Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Immensely powerful interests honor climate loon for "fighting immensely powerful interests".

The Sophie Award this year-- with a purse of $100,000-- goes to Bill McKibben, founder of As you'll recall, is a global warming fraud organization that collaborated to produce that lovely eco-terrorism video of skeptical children being blown to bits for doubting global warming.

The movie, "No Pressure", would probably have been named differently if it were produced in the wake of the Boston bombings.

So you're wondering-- WTF is "The Sophie Award"? It's a mini-Nobel Prize given annually to climate loons who missed out on the real Nobel Prize, which is (bizarrely) also given to climate loons.

From the citation:
As an activist [McKibben] is pioneering new methods of social protests, using among others Internet-enabled organizing strategies to increase the intensity of political activity. Fighting immensely powerful interests McKibben has shown that mobilization for change is possible. 

"Change" certainly has been possible, except for global temperatures, which haven't changed for seventeen years.  But why should lack of warming trouble warmists, any more than lack of eugenic catastrophe troubled eugenicists, or lack of overpopulation troubled overpopulation loons, or lack of DDT apocalypses troubled DDT apocalyptics.

They just keep giving themselves awards, while the facts all stampede in another direction.

And it's a hoot to tout McKibben for "fighting immensely powerful interests". AGW "research" has been funded to the tune of $100 billion by governments over the past couple of decades, and the AGW gravy train has enriched countless fake businessmen and market manipulators, empowered corrupt government agencies, and lined the pockets of gangster politicians

AGW skeptics, meanwhile, are mostly amateurs with technical backgrounds, get no grants, profit from no "investments", accumulate no power, and simply keep telling the truth.

No prizes for them, unless you prize the truth. 


  1. A liar is someone who keeps on thinking that the 'G' in 'AGW' means 'lower atmosphere'.

    'G' stands for 'global', which includes the oceans, the cryosphere (ice and snow) and the earth, in addition to the atmosphere.

    The oceans continue to warm. The Arctic icecap continues to melt. The atmosphere only appears to be in a pause because the atmospheric temperature has been cherry picked to start the recent time series with a strong El Niño year, which dumps heat from the oceans into the atmosphere (the oceans heat the atmosphere and not vice versa, and have 400 times the heat capacity) and finish with a moderate La Niña year, which has the opposite effect, retaining heat in the oceans, and causing a cooler year.

    I've often asked you before - what would change your mind about whether AGW is happening? What if 2014 or 2015 were strong El Niño years and cause atmospheric temperature records to be broken again?

    Anyway. We don't know whether the DDT 'apocalypse' was avoided. DDT in agricultural amounts were phased out in the '70s and '80s. If DDT had been used in the enormous amounts it was being used in agriculture in the '50s, with its half life in the environment of around 11 years it would be reaching its maximum level in the environment just about now (it takes around 6 half lives for a chemical to reach its maximum - or to disappear completely if use is stopped).

    The persistence of DDT is what made it a bad insecticide for agriculture - and a good insecticide for malaria control in the spraying of internal walls.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 19, 2014 at 7:05 AM

      barkmad: "A liar is someone who keeps on thinking that the 'G' in 'AGW' means 'lower atmosphere'"

      That's incoherent, barkmad. Go to bed.

    2. Senile old fart,

      And you're going to make a point? I've stopped expecting you to make a sensible point long ago.

    3. bach:

      "Anyway. We don't know whether the DDT 'apocalypse' was avoided..."

      It's all so bloodless for you, isn't it, bach? Tens of millions of innocent people are dead of malaria because of fraudulent anti-DDT hysteria, but you don't really give a shit. It's just an opportunity for some sophistry in a combox.

    4. Egnor,

      And your answers to my two questions?

      Anyway. I think DDT was a very good insecticide for the control of malaria as part of a program for the spraying of internal walls. And a lifesaver in the eradication of louse borne diseases such as typhus.

      Not such a good idea as an agricultural insecticide, because it's extremely persistent and also readily leads to resistance in insect pests.

  2. Egnor: AGW "research" has been funded to the tune of $100 billion by governments over the past couple of decades

    Bullshit. That money wasn't for research. You know it. You still use it. Liar.


  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 19, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    In the mad scurry to find reasons for the pause, and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to simulate the pause, suddenly we are hearing that perhaps the heat of global warming is being “hidden” in the deep ocean. In other words we are being told that some internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature.
    --- G Paltridge (2014)

    It's - pardon the term - natural for scientists to attribute invisible agents to explain puzzling data. Think about phlogiston and the aether. Settled science, in their time. And it's natural, because if it the agent were visible, there wouldn't be a puzzle. Duh.

