Quote of the week – I get an endorsment by Bill McKibben, plus a certificate in “certified planet wrecking”

James Hansen’s understudy, eco activist and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben just gave me an endorsement, which I’m surprised about. The article, syndicated in a number of outlets is titled Climate-change deniers on the ropes

McKibben writes of the Heartland billboard, claiming it has put a damper on all things skeptic, and has pretty much driven Heartland’s donors away.  Perhaps he missed this report where Heartland says the donors have doubled, despite losing some.

Here’s the money quote though. McKibben writes:

Whatever the final outcome, it’s worth noting that, in a larger sense, Bast is correct: this tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.

The best of them – and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the website Watts Up With That – have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won’t be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn’t merit publication. (It ended up in a “little-known Korean journal”.)

McKibben goes on to name other skeptics, including Monckton and Luboš Motl, for their roles.

I got quite the kick out of this ending though:

But damn, it’s a hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia. Eventually, climate denial will “lose”, because physics and chemistry are not intimidated even by Lord Monckton. But timing is everything – if he and his ilk, a crew of certified planet wreckers, delay action past the point where it can do much good, they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history – one that will last for geological epochs.

Gosh, “certified planet wreckers”? Where does one get a certificate like that? Is getting one like being a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, where only a valid credit card is needed? If so, maybe I’ll offer them here.

Couple of things Bill, since I know you read WUWT:

1. Where’s the beef?

2. Hansen’s alternate view of cause was swept under the rug, he’s flip-flopped on the causes of global warming back and forth.

3. Climate “Deniers” Winning the War

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

UPDATE: here’s another article, with “planet wreckers” in the title

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/11795-the-wrecking-crew-climate-change-deniers-going-down-and-taking-the-rest-of-us-with-them.html

NOTE: This is an update by Mike Lorrey, added after the fact – Anthony

Congratulations, Anthony, we knew you could do it!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Quote of the Week and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Quote of the week – I get an endorsment by Bill McKibben, plus a certificate in “certified planet wrecking”

  1. Heartland’s Billboard was correct. They are nuts.

  2. Hey, Bill, there’s a cabin in the woods near Lincoln, Montana, that could have your name on it. Cheap, I’m thinkin’.

  3. Dickens Goes Metro says:

    That’s some great new fodder for Josh.

    I’d proudly wear a Certified Planet Wrecker t-shirt, especially if it featured a Josh cartoon.

    I smell a $$$ opportunity for Watts Up and Josh.

  4. Les Johnson says:

    sigh, I miss the Daily Bayonet.

    One mention of Weepy Bill would make my day.

  5. David, UK says:

    “The best of them… have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble.”

    It’s no wonder the alarmists are losing ever more credibility with the masses every day. Just like Gleick showed in his fake Heartland letter, they convince themselves that sceptics are simply evil baddies, funded by Big Oil, conspiring to destroy the world. So whilst the sceptics are busy arguing the science, the alarmists are busy fighting a bogeyman that doesn’t exist. Idiots.

  6. quidsapio says:

    He can’t really believe this stuff can he?

    Can he?

  7. Richard M says:

    McKibben behaves like a typical narcissist. They try and ASSERT what they want to believe. They hope their followers are too dumb to understand their assertions are pure fabrication as his claim about HI demonstrates. The bad news for people like McKibben is when narcissists lose their following they become very depressed and often suicidal. His future is not bright.

  8. CanadianObserver says:

    [Eventually, climate denial will “lose”]

    Ignoring the urge to debate the actual unkind prejudicial labels, and just evaluating McKibben’s train of thought, this level of cognitive dissonance is worthy of a “Monty Python Black Knight” award for persistence.

    (The Black Knight is a tragic figure from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail).

    Perhaps we’ll hear McKibben moving from “flesh-wound” to “we’ll call it a draw” soon.

  9. Chris B says:

    If his wild predictions are false does he take responsibility for all the harm done to the economies of developed countries,and the deaths and suffering caused in developing countries whose development is halted by CAGWism?

  10. Planet wrecker? You’re a Vogon?

    (If you find out who issues those certificates, I want one.)

  11. Mr. Paul Milligan says:

    I have not, yet, read Mr. McKibbin’s interview so I’ll admit that I am going off half cocked when I make this comparison. He claims
    “[The deniers] never had much to work with.”
    But fighting ‘deniers’ is a
    “ hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia.”
    This, to me, smacks of cognitive dissonance. Even HE can no longer reconcile the facts as he sees them.

  12. Madman2001 says:

    “On the ropes”? What fantasy world is he living in?

  13. Jonathan Smith says:

    Given the warmists track record with statistics, is anyone surprised that they consider a doubling of donors to be a reduction?

  14. FerdinandAkin says:

    Perhaps Josh can draw up a certificate (suitable for framing) for being a ‘Planet Wrecker’ and we could all buy one. A matching wallet size card to go with the certificate would also be appropriate.

  15. Frank K. says:

    Mckibben’s rant is, in fact, a sign that WE (the sane ones in the climate debate) are winning the argument.

    “That have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that were in serious trouble.

