Lewd Lew and Aggie W: A failed romance Part 1

Posted: September 12, 2012 by tallbloke in flames, Incompetence, Philosophy, Politics

dancing-fat-ladyWhen he opened his copy of  ‘Naturist’ magazine at the centrefold, Lew fell in love with Aggie at first sight. She had curves in all the right places, an exciting lifestyle jetting off to Bali with her scientist friends for high flying conferences, and plenty of spare money for worthy environmental causes too. Lew wanted a piece of that action. He courted her from a distance at first. Reading more about her from what the journalists had to say, and the papers of the scientists who evidently worshipped her.

He became convinced she was right about her fears for the world’s future, and resolved to enter her, coterie.

But there were others who denigrated and vilified her. They picked holes in her arguments, and mocked her for wearing no clothes while her friends admired her. They said she had falsely implanted supports, and that she was all (imitation) fur coat and no knickers, just because she occasionally embellished the Truth to please her political friends. They derided her carefully applied make-up and presentation, saying she was mutton dressed as Lamb.  It made Lew angry, and he vowed to fight against them using his expertise as a trick cyclist.

Lew knew he needed more training, so he rang the master of the Tree Ring Circus, Mickey Mann.

“Sure thing” said the Mann, “Anything that defeats the deniers helps me out”

So Lew, armed with the knowledge he gained from Mickey, devised a cunning plan. He would get his friends to answer one set of questions, and the deniers another. Then he’d mix up all the results as Mann had taught him, and use Mann’s ‘Principle Components AlGore-ithm’ to make the deniers look stupid. Then no-one would listen to them any more and Aggie would be grateful to him, and he might get to enter her, coterie.

Aggie had big problems around that time. Her secret memoirs had been spread all over the net by someone called Arsey, and skeletons had been found in her dirty laundry. So when Lew caught up with her drowning her sorrows at a bar in Copenhagen one unexpectedly wintry night, she needed a shoulder to cry on.

“Don’t worry Aggie” he crooned, “I have a plan to beat those nasty sceptic deniers.” And he told her all about it. Word got round and to avoid paper trail problems at his workplace, Lew got his lavatory attendant to send the invites to the sceptics while he contacted some of Aggie’s friends. Once he had all the responses he needed he finalised his methodology using more of Mickey’s advice. He set up some ‘rules’ which meant he might, or might not exclude some results, but no-one reading the write-up would be able to tell.

Lew thought he was so smart, and he was so confident that he could pull off the scam, and so eager to get into Aggie’s knickers, that he published the pre-print and got his journalist friends to splash the story before the paper was published in the trick-cycling magazine.  But the sceptics weren’t as dumb as he thought they were, and soon they had found all sorts of problems with his methodology and professional ethics. Now Lew needed a shoulder to cry on, and he called Aggie, who told him to come over to her place.

She received him in her boudoir, the lights were very dim, but he could make her out, sitting on her luxurious Pachauri-passion class four poster bed.

“So hows the Lew Paper?” she quipped.

“It’s got some shitty bits that need scrubbing” Lew confessed. “Trouble is, it’s gone to press”.

“Poor Lew” whispered Aggie, as she drew closer to him, sitting on the edge of the mattress.

As his eyes became accustomed to the dim light, Lew got his first close up look at Aggie W. Without the flesh coloured body stocking she’d worn for the Naturist centrfold, he could see she had quite a few wrinkles, and some cracks were starting to appear. Her arse was red from the recent spanking she’d got from the sceptics too. But worse was to come.

She took off her hair and tossed it onto the big chair next to the bed. His eyes widened. So did hers as she popped one of them out and put it in a cup on the chair. He recoiled.

“Come on Lew” she said “I have to have a blind eye to turn, for the inquiries, you know”.
She started fumbling with what Lew had thought were her suspenders. Then her legs joined the eye and hair on the chair. Lew jumped up.

“You haven’t got a leg to stand on!” he exclaimed. Aggie calmly removed her bra. The decades of sunny conference beaches had taken their toll. There was no hiding the decline any more. The artificial supports Mickey Mann had made for her had crumbled with age, and her principle components with the cherries on sagged southwards.

“Come on Lew” Aggie said, “You got one of my Hughe Grant specials didn’t you? You’re not going to let me down now are you?”

Lew retreated to the big chair for the night. There was more of Aggie on there to keep him company anyway.
“Tomorrow” he thought, “Tomorrow I’ll make it straight with the ethics committee. This has all been a bad dream. Just a bad dream.”

Comments
  1. dadgervais says:

    KEYBOARD ALERT (you have been served!)

    This borrows heavily on an old joke, but left off the punch line:

    “Get up from that chair and join me on the bed” Aggie pleaded.

    “Naw” responded Lew, “When you get to the part I want, just toss it over.”

  2. Peter Crawford says:

    The whole survey reminded me of the “scientific” surveys you get in womens magazines ‘Is your man a considerate lover’. You instantly know the correct answer when the first question is ‘how do you make love to the woman in your life ?’

    A) Flip her over then give her a two-minute scuttling from behind.

    B) Tell her how much she means to you then give her a two-minute scuttling from behind.

