An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.
Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about. Nor what the heck it has to do with me.
Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars. Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened. Seems only decent. Not to mention civil and legal.
But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc, along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.
When I questioned the appropriateness and repeated my request for basic explanatory information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with a personal whimpering email this time. It again refused to answer any of my questions.
Does it seem reasonable to assume Holmes’ email under the official Federation University Australia letterhead was inappropriate? Does it seem reasonable for me to wonder what game Dr. Frolly Holmes is trying to play with me?
I ignored 1000Frolly for three years because it was too overwhelming and frankly hopelessly frustrating since no one else seems to give a flying fart, they rather spend their hours and days arguing trivial pursuits.
I don't imagine much has changed - but if anyone out there has had enough and thinks something should be done to confront Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD's lies and malicious slander - please contact me.
Now I find that Dr. Holmes has come out of the closet upgraded to "1000frolly PhD" and is channeling Trumpian belligerent disregard for honesty and truth and strutting like a freak’n peacock. It must be doing good for him. The big question: which pool of Dark Money supports him?
The belligerence and maliciousness of his arrogant disregard and misrepresentation of serious climate science is beyond hideous. His idiots inability to appreciate the 'future' consequences - that we can see and record beginning to unfold all around us - is beyond me. I sit here in my little cabin wondering how the world can be allowing such insane reasoning and self-destructive ethics to be normalized to such a degree.
Dealing with a few of his YouTubes is going to take some mental prep, it’s like I know how to deal with screwed up septic tanks too. But hate it. Still if it needs to get done, you just gotta wrap your head around the necessity and cowboy up, put on the safety gear and respirator and dig in. At least the septic tank can be cleaned up and any plumbing problems resolved. Deliberate contrarians . . .
Fortunately for my mental wellbeing I was already involved in a much more enjoyable project when 1000Frolly PhD decided to jump into my face. That project has ballooned on me, knowing Frolly is at the other end of this project helps the procrastination and stretching immensely.
The project, an article sharing my perspective on the pageant of Evolution evolved into a three column series. Actually, evolving, I’ve just started writing the last one.
Working on this has reminded me of other (more pleasant and fulfilling) things I've wanted to do, such as sharing links to some of my favorite geology and evolution videos.
Since I need a good dose of fresh air and mental/spiritual fortification before diving into Dr. Robert Holmes Frolly’s YouTube's incredible Shit Shows - I’m going to spend most of the next weeks focused on Evolution and Geology - After all, folks will never appreciate our global heat and moisture distribution engine without the perspective that only a sober appreciation of Earth’s Evolution can offer - so it is relevant for me.
Cheers
Well that was a very wise and mature response that told us all that we need to know about the superiority of your position. All based on logical fallacy so. Next!
ReplyDeleteLordie, lordie, hez baack.
ReplyDeleteNigel, you've done nothing but play games. You are deceitful. The YouTube channel spews pure fraud. If I've used logical fallacies up there, then bring up specific complaints and explanations. All I've ever gotten from you is random mysterious bitching and never any straight answers to my queries.
Your words reveal nothing but a shallow dishonest clown. I stand open to correction but that would require you to act like a honest constructive adult manner instead of this whiny victim routine of yours. Good day sir Nigel.
Correction: "I stand open to correction but that would require you to act like a honest constructive adult instead of this whiny victim routine of yours."
ReplyDeleteSince I got occupied with different projects and prompts forgot all about the above post, I invite you to share a YouTube video from Frolly1000 channel, one that you believe is honest and that can stand up to a little fact checking and critical review. Then we can have a discussion about logical fallacies.
How would you feel if everything he says is correct after all?
ReplyDeleteNow listen to this: a very recent paper (October 2021), published in Nature's "Scientific reports" is the key to debunk the exaggerated CO2 forcing that we are being fed by climate alarmists. It has shown and explained the mechanism with which solar radiation and cosmic rays affect cloud formation and subsequently the climate. If that proves to be true for longterm trends then the CO2 theory is dead!
The work's title is: "Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing" and the contributors are Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Dr. Shaviv and others.
Haris, what the heck are you talking about? Have you read the paper? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1 Do you have the first clue what they are talking about? Look at the freaken paper, it has nothing to do with CO2, you can't even find the term used once. That should give you a hint.
ReplyDeleteHell, the thing doesn't even offer a conclusion! So what are you chest thumping about? The paper is about cosmic rays' possible minuscule influence on cloud formation. It's chump change. As for CO2 that is in your face demonstrable explainable physics.
In leu of a Conclusion, the paper offers a "Discussion" - so Stand Down dude!
"The present results combine statistical correlations with expectations from atmospheric physics. If a link between ionization, aerosols, and clouds exists, it is reasonable to expect ..."
Too bad your brand of willful billigarant stupidity is so damned destructive, Haris Iasonas you should be ashamed of yourself.
Excuse me, that is: Willful Belligerent Ignorance.
ReplyDelete