    Serious trouble? REALLY?! Where? He needs to get a grip on reality…

  16. TheOldCrusader says:

    “on the ropes”?

    Maybe he should watch a youtube of one of the Klitchko brothers taking apart some fighter so that he understands what the expression means.

  17. Luther Wu says:

    I eagerly await McKibben’s comeuppance from some less than “remotely serious scientists”.

    Professor Lindzen only rates a “remotely serious”?

  18. John W. says:

    When do the rest of us get to see our share of that “ton of money”? Any idea on how the sharing breaks out? Should I/we contact Mr. McKibben directly to find out who’s passing out the checks?

    I just put a new roof on the house, so the extra cash would come in handy right now.

    Oh, and who do I contact to get my Planet Wrecker certificate?

  19. John W. says:

    By the way, shouldn’t we have some Planet Wrecker team wear? I’m thinking something like a picture of the Death Star with the words “Certified Planet Wrecker” in a digital font. The logo could be something like a shield with a polar bear on its back, all four paws in the air.

  20. RobRoy says:

    I’d buy and proudly don a ” Certified Planet Wrecker” T- Shirt.

  21. RB says:

    As I have long said this is not even a subject with polarised positions. It is a battle between reason and a huge group narcisistic disorder. For McKibben it really is about good and evil, he being good and worthy and sceptical thinkers being evil. He says there is only ONE scientist against his contructed reality – on any measure in any way this is completely untrue – and goes miles beyond cognitive dissonance – the man has deluded himself and is no different to a nut job with a sandwich board at the side of the road, unwashed, unkempt, socially isolated, utterly consumed by his obsession.

  22. more soylent green! says:

    Have we ever had an accounting of how much money “Big Oil” has funneled into “Big Green?”

  23. Jenn Oates says:

    If you keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it, even if it’s a load of hogwash. My students are prime examples of that–no matter how many times I try to teach them the truth they refuse to believe it, because people like McKibben and his ilk (two can play that game) keep saying the lie over and over again. Disgusting.

  24. Werner Brozek says:

    this tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years…..They’ve never had much to work with.

    I beg to differ. We have had lots to work with! Mother nature is on our side! Here is the proof.
    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055 per year so it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)

    1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
    2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
    4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (goes to April)
    5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
    6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to April using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

  25. geoprof says:

    Have we ever had a true accounting of how much money Saudi Oil has funneled into Big Green for the purpose of destroying our energy industry? Socialism is all about the big lie which is told often enough to make people believe it.
    I would gladly purchase a Josh shirt with a certified planet wrecker statement on it.

  26. PaulH says:

    I look forward to receiving my official Planet Wreckers certificate. I’m sure it will arrive in the mail along with my check from Big Oil/Big Coal any day now… ;-)

  27. Paul Coppin says:

    The only certificate that should be handed out, is one McKibben himself should receive. The one that certifies him to be the nutbar he is.

  28. MattN says:

    He is correct that the chemistry and physics will win, they just aren’t on his team….

  29. Richard Howes says:

    I second Dickens Goes Metro’s tee-shirt idea. Josh, Anthony?

  30. RockyRoad says:

    I’m happy to be a PWD: “Planet Wrecking Denier”–has a certain “ring” to it even the “loose-with-the-facts” PDH’s–”Planet Destroying Hysterics” can appreciate, I’m sure. And I’d also love to have a PWD certificate to verify my position.

    But more to the point, their hysterical pronouncements of an early demise for Earth’s climate reminds me of the Hot Fusion imbroglio–they’ve been dumping tons of money into that enterprise for 40 years or more with “success” always just 20 years away.

    So the CAGW “20-year plan” is this–make a lot of money and cause a lot of heartache and disruption while you’re here, ’cause once you’re gone, the 20-year target is still the target (Redundant, right? And rightly so).

    Further typing could not appropriately describe the depths to which I despise these people (without getting snipped, of couse).

  31. Jim Clarke says:

    “They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won’t be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe.”

    Bill has taken the logical fallacy of ‘argument by consensus’ to new heights! Skeptics apparently don’t have much science to work with because they allegedly have only one ‘remotely serious scientist’ in their camp. I guess facts and data have no place in the climate debate, just the number and ‘quality’ of your camping buddies!

    Of course, the premise that there is only one serious scientist arguing that AGW will not likely be catastrophic and that all other serious scientists have said that it will, is a completely stupid lie, Mr. McKibben can only be testing the gullibility of the faithful with that one.

    The scientific reality is that the skeptics have always had the upper hand:

    1. It is the responsibility of those proposing the hypothesis to provide the evidence that supports it. Naysayers have no responsibility to come up with an alternative hypothesis, only indicate where the original hypothesis is incorrect, in order to nullify it. In the case of climate change, skeptics have no burden to produce a climate model that explains the climate history of the Holocene. Supporters of the AGW theory do have that burden and have been unable to do so.

    2. The only real debate is over climate sensitivity to increasing CO2. It is up to warmists to produce the evidence for this high sensitivity. Despite 20 years and billions of dollars in research money, warmists have no more evidence of this high sensitivity today than they did 20 years ago. They cannot find it. On the other hand, skeptics, with far less research money and in a generally hostile scientific environment, have come up with methods and evidence indicating that the actually sensitivity if far lower than the AGW theory ASSUMES.