    C) Wine her, dine her, tell her how wonderful she is, spend hours on foreplay (well somebody has to trim the privet) then give her a two-minute scuttling from behind.

    The point is even a child could work out The Big Lewandowsky and his little scam. We can only respond to such jokes with jokes.

    Nice one, TB

  3. johnbuk says:

    Peter Crawford – YOU OWE ME A NEW LAPTOP AND COFFEE CUP!!!

  4. tallbloke says:

    Peter, only one word can describe the entire affair completely – Lewdicrous.

  5. johnbuk says:

    Actually, the word is “Desperation”.

  6. Peter Hannan says:

    Nice! Well, in fact, not nice, pretty crude and direct. Aristophanes would have approved (I studied classics, amongst other things, and this is a compliment).

  7. tallbloke says:

    Peter H: I doubt Lew has read Lysistrata or Thesmophoriazusae. ;)

    I don’t suppose the Freudian overtones will be lost on a pschology PhD though. Once he realises his calls to his warmist friends aren’t getting returned so much any more, he’ll probably wish he’d paid more attention to Jung…

  8. Michael Hart says:

    Oh, my….. Fifty shades of Aggie W :)

  9. Alexander K says:

    Almost Shakespeareian, Tallbloke, you’ve got the bawdiness about right, just a lack of poesy.
    And I’ve heard the joke many times before, but your version of it is just as funny as the original.

  10. Principle not principal but otherwise perfect.

  11. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Has anyone ever met a person who believes the lunar landing was faked in a Hollywood studio?

    There are millions of skeptics and according to Lew 6 out of 10 of them must believe the lunar landing was faked. Has anyone ever met such a person???

    Apparently the editors of the journal who accepted his paper must run into such people all the time. Probably they overhear conversations on trains and planes, in diners and lunchrooms etc about how the lunar landing was faked. THE REAL WORLD PROVES THE SCIENTICFIC INTEGRITY OF LEW’S WORK!!!!! REALITY BACKS LEW UP!!!!!!

    So the editors of Lew’s paper — all’s that they had to do was look out their window and they just knew the validity of Lew’s conclusion! And so after that reality check they just had to publish. How could they not???

    Eugene WR Gallun

  12. tallbloke says:

    tallbloke
    Posted Sep 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Reply
    What happened to the lukewarmers? Yesterday, following Steve’s clarification, we had skydragons who answered no to the impact measurability question for ‘thermodynamic reasons’, skeptics lumped in with them who answered no for other, cogent reasons (such as the error on TOA balance measurement being three times larger then the claimed co2 signal), luke-warmers who probably think impact is probably measurable probably, and warmists.

    Now it seems all measurement skeptics are skydragons again, people who don’t know how impact is measured at the TOA are skeptics and warmists are, well, warmists.

    Sorry to bang on about this but I think it’s important.

    The measurability question is a key issue for IPCC, and if ‘skeptics’ are going to give them a pass on this, then they are forced into the utterly false frame of reference that implicitly asserts that its reasonable to put percentages on human impact: e.g. “It’s 90% certain that more than 50% of the warming is anthropogenic”.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Wow, the comment has been snipped. Seems like everyone is scissor-happy this week.

    snip – nothing to do with lewandowsky. as you know, I discourage this sort of argument about first principles on topical threads.

    Here’s my followup via email:

    Steve, measurability is a key question in Lewandowsky’s survey! how is the issue of measurability off topic or about first principles?

    Even Kevin Trenberth is aware that it’s a travesty that our instrumentation is inadequate to resolve the co2 signal in the TOA balance error. This isn’t about first principles, it’s about measurement.

    People who answered yes to this question are warmists or lukewarmists, not sceptics IMO.

  14. tallbloke says:

    To which Steve has responded, apparently positively (its a bit brief and elliptical).

    I await developments. :)

  15. tallbloke says:

    Here’s the survey question at issue:

    #CO2TempUp –

    I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree.

    This is a weasel of a question.

    By the way: Q: How do you tell the difference between a weasel and a stoat?

    A: Easy, one is weasily recognised whereas the other is stoatally different. :)

    Anyway, it’s a trick question in my view, that attempts a ‘divide to conquer’ on the sceptics. Some will say:

    “Sure, were not denying the first principle physics, so it should be measurable.”

    But other’s will say:

    “We don’t know what other feedbacks may compensate for the theoretical effect of co2, and as things stand, we can’t measure it, because as “travesty” Trenberth admits in the climategate emails (though he denies it in the literature), the TOA balance measurement error means our instrumentation isn’t good enough to settle the issue.”

  16. Brian H says:

    Burning anything produces heat and warms the atmosphere. Even hydrogen. >:)

  17. tallbloke says:

    True. But it’s not measurable in terms of an overall addition to ‘global warming’.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Great short non-technical article by Tom Fuller here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/toodle-lew/

  19. oldbrew says:

    Looks like a damning expose by ‘Sherlock’ McIntyre, then you get to the end and he says:

    ‘Today’s note pertains only to the ethics approval of Hoax. The circumstances surrounding the ethics application for Fury are much worse and will be discussed separately.’

    Much worse? Gotta see that one.