fact that is firm enough to believe.

There are now a number of known ancient cities which are under 30 to 100 feet of salt water. That will continue. It would continue with or without the oil companies, with or without Al Gore and Bill Nye, with or without George Soros, with or without the faux science of Climate Prediction based on data manipulation and story-telling, with or without the self-anointed saviors of the universe starting with Gaia, with or without humans on the planet.

You cannot prove that any criticism is wrong, despite your confident declaration. That's because the data is manipulated, it is non-replicable, the manipulators must be "trusted" because they are the elites. Only they can overturn their previous declarations (as any gods are so enabled).

So your statement is a belief without justification: a blind belief.

Stan said...

Speaking of energy content, I loved the idea of a solar plane trying to go around the world. And I found it interesting that the plane had to be grounded because of cloudiness over the Pacific due to storms. Solar energy, wind, tidal, fuel cells all exist and are inefficient. But big money is to be had due to "anthropogenic" warming - think Solyndra and the missing government largesse.

Any time the chicken little's show up with both panic and a plan, check your wallet and count your silverware. Don't let them near your daughters, either.

Robert Coble said...

@Morton: I challenge you to provide the actual data from the study or studies of actual climate scientists which was conducted regarding your claim:

"Now you'll think it works the same for actual scientists working on real climare science? No, think again, because that's 97% of them, but you picked the 3% because it appears to fit your values."

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain

97% of all bogus statistics are made up on the spur of the moment; the remaining 3% might be related to actual data in some obscure way.

(You can pick any particular percentages you want when you are making up the statistics out of whole cloth.)

I also was "there" during the 1960-1970 time period - in college. We were constantly bombarded (in classes which had NOTHING to do with climatology, such as philosophy) with the drumbeat of the academic Chicken Littles regarding - wait for it - global COOLING. Go back and read books of the time like The Limits To Growth, consider the dire predictions that were extrapolated on the basis of general models and the impending disasters that were predicted and the near time frames predicted for these disasters - and then consider how many of these predictions actually came true: NONE OF THEM.


Robert Coble said...

Consider these "laws" of modeling:

Crazy Bob's Law 1: Any sufficiently complicated model is indistinguishable from - garbage.

Crazy Bob's Law 2: The value of any model is directly proportional to the parameters and quantity of data that are EXCLUDED from consideration within the model.

Crazy Bob's Corollary 1: The reliability of any model is inversely proportional to the quantity of EXCLUDED parameters and data. The more parameters and data EXCLUDED, the higher the probability that the model does NOT accurately represent "reality."

Crazy Bob's Law 3: When faced with a difference between the raw data (under the overly generous assumption that the raw data has been collected and retained without ideological bias or a hidden agenda) and the model, BELIEVE THE RAW DATA!

Crazy Bob's Law 4: In all computer models: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. You cannot tweak a computer model to give the desired results without turning the model into garbage, resulting in garbage as the output. (Actually, this is not Crazy Bob's law at all; it's just an adaptation of a known COMPUTER law to modeling.) This is a corollary to the fact that testing software CANNOT (even in principle) introduce higher quality into software that does not possess it prior to testing.

Crazy Bob's Law 5: The strong tendency to uncritically accept the results of any computer model is inversely proportional to the direct knowledge of and experience with doing computer modeling. The more "inside information" that one possesses about the process and the difficulties involved, the less likely one is to accept the results uncritically, and vice versa. I was always amazed at how many otherwise knowledgeable people would believe garbage SOLELY and without question because it came out of a computer system.

Crazy Bob's Law 6: Any computer model that cannot track and project a high degree of correlation with the raw data consistently is a flawed model that cannot be relied upon for any reason.

Those are just some of the things that come to mind as a former professional modeler. I'm sure there are many other "laws" that can be (and probably have been) formulated regarding modeling and the inherent risks of doing it WRONG. Since I'm no longer in the modeling business, I no longer have the desire nor the patience to formulate all the different ways that modeling can be done WRONG. So few ways to do it right; an infinity of ways to do it wrong.