    3. The test of any theory is in its ability to predict the future. In the case of AGW, a warming trend is not conformation of the theory, as even skeptics will agree that increasing CO2, all else being equal, will produce some small amount of warming. To support the theory, the warming must be very close to the predictions, Since it is not, the theory should be augmented to fit the data, not the other way around. The fact that there has been NO warming for the last 14 years indicates a major revision is in order! The defense of the theory at this point is completely unscientific.

    When we get right down to it, the only thing the warmists have going for them is a logical fallacy: the argument of consensus, and even that has been grossly inflated. From a scientific stand point, the warmists never had much to stand on, and that continues to whither with the lack of atmospheric warming.

  32. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Mr. Paul Milligan, quite so. We’re avastly funded conspiracy of evil oil and, at the sme time, an insignifcant bunch of losers

  33. NotThatPaulH says:

    A Planet Wrecking bumper sticker would be great also.

  34. Bill Tuttle says:

    Since McKibben reads WUWT, here’s one *more* thing:
    “But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot.”

    It wasn’t a long article, laddie-buck — it was an op-ed by James Hansen. ‘Nother words, it was an opinion piece, not a news item.

    CanadianObserver says:
    June 4, 2012 at 8:14 am
    …just evaluating McKibben’s train of thought, this level of cognitive dissonance is worthy of a “Monty Python Black Knight” award for persistence.
    (The Black Knight is a tragic figure from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail).

    (The Black Knight is an auto-lampooning figure from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail).

    Fixed it for ya.

  35. Gail Combs says:

    Les Johnson says:
    June 4, 2012 at 8:07 am

    sigh, I miss the Daily Bayonet.

    One mention of Weepy Bill would make my day.
    ________________________________________
    Shouldn’t that be changed to Weepy Willy (who gives me the Willies) If they can call Anthony, Tony….

  36. A Lovell says:

    McKibben is less an understudy than a sidekick.. He is Igor to Hansen’s Frankenstein.

  37. Gary says:

    Some men see things as they are and ask why; others persist in delusional fantasies and become the butt of jokes.

  38. Gail Combs says:

    May be the T-shirt should read:

    I am a Weeping Willy
    Certified Planet Wrecker

    with a Josh cartoon below it.
    Such as this one: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/planet_pressure_scr.jpg
    or this one: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/Suggestions_scr.jpg
    or this one: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/green_reaper_scr.jpg

    I am sure Josh can come up with something really good.

  39. MLCross says:

    Anthony Watts: Destroyer of Worlds.
    I’m thinking a cross-over issue here with Galactus.

  40. Episode 6: Captain Watts navigates his Destructor Fleet as directed by Lord Admiral Monckton navigates towards Earth to carbonize the planet using weapons designed by dastardly, evil scientist Motl. McKibben of the resistance Mannicly publishes press releases and journal which are transparent to the enlightenment rays of the Fleet.

    Will McKibben produce anything of substance to defend against the light?

    Stay tuned for a message from our sponsor.

  41. JJB MKI says:

    Gotta get myself a t-shirt that says ‘certified planet wrecker’!

    I get the feeling McKibben has never visited or read a sceptic blog. Acknowledgement of the gaping holes in the catastrophic global warming hypothesis could cause some potentially fatal dissonance.

  42. James Sexton says:

    Thought you guys might enjoy a little humorous piece I wrote at wild Bill’s expense. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/a-clear-carbon-catastrophe-as-we-pass-a-milestone/

    The best effect for the humor is to start to read it from the home page, in which case you’d have to click on “older posts” and then scroll down. At any rate, I thought it was a hoot. Enjoy.

  43. Henry Clark says:

    McKibben writes:

    Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen

    It is interestingly how blatantly dishonest these people get, counting on the sheer ignorance of much of their target audience of fellow supporters.

    From memory in my sleep I could mention Dr. Shaviv, Dr. Svensmark, and Dr. Spencer without getting seriously started. Aside from the thousands of scientists who have signed petitions, there are dozens in particularly relevant subspecialties risking censure to directly speak out listed here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=438904056&oldid=435356565

    I link to an early July 2011 version before the CAGW dishonesty-promoting team deleted all of the most revealing quotes, not the current version. I always find it very telling that the CAGW side has to delete info that they can not bear to have people ever see; groups which so terribly fear the end of ignorance are not harbringers of truth.

    The bulk of the papers (hundreds at least) listed under the many categories on http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php oppose key components of CAGW claims, with too many authors to conveniently count. Although the one weakness of that site is it does not directly link to online copies, usually just putting part of a paper’s name in quotes next to pdf is enough to find a version online, often full text without a paywall.

    I use the term CAGW, not global warming, as otherwise in practice favors the kind of binary thought fallacy the alarmists love to promote (the one used in their Doran & Zimmerman 2009 dishonest consensus poll trick). Putting a garbage bag on your lawn has a technically non-zero effect on temperature, but the basis of the global warming alarmism movement is claiming it is catastrophic (else nobody cares) and primarily anthropogenic (able to be blamed on humans as otherwise would defeat the whole point), thus catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

  44. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    What McKibben and his ilk don’t realise is that we have Mother Nature on our side.

