Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Please... pleeeeeeeeease...

Climate scientists are thinking of going on strike:
Time for climate scientists to go on strike

42 comments:

  1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 2, 2014 at 6:44 AM

    First off, let me just say that I stand with the strikers. In fact, I recommend a hunger strike. Why bother with half-measures? Go for it. You, Global Alarmists of the World, have my unstinting support and encouragement.

    Daily Truth™:

    A Poll Gone Horribly Wrong
    As of approximately five minutes prior to the time stamp on this comment, The Commissar of Truth took the online poll offered in the article the good Doctor linked....

    Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?
    YES (23%)
    NO (75%)
    I AM NOT SURE (2%)

    This is a clarion call to all Progressives and both MSNBC viewers: your network is letting you down! Mob that poll! Sound the alarums and excursions from sea to rising sea!

    BTW, any bets on how long it takes for the poll to disappear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senile old fart,

      Bill McKibben is a journalist, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. His opinion carries a little more weight than yours or Egnor's because he's made some effort to understand the science.

      But he doesn't talk for climate scientists.

      An online poll doesn't mean anything.

      Delete
    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM

      What's your problem, barkmad? I'm supporting the striking alarmists! In fact, I think they should starve themselves until people give them command authority over the carbon economy. No half-measures!!!

      And I didn't report the "meaning" of the poll. Just the numbers.

      I see the invisible gorillas are bothering you again.

      Delete
    3. Silly old fart,

      You've been watching too many YouTube videos.

      I never believe what you write. You're so delusional, you give yourself titles you don't deserve.

      The only title you deserve is 'senile old fart'.

      Delete
  2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM

    Off-Topic:

    I guess they ran out of other people's money...

    France’s socialist prime minister resigned along with his entire government yesterday following a meltdown in local elections...

    And last night socialist President Francois Hollande – whose rule has become synonymous with a 75 per cent top rate of income tax – admitted to mistakes and said his priority was now to cut taxes
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senile old fart,

      Off topic? You're hardly ever on topic.

      Delete
  3. The report states: "Because it’s perfectly clear by now that you can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending. It’s going to require convincing them that something they really care about might disappear: their jobs."

    It looks like a potential win-win situation for us. Let's get each group to wipe out the other,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awsrar,

      I'll repeat to you what I told senile old fart. The article is an opinion piece written by Bill McKibben, who's a journalist not a climate scientist. His opinion carries no weight.

      Delete
  4. I bet that by 2020 those climate scientists will be predicting a new ice age since the global warming stunt didn't take!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll take that bet, and give you 10:1 odds, any amount. It would be like stealing candy from a baby.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. KW, so you're ready to bet the farm. You don't mind dying bankrupt then?

      Delete
    3. If I had any reason to believe you were honest and anything other than a semi-literate nitwit, I would be happy to take your money, but my morals prevent me from taking advantage of stupid people. If this blog is around in 2020 just show up so I can remind you of how wrong you were.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. KW: "...but my morals prevent me..."

      Hilarious! You have the morals of a monkey.

      Delete
    5. Pepe,

      You're an idiot. We're currently in an ice age (there's ice at both poles).

      What you're thinking about is a new glaciation, which is inevitable at some time. It mightn't happen with the next Milankovitch cycle (the 100,000 year one - related to variations in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit), but it probably will in the one following as weathering of rocks remove CO2 from the atmosphere reducing one of the drivers of climate.

      Delete
    6. Pepe,

      "I bet that by 2020 those climate scientists will be predicting a new ice age since the global warming stunt didn't take!"

      They've been there and done that, back in the 60,s and early 70's I believe. Obviously they got that one wrong too. They followed that disaster with acid rain, which again was the result of man's polluting nature. We were all going to be required to wear environmental suits any time we were outdoors, where we would be surrounded by dead flora and fauna.

      Delete
    7. Nic,

      No, you believe wrongly. It was never a commonly accepted scientific assertion that the Earth was about to enter another glaciation.

      And you can hardly complain that the worries about acid rain were exaggerated, because electricity companies took action and stopped burning coal with a high sulphur content and hence avoided the problem.

      Delete
    8. bachfiend: "You're an idiot..."

      Looking at yourself in the mirror, smarty pants?

      Delete
    9. bachfiend,

      "No, you believe wrongly. It was never a commonly accepted scientific assertion that the Earth was about to enter another glaciation."