I'm quite sure that those specific "laws" given above are 97% accurate, and the remaining 3% are (perhaps) exceptions to the rule, based on my personal experience. (I could be slightly mistaken (+/-98%) on those percentages because I just pulled them out my arse.)

Morton said...

Told you would fight for this ridiculous idea of cooling, why are you so delusional? Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.
There was an article in the Times for instance, good source right? Well.no! They quoted a scientist saying we were going into an ice age, but left out the part that he meant in like 10,000 years when the Earth axis tilts enough again. READ PEOPLE.

Morton said...

Read and find clues by the way. Do some detective work. Dont just be fed what you want to hear, dont just judge the surface with your preconceived ideas, don't be fooled by the cover. Right wing news and bloggers are not your friends just because you agree with them in general, just like people disagree with in general are not necessarily liars on every single topic.

You get fooled easily, you should know by now, so start realizing that your bullshit radar is not awesome, be more patient before judging, loom at subtle clues, at more sources, etc...

Stan said...

Were you there? Or do you just quote leftwing bullshit as if is the truth? You're sure a preachy Messiahist aren't you? In fact, I'm starting to view you as just another troll, based on your terminology and lack of production of actual facts, but hyper production of self-righteous self-backslapping and arrogant condescension.

Read the most recent post, with the opinion of other scientists. Do it. Then tell us just how right you are, all over again. And don't bother telling me that Monckton is not a scientist, I know that. You want to attack his position, then do that... with data.

It's pretty obvious that these other scientists feel that the hiatus exists (or existed) and that the anti-hiatus stuff is bogus. That, at a minimum, means that the question is NOT settled, as you want everyone to believe. So your condescension is falsely applied, and your preaching is bogus. But buck up: I no longer care what you say on the subject either way, anyway. You are a shill for the cause, and yes it is that obvious.

Robert Coble said...

READ PEOPLE. Really? That's it?!? Physician, heal thyself! Please take a quick READ of the subsequent posts on this blog.

The probability is rapidly increasing toward 1 that there is another troll loose among the commenters. The "tell" is the Ad Hominem (abusive) becoming increasingly virulent, combined with the generalizations without any supporting data, even when requested explicitly. Instead, requests for actual data are ignored.

I am 97% confident that the actual data demonstrating that 97% of "actual scientists working on real climare [sic] science" are in agreement on global climate cooling/warming/change/whatever will NOT be forthcoming, with a statistical probability approaching 1. I have a 3% chance that I might be wrong - . Rhetorical flourishes seldom are accompanied with precision statistics. (This paragraph is a prime example of that "pull it out of your arse" rhetorical phenomenon.)

Keeping scientists in lock step with an agenda, any agenda, is almost as difficult (impossible?) as keeping programmers working toward a particular design goal on a large software project. It has been considered to be almost as difficult as herding cats.

Engineers are an entirely different, disciplined breed of cat, who consequently do not manifest herd behavior. They also generally [97% of the time, rhetorically speaking] do NOT suffer fools gladly. The tipping point approaches!

Steven Satak said...

Morton, you lost me when you started your reply with 'ridiculous' and 'delusional'. You're emoting, not thinking rationally, and it shows in your ad-hominem-laced 'argument'. Your ability to reason, what there is left of it, appears to be giving way to your rapidly expanding ego.

And please, the first and best way to demonstrate that you got nothing? Is to tell us to 'go out and do our homework'. Do your own lifting, pal. I got better things to do than research on the internet and the library to see if the crap you throw up is worthy of argument. It takes a lot of time for me to do the research to support or refute your opinions. It takes you only a few minutes to blow low-quality smoke up my ass.

Come back when you've calmed down. Right now you're every teenage leftwing doofus I've ever seen in the atheist echo chambers. Not a good start for you - unless you're just here to feed your ego. In which case, graze elsewhere. You'll get no sustenance from me.

Morton said...

Of course I am another troll! The question is: why can't you ever tell Stan?

There was 1 obvious piece of evidence but you still don't see it!