  45. RHS says:

    Funny, we feel the same way about them being on the ropes…

  46. Interstellar Bill says:

    In spite of lack of scientific proof,
    the Warmistas still have their bogus ‘Precautionary Principle’,
    as well as the fallacious ‘Sustainability’ mantra,
    the fraudulent ‘Population Boom’,
    and their generic Leftist hatred of economic freedom.

    After all, DDT and Freon are still banned,
    the EPA rampage continues unabated,
    windmills continue to decimate birds and bats
    and destabilize our electricity supply,
    ethanol continues its obscene food-robbery,
    fuel poverty intensifies,
    and Green indoctrination of youth approaches 100%.

    With all those successes propping up their little minds,
    why should they ever acknowledge their massive scientific failure?
    They instead keep ‘adjusting’ past data and tweaking their models,
    finding ever more desparate tactics
    to explain away or deny the lack of warming.

    The upcoming Rio extravaganza should prove shriller than ever.

  47. Chuck says:

    The McKibbens of the world will never go away. The best we can hope for is that they are relegated to irrelevancy and no one pays any attention to them. Trying to defeat them with scientific arguments is impossible since their arguments are based on a distortion of science. It’s like trying to argue against Creationists and Intelligent Designers.

    Normally I’d say the best thing to do is to ignore them but while our collective guards were down, they got themselves into some positions of power so we need to continue to work to pry them out of power.

    On a side note, it continues to amaze me that the warmists continually assert that the skeptics are well funded when it’s exactly the opposite. I guess they’re practicing the old adage that if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.

  48. Gail Combs says:

    more soylent green! says:
    June 4, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Have we ever had an accounting of how much money “Big Oil” has funneled into “Big Green?”
    ______________________________
    Here is some of it
    Massive climate funding exposed: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    Here is a good one:
    Spot the conflict: GE owns NBC, the Weather channel and lots and lots of wind turbine factories: http://joannenova.com.au/?s=money
    And Obama appointed the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, as the head of a Council on Jobs (rolls eyes)

    US Government *only* spent $70 billion on climate since 2008 http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/us-government-only-spent-70-billion-on-climate-since-2008/

    Shell was WWF first Corporate sponser: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

    Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

    The Enormous CEO Salaries Behind Earth Hour http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/28/the-enormous-ceo-salaries-behind-earth-hour/

    The Wealthy Corporations Behind Earth Hour http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/26/the-wealthy-corporations-behind-earth-hour/

    BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/06/04/bp-greenpeace-the-big-oil-jackpot/

    Greenpeace: Corporate Stocks http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/05/greenpeace-corporate-stocks-noahs-arks/

  49. Blade says:

    Ya shoulda kept your head down McKibben. Now it’s gonna be popcorn time over at Lubos.

    I always remind my spoiled fellow Americans to listen hard to the ex-coms because they have already been there and done that. While we sit here united in celebration, marvelling at our own magnificence (:Morpheus), like the slow cooking frog we are nearly immune to the warning signs that are obvious to those frogs that jumped out of the pot. The ex-communists, particularly those in new Europe (:Rumsfeld) are not shy to smack some sense into us and say ‘WTF are you doing over there? Can’t you figure out what the left is up to? Wake up!‘.

    The truth is that these lefties are easy to rattle if you got the stones for it. It is done be calling a spade a spade. They do NOT like to be called proto-communists, but they are. They do NOT like to be called socialists, but of course they are. It is clear why they hated McCarthy so much, he and others were blowing their cover. Political correctness is a direct response, an inversion actually, to make it uncomfortable to call them what they are. They are leftist socialist neo-comms who wouldn’t hesitate for a second to sell out our nation and dictate every single facet of our lives (as if they aren’t already). The only way to win the war is to make their position the politically incorrect one again. It will take much courage to invert the situation right side up.

    Apart from the obvious denial (calling the skeptics a failure!) I get the sense from the article that some of this has really gotten into McKibben’s head. He has a tone of futility when speaking of Lubos and Marc Morano. This tells me that now is not the time to be nice to them and let them catch their breath, now is the time to double-down and hammer them hard,

  50. Henry Clark says:

    Anthony Watts, if you happen to read this comment, do you think there might be potential for having a reference page on WUWT for skeptical papers? I could create a list of such as a top hundred as a good sample, each with an illuminating quote and information including a link to usually a full-text version of the paper online without a paywall (aside from, of course, care in event of any copyright concerns, although there are many where authors themselves host a copy on their own websites), else an abstract at least. Even co2science.org does not do that. It would be just something I could work on occasionally over the next few weeks, and, then, once complete, submit to you if interested, so you could just do any additional editing judged necessary at your discretion.

    It would be a quite a contrast to the likes of the Wikipedia page implying there are fewer than 10 such papers (something I could not make more honest without deletion within minutes to hours since they have a team patrolling those articles including some with admin powers).