      That's correct, but only to the extent that in the era of the 60's and early 70's there was not the climate of political and scientific correctness which exists today. Not all scientists today hold to global warming, and among those who do more and more are jumping off the wagon.

      "And you can hardly complain that the worries about acid rain were exaggerated, because electricity companies took action and stopped burning coal with a high sulphur content and hence avoided the problem."

      Well, as there never was a problem, how do you know a problem was avoided?

      Delete
    10. Nic,

      How do you know that there never was a potential problem with acid rain? And how do you know that increasing numbers of scientists are doubting that AGW is occurring?

      Delete
    11. bachfiend,

      "How do you know that there never was a potential problem with acid rain? And how do you know that increasing numbers of scientists are doubting that AGW is occurring?"

      Are you unaware there is a difference between the claims of a problem and a potential problem? A 'potential' problem is by simple logic, not yet a problem. I said there was not a problem, and there was not.

      Is the game moving to fast for you?

      As for scientists jumping off the wagon, try to keep up. If you made even a little effort to really watch the debate, you would see the trend.

      Delete
  5. Anyway. That idiot and intellectual Pygmy Egnor still hasn't answered the comment that Bill McKibben isn't a climate scientist.

    Egnor managed to write just one sentence in this thread - 'Climate scientists are thinking of going on strike...'

    And it's 100% incorrect. Not based on reality. Egnor lives in a world of delusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bachfiend, why are you a so obnoxious smartass? Is that what MAD* has done to you?

      *MAD: Materialist-Atheist-Darwinist (as defined by Dr. Egnor)

      Delete
    2. Pepe,

      You're still an idiot. Egnor wrote one sentence and it's 100% wrong.

      Delete
    3. bachfiend: "You're still an idiot..."

      As a student I once had a summer job in a psychiatric hospital and saw the consequences of mental disorder.

      All I can say is that you should seek professional help ASAP!

      Delete
    4. Pepe,

      You're still an idiot. Egnor was 100% wrong in the one sentence he wrote. Not being in reality, as you are in not recognising that Egnor was just wrong, is a sign of mental illness.

      Trust me. I did 2 years of psychiatry in my medical course at university.

      Delete
    5. bachfiend: "Trust me. I did 2 years of psychiatry..."

      ...as a patient surely!

      You remind me of the film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...

      Delete
    6. Pepe,

      You're an idiot. 'I did 2 years of psychiatry in my medical course at university'.

      You remind me of the film 'Forrest Gump'.

      Delete
    7. Pepe,

      bachfiend:"Trust me. I did 2 years of psychiatry in my medical course at university."

      Isn't it amazing how these guys always toss out claims to a superior education when their wheels start to fall off?

      People like bachfiend never seem to realize their writing and woefully poor reasoning skills invariably betray their grandiose claims.

      I agree with you, I'm not sure being confined to a psychiatric ward for two years constitutes a medical course.

      Delete
    8. Nic,

      Now you're being silly (again). Pepe claimed expertise because he worked in a psychiatric ward one Summer. I raised the bar by noting that I did psychiatry for 2 years in my medical course at university ('did' in this context means 'studied').

      Anyway. How do you know that acid rain wasn't a problem? How do you know that scientists are increasingly disavowing AGW?

      You're just making evidence free assertions.

      Delete
    9. bachfiend,

      "I raised the bar by noting that I did psychiatry for 2 years in my medical course at university ('did' in this context means 'studied')."

      Sure you did.

      "Anyway. How do you know that acid rain wasn't a problem? How do you know that scientists are increasingly disavowing AGW?

      You're just making evidence free assertions."

      OK fine, why don't you demonstrate acid rain WAS a problem and scientists aren't abandoning global warming. You're the one making evidence free assertions. Provide evidence acid rain was affecting the world. A casual search will find a number of articles related to the growing number of dissenters regards global warming. But for me to actually expect you to do any real investigation into these subjects is, I realize, absurd.

      Delete
    10. Nic,

      'Sure you did'. Good to see you've conceded that all I was doing was replying to Pepe's claim of expertise as a result of his working for a Summer in a psychiatric hospital by noting that I'd studied psychiatry for 2 years at university.

      It isn't possible to be 100% certain that acid rain wasn't a problem. Coal powered power plants, in order to reduce local pollution, constructed very high smoke stacks to vent the exhaust into the air with stronger winds so as to carry the pollution to far distant regions.