And if you cannot even tell who is who on your own blog, if you cannot even judge when you are being used, laughed at or engaged in a meaningful way, how can you expect to be able to read the thousands of online resources at your disposal and sort through to find the truth?

Think about it, you are getting fooled here, right now, under your nose, yet you think you are not being fooled by experts manipulating information online? You think you can tell who's right or wrong on ANY issue when you cannot even yell who's lying to your face?

And of course this applies to Robert too... unless he is fake too and you like his fake support? Or what about Phoenix who mysteriously has a very young blogger profile and seem to have interacted only with you here on your blog, except for a few entries on his side?

This is 2015 sir, I don't think you get it yet...

Anam said...

Of course I am another troll! The question is: why can't you ever tell Stan?

There was 1 obvious piece of evidence but you still don't see it!

And if you cannot even tell who is who on your own blog, if you cannot even judge when you are being used, laughed at or engaged in a meaningful way, how can you expect to be able to read the thousands of online resources at your disposal and sort through to find the truth?

Think about it, you are getting fooled here, right now, under your nose, yet you think you are not being fooled by experts manipulating information online? You think you can tell who's right or wrong on ANY issue when you cannot even yell who's lying to your face?

And of course this applies to Robert too... unless he is fake too and you like his fake support? Or what about Phoenix who mysteriously has a very young blogger profile and seem to have interacted only with you here on your blog, except for a few entries on his side?

This is 2015 sir, I don't think you get it yet...

LiberalViewer said...

Of course I am another troll! The question is: why can't you ever tell Stan?

There was 1 obvious piece of evidence but you still don't see it!

And if you cannot even tell who is who on your own blog, if you cannot even judge when you are being used, laughed at or engaged in a meaningful way, how can you expect to be able to read the thousands of online resources at your disposal and sort through to find the truth?

Think about it, you are getting fooled here, right now, under your nose, yet you think you are not being fooled by experts manipulating information online? You think you can tell who's right or wrong on ANY issue when you cannot even yell who's lying to your face?

And of course this applies to Robert too... unless he is fake too and you like his fake support? Or what about Phoenix who mysteriously has a very young blogger profile and seem to have interacted only with you here on your blog, except for a few entries on his side?

This is 2015 sir, I don't think you get it yet...

LiberalViewer said...

GOOD YOU POSTED ALL 3!
Now did you find why it was obvious trolling????? Or do you concede you have no bullshit detector whatsoever and are GULLIBLE?

Stan said...

Yeah, it is hard to tell, except for the fact that certain commenters lack any sense or rationality. That always boils down to you, of course. The problem is whether to extend you courtesy until I determine for certain that you are not an actual adult human person wanting a discussion. I am finding it difficult to extend that courtesy because I suspect that new or infrequent visitors are actually childish vandals >> you.

You are not deserving of courtesy, being merely the cretin intent on disruption. But since others - not you - but others in general, are deserving of courtesy, that does make me vulnerable to your stupidity. It will always be that way for the civilized in the world, who do give the benefit of the doubt to those undeserving of it, and wind up victimized by those who take advantage merely for the perversion of it.

Perhaps you will grow up; perhaps you do not have that capability. Either way you will undoubtedly show up with new sock puppets to prove to yourself that you are something which in fact you are not and cannot be. Because that is the underlying problem for vandals, you see. They cannot, for what ever personal defect, join the adult world. So they become envious and seek to place themselves in it by their default mode, which is juvenalia inserted into the path of adult conversations. By doing so, the maturity-impaired can feel some degree of control over that which he cannot actually understand, join, or demonstrate mature self-control during adult interactions.

In your case you claim to think that you can teach a lesson by vandalizing a site. As if you were mature enough to actually have a valid opinion. You are not, of course, mature in any prefrontal lobe context, and your lies are wholly transparent in their silly fallacies, and even your multifarious false personality attempts are seen through quickly due to their lack of sanity, although it's not always immediately obvious that it is you, as opposed to another, different, juvenile vandal.