    Without any need to make an outright commitment (obviously dependent on exactly what I submitted and subject to further editing), please let me know if you would be likely to host such a reference page of skeptical papers. I wouldn’t want to invest the time to write it up otherwise, but WUWT does get enough viewer numbers to be worthwhile.

  51. Barbara Skolaut says:

    “I’d proudly wear a Certified Planet Wrecker t-shirt, especially if it featured a Josh cartoon.

    I smell a $$$ opportunity for Watts Up and Josh.”

    I second that, Dickens. Josh/Anthony, please make it so! :-D

  52. Robert Austin says:

    Bernd Felsche says:
    June 4, 2012 at 9:57

    Not Captain Watts, more like Darth Watts in the eyes of Weepy Bill.
    Or how about a multi-armed Anthony Watts (aka Vishnu) with the quotation:
    “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” In the Looking Glass world of Weepy Bill, global thermonuclear war is inconsequential next to CAGW.

  53. redc1c4 says:

    “Certified Planet Wrecker”, eh?

    iam reminded of the old bumper sticker:
    Earth First!
    We’ll Strip-mine the Other Planets Later.

  54. redc1c4 says:

    PS: I’ll be wanting a t-shirt or two also.

  55. Caleb says:

    Hey there Little Willy, Remember saying this?

    “This is the year we finally started to understand what we are in for. Exactly 12 months ago, an MIT professor named Kerry Emanuel published a paper in “Nature” showing that hurricanes had slowly but steadily gaining in strength and duration for a generation. It didn’t gain widespread attention for a few weeks—not until Katrina roared across the Gulf of Mexico and rendered a half million people refugees. The scenario kept repeating…”

    That was in the August, 2006 National Geographic.

    I guess that was the year we started to understand what we were in for: A whole lot of shrill Chicken Little screeching from cockless roosters. For six solid years we’ve had to put up with demented raving poisoning our hopes, frightening our children, deranging our government, and changing the world for the worse.

    May 2012 be the year that you start to see what you’re in for: Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

  56. TANSTAAFL says:

    “Gosh, “certified planet wreckers”? Where does one get a certificate like that?”

    Well, you could always apply to become a Gray Lensman.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman_series

  57. David L. Hagen says:

    Anthony
    A badge of honor indeed for a very highly effective effort on a shoe string budget.

    Bill McKibbon has the sisyphean task of persuading people to “believe” in “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” when nature is NOT cooperating. e.g., There is growing evidence that the IPCC “projected” 0.2C/decade warming trend is about 2 sigma higher than the actual global warming trend for the last 32 years. i.e., warmer that it is ~95% warmer than this historic trend of 0.138 C/decade from the satellite measurements. Furthermore, humans have adapted to far greater temperature increases after walking across the Beringia land bridge. The sea level has already risen some 120 m (~400 ft)!

    PS Henry Clark
    Check also with Marc Morano at Climate Depot:. See:
    SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

    Also see NIPCC, and CO2 Science

  58. Don Keiller says:

    Where’s this ton of money?
    I ain’t seen it.
    For info I had to pay out of my own pocket to see University of East Anglia (UEA) in court to win my FOI action. I represented myself.
    UEA employed a nationwide firm of lawyers and a top barrister.
    Where was “big oil!” when I needed them?

  59. pwl says:

    “Anthony Watts: Destroyer of Worlds.”

    Yeah, destroyer of their alarmist fantasy co2 climate doomsday rapture world.

    Watch them squeem and squirm, protest and yell more and more ridiculous claims as their fantasy world collapses under the crushing load provided by the Falsification by Mother Nature.

  60. pwl says:

    Falsification By Mother Nature: when a proposed hypothesis is crushed by direct unadjusted non-mannipulated observational empirical evidence from Mother Nature.

  61. Dave Dodd says:

    A Lovell says:
    June 4, 2012 at 9:43 am

    McKibben is less an understudy than a sidekick.. He is Igor to Hansen’s Frankenstein.

    OK! That one got the keyboard! …and Monster thru the nose…

  62. quidsapio says:

    BTW – speaking of all things ridiculous, I just uploaded a copy of that infamous 10 10 exploding kids video on Youtube. Donna Laframboise was asking people to make copies before it vanishes, so feel free to copy and repost as it desired

  63. DirkH says:

    quidsapio says:
    June 4, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    “BTW – speaking of all things ridiculous, I just uploaded a copy ”

    Very much appreciated. Thanks.

  64. Omar says:

    PS: I’ll be wanting a t-shirt or two also.

  65. Tom in Florida says:

    With so many wanting to proudly wear a “Certified Planet Wrecker” t-shirt (myself included), I think the “Certified Planet Wrecker Extraordinaire” shirt should be reserved for Anthony alone.

  66. Alex says:

    I bet that when the CAGW scare is over it’s gonne be like when nazi germany fell and nobody in Germany admitted to being a nazi. Just wait 10 years for it. Oh and %¤&# Godwins law.

  67. mortis88 says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    June 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    With so many wanting to proudly wear a “Certified Planet Wrecker” t-shirt (myself included), I think the “Certified Planet Wrecker Extraordinaire” shirt should be reserved for Anthony alone.
    ==================================================
    I will second that.