      It's known that the health of forests - such as the Black Forest and those in Canada - wasn't good several decades ago. Ascribing that to acid rain is obviously impossible - not certainly that is.

      My reading is that 97% of climate scientists and all the national science associations agree that AGW is happening. If you have evidence to the contrary, what is it? Which articles are you referring to which claim that more and more scientists are disavowing AGW?

      Delete
    11. bachfiend,

      "Good to see you've conceded that all I was doing was replying to Pepe's claim of expertise as a result of his working for a Summer in a psychiatric hospital by noting that I'd studied psychiatry for 2 years at university."

      Sure I did.

      "It isn't possible to be 100% certain that acid rain wasn't a problem."

      But it's possible to be 100% certain it was a potential problem?

      "Coal powered power plants, in order to reduce local pollution, constructed very high smoke stacks to vent the exhaust into the air with stronger winds so as to carry the pollution to far distant regions."

      That's nice, let's just push the problem over to the people next door. Do you get the feeling you're shooting BBs at a battleship?

      "Ascribing that to acid rain is obviously impossible - not certainly that is."

      Yes, obviously impossible, so why are you trying to make a case?

      "My reading is that 97% of climate scientists and all the national science associations agree that AGW is happening."

      Wow, what a good argument, appealing to the majority. And please, don't try to say it's actually referencing expertise.

      "If you have evidence to the contrary, what is it?"

      Well, I guess I now have to admit there are no scientists who dispute the fact of AGW. I just made that part up.

      "Which articles are you referring to which claim that more and more scientists are disavowing AGW?"

      I'll give you the same response I give everyone, do the work yourself. If you make the effort to look up the material you might actually read it. If I give the references you'll simply hand wave them away without even looking at the articles.

      Delete
    12. Nic,

      You have nothing. You're insisting that acid rain wasn't a problem. You're insisting that more and more scientists are disavowing AGW.

      But you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions. I'm not going to waste my time looking for the articles you think make the best case for your assertions.

      Delete
    13. bachfiend,

      "But you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions. I'm not going to waste my time looking for the articles you think make the best case for your assertions."

      So now we arrive at the inevitable end game. Bachfiend realizes the hunt is afoot and knowing his quiver is empty he decides to turn and run.

      I would be surprised if you were to actually make an attempt to educate yourself vis a vis the facts of the debate. That you might actually learn something would be anathema to your dogmatic adherence to myth of AGW. That you would consider it a waste of time to make an attempt to view and understand an opposing viewpoint speaks volumes as to your credibility.

      As I said, I am not at all surprised. Cest' la vie

      Delete
    14. Nic,

      As I've noted before, you have nothing. I have looked at the 'there's no AGW' literature, and I've found it unconvincing. I read Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth' (which many people consider the ultimate rebuttal to AGW) and found it scientifically illiterate - not only about climate - and deeply flawed by errors in logic. I read the recent 'Taxing Air' which tried to put forward other reasons for the recent warming, again unconvincing.

      I've also looked at several websites rebutting global warming. Some occasionally are useful - such as Wattsupwiththat' which provides food for thought.

      If you won't provide your best articles, I won't bother trying to find them. You'll just claim that whatever I find, I haven't found your best evidence. Catch 22.

      Delete
    15. bachfiend,

      "As I've noted before, you have nothing."

      And just as before, your comment means nothing.

      "I have looked at the 'there's no AGW' literature, and I've found it unconvincing."

      That hardly surprises me

      "If you won't provide your best articles, I won't bother trying to find them. You'll just claim that whatever I find, I haven't found your best evidence. Catch 22."

      Like I said, your quiver is empty so you'll just cut and run. I don't have 'best articles'. I just look at the overall argument and determine the most logical conclusion in light of the evidence. Right now no one can present a persuasive argument that man is responsible for climate change or even that the climate is changing in any unusual or serious way. Over the last twenty years average temperatures have been going down. That really puts a serious dent in any argument for global warming.

      However, as most global warming adherents are also evolutionists, they apply the same kind of approach to the evidence regards global warming as they do to evolution. Regardless of what happens it's proof of their presuppositions. More rain; global warming. Less rain; global warming.
      Higher temperatures; global warming. Lower temperatures; global warming. Less storms; global warming. More storms; global warming. On and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

      You keep saying I have nothing. The fact is global warming has nothing, thus the trend in calling for all who question AGW to be legally silenced, either by professional censure or, as some extremists suggest, prison terms.