    But the real problem that's causing all the wailing and weeping (J "Lurch" Kerry made an ass out of himself recently, trying to emulate a pentecostal preacher - leave it to Jeebus, Lurch) is very simple... money. Or, more precisely, the flow of money. That can't stop. Too many current dependents, and everybody and his brother wants a piece. As Egnor notes, it's not just research money, it's the vast sums spent on crony capitalism (all the loser names are household words now) and handouts to political supporters. President Jeebus McLightworker just proposed wasting another billion dollars on handouts to public sector unions and grievance groups to "prepare" for the coming apocalypse. He calls it the "Climate Resilience Fund", but it's really "The Prepper Fund". Fill your bathtubs, people!

    Despite some piddling efforts to deny it, even the funding of marketing and propaganda research is being currently being funded by governments under the aegis of "climate science" (you payin' attention, toots?):

    The [American Sociological Association] and National Science Foundation have jointly published a summary of an important workshop on the issue of climate change research. It examines a critically important dimension of earth's climate variation: Basic research on social determinants affecting global climate change...

    [A]s we have explored our planet's faster-than-geologically-normal [!!??] climate change, we have come to understand that a scientifically robust and complete approach requires research evidence on social mechanisms underlying our society's institutional and individual behaviors, beliefs, and incentives regarding energy use and efficiency.

    --- American Sociological Association

    After all, Tooter leToot, if human behavior is the prime cause of climate change, then human behavior research will naturally be the most important area of climate change research. Them carbon mollykules don't emit theyselves, boy. :-) You don't get people to stop heating their homes and driving their cars by bitching and moralizing about food miles and starfish invasions; way too abstract. You have two choices: ideological conversion or political repression.

    The result of all this?

    [The scientific community] can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity. The current redirection of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day.

    The time to worry is when they start laughing at you. Then there's only one thing left to do:

    David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 19, 2014 at 8:21 AM

      Sorry... source for
      "[The scientific community] can no longer escape prime responsibility..."

      is Garth Paltridge (2014)

    2. Senile old fart,

      'G' means 'global' not 'lower atmosphere'. There have been decade long 'pauses' or declines in atmospheric temperatures over the past 60 years, which just interrupt the increasing atmospheric temperatures.

      These pauses or declines were known about beforehand, and didn't falsify the idea that AGW is happening. So why should the recent cherry picked period affect your opinion, particularly since the oceans continue to warm and the Arctic icecap continues to melt?

    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 19, 2014 at 9:49 AM

      blabfest, I note that you failed to address even a single point in my comment. That's OK. I don't blame you.

      I have never disputed that the globe has been warming. After all, what would you expect after the end of the Little Ice Age? If the globe had been coldening, we would still be in the Little Ice Age, dimwit, and probably all frozen to death or, at minimum, really bummed about the f***ing weather. Will the warming trend continue? Who knows, really? Not you, for sure.

      But the real issue is not warming, it's anthropopoofery as the Prime Mover, dribblebrains.

      And the very notion that a government, or governments, or the bloody UN BWAHAHAHAHA, can manipulate the global climate to achieve a desired state is deranged.

    4. Senile old fart,

      I didn't address the 'points' you made in your comment because you didn't make any.

    5. 'Admiral' without a legacy:

      I have never disputed that the globe has been warming. After all, what would you expect after the end of the Little Ice Age?

      How disingenuous. You would expect a far smaller rate of increase. But you knew that already. Doesn't it bother you that switching to believing in an afterlife and a 'purpose' to your life, having failed at achieving it in this life, forces you to join the ranks of the liars?

    6. Senile old fart,

      I went back and reread your comment. I was addressing the first and only point you actually made, about the 'pause'. You're too stupid to realise that my comment was in response to your comment.

      Anyway. What do you think caused the Little Ice Age? If the current warming is the result of the world now coming out of the Little Ice Age, then its cause must have lessened. Right?

      One explanation is that during the Little Ice Age, CO2 was drawn from the atmosphere as a result of reforestation following the collapse of Medieval farming as many farmers died as a result of epidemics such as the Black Death, which killed 30-50% of the European population after its reappearance in 1347. And which then reappeared every few decades thereafter, killing 10% of the population.

      And then in the 1850s, the industrial revolution started and humans started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So the Little Ice Age and the recent warming are due (partly) changes in CO2 levels.

      There are other causes for the Little Ice Age. Climatologists recognise that greenhouse gases aren't the only factor driving climate.

  4. AGW skeptics, meanwhile, are mostly amateurs with technical backgrounds, get no grants, profit from no "investments", accumulate no power, and simply keep telling the truth.