  68. Puckster says:

    You are the “Silver Surfer”, serving “Galactus”. Awesome job man.

    What power you wield.

  69. Lady Life Grows--Esther Cook says:

    Chuck says:

    June 4, 2012 at 10:23 am

    On a side note, it continues to amaze me that the warmists continually assert that the skeptics are well funded when it’s exactly the opposite. I guess they’re practicing the old adage that if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.

    One of the reasons we continue to have this trouble is that we just don’t promote the truth on funding much. Amongst ourselves, on site like this we joke about how we could use some of that oil money, but rarely tell the truth–we have a few thousands in funding and they have billions, especially NSF.

  70. Reed Coray says:

    The “Certified Planet Wrecker” T-shirt should come with insignias of rank. Anthony, McIntyre, Lindzen, Spencer, Monckton and a few others should have four stars on each shoulder. Others will have lesser ranks.

  71. commieBob says:

    Blade says:
    June 4, 2012 at 10:26 am

    It is clear why they hated McCarthy so much, …

    Geez Blade, you just blew my mind. I would never have guessed that any sentient being could take Joseph McCarthy seriously.

    Ultimately, McCarthy’s tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate.

    On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to censure Senator McCarthy by a vote of 67 to 22, making him one of the few senators ever to be disciplined in this fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

    Do you disagree with the Senate? Do you think McCarthy got a bum rap?

    I’m not saying there were no communist spys and agents to worry about. The thing that was wrong with McCarthy was that he was willing to tell lies and ruin innocent people’s lives. Put simply; two wrongs never make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

    McCarthy acted like many of the climate alarmists. They believe in their cause. They believe that gives them the duty and license to tell any kind of lies and do anything to ‘save us from the communists’ or ‘save us from catastrophic runaway global warming’.

    Such people exist on the right and the left and they’re all vile.

  72. Owen in GA says:

    commiebob: weren’t you paying attention when the wall fell in the late 80′s? There were a lot of the people McCarthy was after mentioned in the payroll files. Though the money was sent through handlers and many times the recipient wasn’t even aware they were working for the communists, but work for them they did all the same. McCarthy’s tactics were right out of the French Revolution, and in that he deserved his censure. Though the worst tactics were over in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, most people blame their abuses on McCarthy. McCarthy’s biggest problem was not getting his evidence in line before accusing people publicly.

  73. Jimbo says:

    I want a certificate. It’s a badge of honour that you can show your grandchildren that you resisted the greatest scam ever perpetrated on human beings.

  74. Keith Sketchley says:

    Hang it on the wall and be proud.

  75. eyesonu says:

    I’ll go with a “Certified Planet Wrecker” tee shirt if it comes with a letter of certification and a bumper sticker. Am I certified yet? If not, tell me how. Do I need to prove knowledge of “global warming” BS when I see it?

    As a bona fide and recognized Asshole by the likes of a group like McKibben, I formed the “Assholes of America” and remain president. It has become an international organization. The motto: “To be an Asshole, you can’t be a common asshole.” It has been in existence over 25 years. I can’t reveal any more.

  76. Bruce Cobb says:

    I envision a crane with wrecking ball with the name “Planet Wrecker” on it, poised to smash into a building already severely pockmarked, with the barely-legible and partially falling name of “Planet Alarmadon” on it. The crane itself would, of course carry the official “Certified Planet Wrecker” logo, with a maniacally-grinning Anthony at the controls.

  77. KenG says:

    Typical professional alarmist rhetoric, just one long ad hom, no actual science discussed. What was it Lindzen said? “When the science is on your side you argue the science. When it’s not, you attack the messenger”.

    McKibben’s article is another perfect example.

  78. tedsunday says:

    Living in the Adirondacks where Bill McKibben has spent the last 20 years I have had to listen to his dribble so often it makes me sick. Thats why we named him Crazy Bill McKibben 10 years ago. My favorite nut operation he ran here was Step Up for CO2 where he wanted everyone to go hiking to show they cared. After the local newspaper (propaganda machine ) ran an article on it I wrote a letter to the editor. After I pointed out they were all driving cars to go hiking increasing their carbon foot print. Step up never made it past the first year.

  79. Caleb says:

    I don’t doubt that Mr. McKibben was gifted by God, as a writer. Unfortunately I feel he has abused his gifts. Where the poet John Keats said, “Truth is Beauty,” Mr. McKibben has seemingly fallen prey to the false political dogma which states, “The ends justify the means,” and has consequently subscribed to diverting, subverting and perverting truth, until a most horrible darkness has risen in our time.

    Therefore, in honor of his achievement, I would like to suggest we revive, in his name, the practice of inventing “Little Willy” doggerels.

    I believe this less-than-high art-form first appeared in a small book called, “Ruthless Rhymes for Heartless Homes,” by Col. D. Streamer, 1901.

