What is an internet troll? The following article might help explain where these idiots come from who come onto a blog like this and post ignorant, inflammatory comments trying to discredit what is being said here in honesty and sincerity. They can't argue science so they attack the messengers, those trying to tell the truth about the myth of man-caused global warming. It is a calculated, ideological assault, using the same tactics revealed by the climate "scientists" exposed in the ClimateGate scandal. Read on.
slang, a troll is someone who posts
inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as
an online discussion forum, chat
room or blog, with
the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
18 April 2010 (source)
You may have noticed the strong stench of troll lurking below this blog of late. (Hat tip Barry Woods)
And here’s the reason:
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.
To sign up, enter your e-mail address in the box below:
You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles. We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy. You can contribute to as little or as many articles as you like, just dive in.
It comes from an organisation called the Campaign Against Climate Change. Its honorary president is George Monbiot; its vice-presidents are three politicians – self-hating public school socialist Michael Meacher; Norman Baker (who he?); overpromoted Green MEP Caroline Lucas; and its advisers include the usual crazed rag-bag of yoghurt weaving, Atomkraft-Nein-Danke loons.
Apparently the reason we sceptics and evil deniers are doing so well at the moment is because of all the massive funding we receive from Big Oil.
It has recently been revealed that Koch Industries, a little-known, privately owned US oil company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million. Closer to home, it has been suggested that Shell’s funding of an exhibition at the Science Museum may be linked to the museum stepping back from its earlier strong stance on climate change.
Also, we’re psychologically damaged and love making stuff up:
Those who actively promote climate scepticism are well networked, and have been termed ‘deniers’ rather than sceptics because many show scant regard for the facts, while seizing avidly on any error in the work of climate scientists
Luckily, the Warmists have thought up a brilliant counter to our wicked plan to fill the world with lies and carbon emissions. They’re going to, get this, lurk at the bottom of our blogs and make snarky remarks and post links to RealClimate proving that we’re completely wrong. Hurrah! Thus, through the mighty power of the blogosphere will the world be saved.
Oh, and guess who the Warmist trolls (UK branch, anyway) think the most evil denier of all is?
Modesty forbids me from naming him. But here’s a clue from the home of impotent, sphincter-bursting libtard rage that is Left Foot Forward, in yet another piece on how to deal with Climate Sceptics:
For now, though, let me close with a challenge for progressive readers: one of the study’s more obvious conclusions was how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites. This is unsurprising for anyone who has ever trawled through comments left behind after any climate change article. By the time you read this, there will doubtless be sceptical comments posted beneath this blog, too.
So here’s what I’d like you to do:
• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts;
• You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science;
• Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or
Oh, and remember to check out James Delingpole’s column at the Telegraph. If any of it makes you angry, you might like to let him know. Did I say be polite? Scratch that.
Pip! Pip! Off now to eat some foie gras stuffed with truffles – courtesy of Big Koch – while I dream up a few more climate lies.