If you choose to actually contribute to an adult conversation, you and anyone are welcome. But you do not have that capability, and more's the pity for you. I'd not want to be stuck in the mental mode of a nine year old, myself. But I know that many are. Perhaps there will someday be stem cell or DNA/polymerase therapy which can assist you to advance further with the neural generation you lack and sorely need, so you can catch up, mentally. I hope so, because life as a perpetual nine-year old vandal cannot be as fulfilling as actual adulthood.

LiberalViewer said...

Therefore the answer is NO YOU STILL DON'T KNOW? Ok!!
You call this vandalism? Oh my... but that's so wrong again. The 'vandalism' part is tiny tiny. What does matter is the game with your gullibility. You still think that only the irrational sounding sock puppets are trolls?? How can someone be so wrong... This is an experiment about you Stan not about your blog's content. It's about testing how you interpret things, how good you are at spotting mistakes and clues, but mostly how bad you are of course, since you FAIL.

Stan said...

Yes Hugo, you have said the word "experiment" before. You are not capable of comprehending the concept, however. So, like so many times before, you will need a new sockpuppet, and a new false persona, because your tripe will be cancelled summarily.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan, I hope things are going well with you! I had told myself I would not visit your blog, but decided to take a peek just now and, here I am, even commenting. Because, I have no idea what on Earth happened here but, you seem to think that I wrote under some other sockpuppet names to troll you!?

Going through the latest posts, I see at least 1 more, on the second page, with a lot of comments, 70+, and there too you mentioned my name. So for a while now? Anyway... I may never have been your "friend", since we disagree so strongly on many things, but would never "troll" you for no reason other than annoying you, or to get attention, which may be goals of the troll you complain about...

In the past, I actually suggested you turn blogger profile ON to avoid that kind of annoying trolling, which you apparently forgot, since you called me a troll a few months ago when I engaged you. Anyway, sorry if you have issues with trolls but this is not my style, and I can actually give you another piece of advice here, since he seems to be laughing at you for not figuring out about his multiple profiles.

In reality, they aren't really multiple profiles, or only a couple perhaps... On this thread for instance, you can see that the 3 identical posts above all point to the same blogger ID "06488103549671253732". So even if the profile is 'Not Available' you can still know it's the same one. He just changed the display name... The mere fact that the profile is 'not Available' should be a red flag in my opinion, though I suppose some people would just choose that on purpose. The other problem is that you cannot see since when the profile exists. A profile created the same day as the comment would be another red flag... This means the 'Martin' on the other thread could be fake. The 'Martin' I recall had a blog called 'Rocket Philosophy' and if you Google that, you get to see his actual profile:
https://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685
I don't see why he would use another profile instead... and by the way, just good old ignoring is probably the best solution.

While I am at it... some troll used my own name before, probably the same... I recall you actually noticing that; the way he was writing was not exactly the same as I do, as he was super rude or something like that. I appreciated that from you, at that point; I don't know why you now think the exact opposite and concluded it's actually me, doing the trolling... Trust me, I have better things to do... Did he say he was me, on older post I have not seen? I didn't search much... Or the problem might be that I used other names in the past? But that was years ago, 3+ years, back when I was still in QC. Since I moved to the US, my lifestyle changed a lot, and I have a much more demanding job for instance. Plus, the goal was never to 'troll' you using other nicknames, but simply just conversing using slightly different viewpoints. I don't even recall using the word 'experiment', but that's possible I admit.

So honestly, good luck with that, and please don't be so cynical as to think that people are radicalizing, and that you feel you are yourself in return. You don't sound radical at all compared to the real radicals of this century, around the world! And these radicals are our common enemies, for sure.

Robert Coble said...

HUGO the idiot troll (redundant, I know) masquerading as LiberalViewer asks yet another rhetorical question:

"And of course this applies to Robert too... unless he is fake too and you like his fake support?"

Stan already knows my real identity, confirmed through alternate communication channels. My "support" is not fake: I despise intellectual cowards like you who commit vandalism while hiding behind aliases.

What a pitiful little thing you are, trapped inside the tiny prison that you have created within your own mind!