    Hahaha. That is so lame. In reality, AGW skeptics get funded to the tune of hundreds of millions US$ per year. Of course, none of that money is spent on scientific research, since that would just result in the same annoying conclusions as the work of mainstream climate research. Instead, the money is funneled into propaganda, to convince gullible idiots like Egnor that AGW is a hoax.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 19, 2014 at 5:18 PM

      Troi: "AGW skeptics get funded to the tune of hundreds of millions US$ per year."

      Troi is parroting Christian Hunt and his website.

  5. Still no answer from Egnor to my two questions.

    What would change your mind as to whether AGW is true?

    What would be your response if there's another strong El Niño year in 2014 or 2015 and the atmospheric temperature records are broken again?

    1. I would believe AGW is true if the following were met together:

      1) The earth was in fact warming.
      2) CO2 levels correlated with warming
      3) Scientists who provide the information were trustworthy.

      0 or 3, so far. I doubt it will get any better.

    2. Egnor,

      1. The Earth is warming.

      2. The Earth's temperature does correlate with CO2 levels.

      3. The scientists who provide the information are trustworthy (even if the Climategate emails are accurate, the CRU comprise only a very small percentage of the thousands of climate scientists - and to know whether Climategate was valid, you would have had to read all the emails in context, not just a selection. Have you?).

      Three wrong out of 3. I doubt your accuracy will get any better.

      You didn't answer the 2nd question. What would be your response if there's a strong El Niño year in 2014 or 2015 and the atmospheric temperature records are broken again. The occurrence of La Niña/el niño events are unpredictable, but we know they'll occur sometime.

    3. 1- The Earth is recovering

      2- Plants need CO2 and we need plants. What do you have against plants?

      3- Heck even you said it was warmer than now before humans arrived

  6. This was a well said and funny thread.
    They are loons but might be good in their real jobs.
    The cool point here is HOW quickly the accusation of small but powerful interests are invoked for resistance to conclusions.
    this principal can be applied to global warmingoloics BUT also to lots more.
    Like organized evolutionism in its small but powerful circles in society.
    Equation here. If tiny groups have undue influence in high places or amongst the public then ALL of us can accuse this and offer it as a explanation for enduring dumb ideas home and abroad.

    1. Robert,

      Your usual illiterate contribution.

      You do know the difference between 'principal' and 'principle' don't you? This is the second time that I know of that you've used the wrong form. '... this principal can be applied to global warmingoloics...' 'Principal' as a noun refers to a person, such as a headmaster. As an adjective, it meanings the 'main one' (but you've used it as a noun). You meant 'principle'.

      Anyway. Egnor and ilk are keen to accuse anyone who thinks that AGW is occurring as having financial interests in having it accepted.

  7. What is the average global temperature supposed to be? Guess what? No one knows.

    A warmer Earth is better than a colder Earth. Plants need CO2 and we need plants. The climate changes. That is what it does regardless of us.

    1. Joe G,

      After the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago (due to a release of methane from deep sea deposits of methane ice of similar magnitude to the one we're doing right now by the burning of fossil fuels - but over thousands of years instead of decades) followed the Eocene thermal optimum in which temperatures were about 5 degrees C warmer than now, with no ice at the poles in Summer.

      If humans had evolved in the Eocene with its warmer temperatures we'd have done fine. But we didn't. We evolved in the percent Ice Age, and we've evolved to be adapted to the present climate, and we've adapted our crops and domesticated animals for today's climate, not a warmer one.

      The Earth's climate has changed in the past. It will change in the future. Life on Earth will persist regardless, with many species going extinct, due to an inability to adapt to a changing climate.

      Humans will almost certainly survive a changing climate - we're a pretty smart species, but the process of adapting will be painful, and there's no reason to make it worse than necessary.

    2. So in other words we aren't really warming right now. We are still recovering.

      THat is what I thought, thanks.

    3. Joe G,

      If that's what you think I said, then you can't read. If the Earth returns to Eocene temperatures, Life will still survive on Earth, but we won't - or at least not most of us.

      Anyway. We'd lose most of the tropics as being uninhabitable, in addition to the areas submerged by the rising oceans. We's gain a smaller area in the polar regions which would become inhabitable.

      Adapting would be very painful. Particularly since adapting requires energy (and fossil fuels are becoming expensive too - oil is around $100 a barrel).

    4. There was no Eocene.
      Thats a conclusion from minor rock layers in a row.
      All your points about THOSE DAYS are about knowing what happened millions of years ago.
      This is guessing. how could anyone know?
      Geology is not a teacher of climate. its an interpretation poorly done.

    5. Robert,

      Your usual illiterate contribution. You are the one who proves that YECs are generally very stupid. It's a column of geologic strata not a row of layers.

      You're entitled to your opinions, but not entitled to decide what the facts are.