    Here is an example of the sort of rhyme we are looking for:

    “Willy found some dynamite,
    couldn’t understand it quite,
    curiosity never pays,
    it rained Willy for 7 days.”

    and

    “Willie studied chemistry
    But Willie is no more
    For what he took for H20
    Was HClO4″

  80. zefal says:

    Climate-change deniers on the ropes. And after we’re sure the warmist scare-mongers aren’t breathing in anymore poisonous CO2, we’ll let the ropes go.

  81. Ric Werme says:

    Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    June 4, 2012 at 8:06 am

    > Hey, Bill, there’s a cabin in the woods near Lincoln, Montana, that could have your name on it. Cheap, I’m thinkin’.

    Sorry, the FBI moved the whole cabin to California as evidence.

    Then it got moved to Washington to become a museum exhibit, see an online
    exhibit complete with the cabin modeled by software at http://www.newseum.org/exhibits-and-theaters/temporary-exhibits/g-men-and-journalists/unabomber/index.html

    My family bicycled through Lincoln in 2003 and ate in a restaurant I expect Kaczynski visit. Nice little cabin, I always thought the FBI or other agency should have auctioned it off like they do with other asset forfeiture.

    Curious – we both read Scientific American in our pre-teen years. I have a yurt near a dirt road, but there are no utility poles there and it gets wonderfully dark at night. Haven’t written a Manifesto yet. Major differences are I stil like technology and I have better things to do than to blow up people.

  82. Grey Lensman says:

    TANSTAAFL

    I resemble that remark

    Odd that us planet builders are deemed to be wreckers. Sums up watermelons nicely, brain fitted inside out.

  83. Gail Combs says:

    Bernd Felsche says:
    June 4, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Episode 6: Captain Watts navigates his Destructor Fleet….

    Will McKibben produce anything of substance to defend against the light?

    Stay tuned for a message from our sponsor.
    _______________________________________
    You forgot to name the sponsor. It has to be GE of course!

  84. Gail Combs says:

    Henry Clark says:
    June 4, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Anthony Watts, if you happen to read this comment, do you think there might be potential for having a reference page on WUWT for skeptical papers? ….
    Henry, It has already been done by Potech (Thank You Poptech)

    1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  85. markx says:

    McKibben writes: “Whatever the final outcome…..”

    It is interesting that he uses that phrase. Is there just a tiny little bit of doubt in his mind….?

  86. Gail Combs says:

    Don Keiller says:
    June 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Where’s this ton of money?
    I ain’t seen it.
    For info I had to pay out of my own pocket to see University of East Anglia (UEA) in court to win my FOI action. I represented myself.
    UEA employed a nationwide firm of lawyers and a top barrister.
    Where was “big oil!” when I needed them?
    ________________________________________
    Big Oil was too busy funding the University of East Anglia gaggle of lawyers. Who the heck do you thik funded UEA in the first place? Shell oil and BP!

  87. Mr Lynn says:

    I’d like one of those certificates, framed, on my wall.

    Though a bumper sticker might be nice, too.

    You’ll need to custom-print them, with our names/handles on them.

    What’s the seal/watermark on yours? I can’t quite see it.

    /Mr Lynn

  88. Chuck Nolan says:

    sunshinehours1 says:
    June 4, 2012 at 7:57 am
    Heartland’s Billboard was correct. They are nuts.
    —————————
    The comments could have stopped right here.
    ‘Nuff said.

  89. Matt says:

    Has Mc Kibben been invited by the IPCC to be a reviewer for the upcoming report? What does it say about the IPCC to have invited the #1 denier then? :P

  90. Merovign says:

    I wouldn’t mind their fantasy world so much if they:

    A) Knew it was a fantasy world.
    B) Didn’t cast me as a villain in their melodrama.
    C) Didn’t spend so much tax money!

  91. Just when you think alarmists have hit the lowest they will go……….

  92. Bill Tuttle says:

    Robert Austin says:
    June 4, 2012 at 10:38 am
    Or how about a multi-armed Anthony Watts (aka Vishnu) with the quotation:
    “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    Shiva is the Destroyer. Gotta keep the pantheon straight, yanno…

  93. I’d love a sticker. Designed lots of them myself here and you should be able to turn any of them into real bumper stickers.

    But hey, I want a “double measure” sticker. Why? Because not only do I challenge climate science orthodoxy, I’ve now come to the point of challenging “climate skeptics orthodoxy” too. Yeeess, I’m not only a well-seasoned, hard-nosed “certified planet wrecker” (click my name), I’m now also a “transcendental ranter” planning some real experiments (“who needs data when you’ve got models?”) to replicate Graeff’s experiments.

    I have checked the science, the experimental work, and the data very carefully. It won’t go away – despite my being not-a-trained-Climate-Scientist like Monckton, Carter, Plimer, McIntyre, Jo Nova, et al.

  94. Perry says:

    Caleb says:
    June 4, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Slight correction:

    For what he took for H20
    Was H2SO4″
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=H2SO4

  95. tomjtx says:

    Chris B
    Love that word Cagwism. You should trademark it. A cagiest is one who believes in Cagwism. Musch better than Alarmist :-)

  96. tomjtx says:

    I meant Cagwist

  97. Blade says:

    commieBob [June 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm] says:

    “Do you disagree with the Senate? Do you think McCarthy got a bum rap?