      If the evidence confirming AGW is so overwhelming why the fear of those who question AGW? Answer, the evidence is precariously weak at best. But the economics are all to real.

      Many scientists depend on the 'fact' of AGW to keep the grants and research funds flowing. Gore and his equally hypocritical cohorts make hundreds of millions off of the perpetration of the myth. There is more politics and economics than science in the myth which is AGW.

      Delete
    16. Nic,

      Rubbish. If climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy to keep the research grants coming, then why do all the national science associations agree that AGW is occurring?

      The national science associations represent all scientists, not just climate scientists. Research funds are limited. Funding going to one scientist (or group of scientists) can't go to another scientist (or group of scientists).

      Competition for research funds is ruthless, as shown by the fact that when the American government was going to allow more funding of embryonic stem cell research, two scientists working on adult stem cells took the government to court, because it would reduce the chance of their funding.

      Anyway. Climate science would get funded, regardless of AGW - it's interesting. In the same way that the Large Hadron Collider got funded.

      Also, there was no 'pause' - it was a result of cherry picking the data and starting with a warm El Niño year and finishing with a cooler La Niña year. Despite the cherry picking, atmospheric temperatures still increased 1998 to 2012.

      Anyway - do you have any evidence that climate scientists confuse 'weather' with 'climate'? Besides noting that the probability of extreme weather events will increase in the future over the normal variability.

      Again - you have nothing. Cite your best evidence, and I'll look at it.

      It's telling that many doubters of AGW are also Creationists (Ian Plimer is a notable exception), perhaps due to an inability to cope with reality and the uncertainties of science perhaps? You appear to be one.

      Delete
    17. bacdfiend,

      "Rubbish. If climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy to keep the research grants coming, then why do all the national science associations agree that AGW is occurring?"

      Tell me you're joking, please. Who do you suppose makes up scientific associations? Let me give you a hint; scientists. The same scientists who benefit from government and corporation grants of all kinds, not just global warming.

      I would imagine you're one of those naive people who believe all scientists are completely altruistic, totally objective and interested only in following the evidence where it leads.

      "Competition for research funds is ruthless, as shown by the fact that when the American government was going to allow more funding of embryonic stem cell research, two scientists working on adult stem cells took the government to court, because it would reduce the chance of their funding."

      And this helps your case how?

      "Anyway. Climate science would get funded, regardless of AGW - it's interesting. In the same way that the Large Hadron Collider got funded."

      Are you serious? You really see no connection between funding and the political and economic factors? You really think governments and corporations give out funding for 'interesting research'? They want results, and usually results they expect to see. You're completely naive if you think otherwise.

      "Also, there was no 'pause' - it was a result of cherry picking the data and starting with a warm El Niño year and finishing with a cooler La Niña year."

      So, it's those who deny global warming who are being deceitful? I'm completely shocked, really.

      "It's telling that many doubters of AGW are also Creationists (Ian Plimer is a notable exception), perhaps due to an inability to cope with reality and the uncertainties of science perhaps?"

      Surely you must be able to do better than simply trying to turn my arguments back on me.

      As for creationists being afraid of science, this only demonstrates your utter ignorance of history.

      Delete
    18. Nic,

      You don't have any arguments for me to turn back on you.

      Delete
    19. bachfiend,

      "You don't have any arguments for me to turn back on you."

      So you keep saying. You don't say much else, but you do keep harping on that. Well, I guess you need to feel that you said something anyway.

      Delete
    20. Nic,

      You remind me of the Monty Python sketch on 'having an argument'. I put forward an argument, and you just contradict, without putting up any reasons.

      It's pointless having a discussion with you, so I'm ceasing.

      Delete
    21. bachfiend,

      "You remind me of the Monty Python sketch on 'having an argument'. I put forward an argument, and you just contradict, without putting up any reasons."

      Typical, you don't even catch on to the fact Cleese or Palin never presented an argument, which was the entire point of the skit. Why am I not surprised? So, which are you, Palin or Cleese?

      "It's pointless having a discussion with you, so I'm ceasing."

      The inevitable outcome when one who thinks he has all the answers comes to realize his arguments are bankrupt. Take care.

      Delete