    I’m not saying there were no communist spys and agents to worry about. The thing that was wrong with McCarthy was that he was willing to tell lies and ruin innocent people’s lives. Put simply; two wrongs never make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

    McCarthy acted like many of the climate alarmists. They believe in their cause. They believe that gives them the duty and license to tell any kind of lies and do anything to ‘save us from the communists’ or ‘save us from catastrophic runaway global warming’.

    Such people exist on the right and the left and they’re all vile.”

    Of course I disagree with that Senate, and of course Joe McCarthy got a bum rap. I should ask you if you disagree with the stereotype tactics of the media and the Communist fellow travelers of painting the Irish WWII tailgunner as a drunk and the gay bashing of Roy Cohn as an untrustworthy misanthrope. Two wrongs don’t make a right indeed.

    You seriously would use Wikipedia to make a point about a political correctness issue like Joe McCarthy? That’s like using Joe Romm or Paul Ehrlich as a reference source on catastrophic Climate Change.

    You say that McCarthy lied and ruined people’s lives. What lies and whose lives? Stop being a politically correct zombie and explain. There is a lot of political posturing that emanates from Congress historically to disregard or whine about, but the actual, I said the ACTUAL infiltration of the State Department is not one of them. For example, we were just treated to years of such emanations accusing Bush 43 of invading countries for their oil and such (which would be very close to treason on the President’s part), floor speeches from Congressman, dutifully repeated on TV and the media, and all were simply lies of course. But that atmosphere is pretty constant, it happens throughout our history, yet you choose to whine about the one clear time when they, McCarthy and others were directly on target. Sheesh.

    And it’s not like he wanted to clean up Hollywood or Academia or the news media (who were then hardly influenced by commies but are now throughly infiltrated), no, he was upholding the ‘enemies foreign and domestic’ part of his oath(s) and was concerned with the taxpayer funded USA Armed Forces and Federal government. Spend some time researching Venona, whose cables were declassified four decades too late for Joe McCarthy and others, who fought a very serious battle with their best ammunition sequestered. These were not witch hunts at all since real life Communist spies are not witches.

    “Geez Blade, you just blew my mind. I would never have guessed that any sentient being could take Joseph McCarthy seriously.”

    The only way to make this comment sensible, topical and factual would be to re-write it as so:

    “I would never have guessed that any sentient being could take Ehrlich or Hansen or McKibben or Romm or Algore seriously.”

    Whining about McCarthyism is so wonderfully politically correct but it is illogical now since the facts are known. McCarthyism can now be redefined as the stubborn, ignorant or intentional shielding of traitors and enemy spies at all costs, a form of cognitive dissonance really. It is often implemented through a media campaign of smearing against the whistleblowers and allows Irish or gay smears for which the fellow travelers get a temporary pass. And there in lies the connection to the climate change hoax – attacks on whistleblowers. So you have it completely backwards when saying McCarthy is like the Alarmists. And if you think about it, it is the exact same set of people ideologically then and now on the wrong side of the issues – the leftists socialists. They flirted with Communism then and are now flirting with the climate change hoax because both roads lead to the exact same place, massive powerful government promoted to god, the human individual deprecated to servant.

    [NOTE]: I cannot believe this stupid WordPress comment entry form that is 3 sentences tall as I try to edit this. Impossible! Apologize in advance for any errors. We should find the identity of the retarded programmers over there and splash their names over the Internet so they never again get hired to anything except maybe printing lost and found fliers for the supermarket pegboard. If you worked for me I would so fire you.

  98. Caleb says:

    RE: Perry says:
    June 5, 2012 at 1:17 am

    I stand corrected.

  99. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:

    If Heartland has any brains, they would offer new doners a “Planet Wrecker” certificate, bumper sticker, tee shirt or other memento.

    Mike Lorrey’s effort above is a good start except instead of “Certificate of Achievement” it should read “Certificate of Destruction”.

    And we could have levels, like Scientology.

  100. Bruce Cobb says:

    Bill “the weepster” McKibben is well-deserving of certificates and awards in many fields himself such as;
    Fact Fabrication
    Confusion of Weather with Climate
    Emotion-Laden and Highly Irrational Argument
    And many more. In any case, he’s certifiable.

  101. Keith Sketchley says:

    Skimming through this, I see the usual patterns such as:
    - Defining “scientist” to exclude anyone who questions alarmist beliefs (part of their tactic is “argument from authority” but they go well beyond that, setting themselves up as priests)
    - Suppressing expression
    - People get so wrapped up in their view on a particular subject they can’t listen to anyone else
    - Some even believe their own lies (the more they repeat them the more they believe them and the more they have invested in them)
    - Underlying beliefs drive their conclusions (we know the underlying beliefs of most environmentalists are ideologies that deny the human mind, most often Marxism).
    I’ve seen some of that from people with objective beliefs – heated arguments with exaggerated use of language, red herrings, and failure to focus. But it is more likely from those whose underlying beliefs deny the mind, thus have no solid thinking method so end up relying on emotions as a means of knowledge and debate

Comments are closed.