Tom Nelson reports on some disturbed thinking – From an epic rant by warmist David Appell:
“Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? I think so”
Quark Soup by David Appell: The CharlesH Problem
But CharlesH, this idiot, this — I’m sorry — this fucking idiot who sits home and probably watches America’s [sic] Idol in the evening, who has probably never read a science paper in his life, really, truly, somehow honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.
What can you possibly say about such a person? This person — CharlesH — now threatens civilization.
Think about that — ignorance from Tea Party types in rural Utah threatens the well-being of the entire human race.
…
I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.
Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?
I think so. You can simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.
When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.
…It’s obvious (barely) they’re not smart enough to be so evil…
…
None of them has much of a science background, if any. I mean, please.
And CharlesH, who clearly knows no science either.
But on the shoulders of these idiots, fools, and incoherent minds our future seems to turn, if only just a bit, if only in the blogosphere. And they are probably proud of this, somehow.
…
But them, still, I think: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 5 molecules per 10,000 trap more heat than 4 per 10,000, or even three.
On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000.
…
I’ll be flying home tomorrow…
I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.
Apparently Mr. Appell doesn’t note that I’ve stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas on national television and said it has an effect.
There’s also a transcript here
I think the real crime Mr. Appell thinks I’m guilty of is existing, having an opinion, and daring to write about it.
If anyone is a neighbor of David Appell, this might be fun:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good, now we’re really getting close. When their reaction becomes this vile, you know a corner has been turned. The fear in the rant almost made me feel a little pity…almost.
Pray for more CO2.
Does that prayer make me a religious terrorist?
“On that small divide, our future lies. One molecule out of 10,000”
Is this a parody?
That is some serious hate right there, he would be welcomed by the Westboro Baptist Church with open arms.
Keep fighting the good fight Mr.Watts.
“I’ll be flying home tomorrow…”
So he does occasionally acknowledge the existence of the real world in his ramblings.
You can pretty much put any argument that has been made in the past into his whine and it fits perfectly… Me he sounds like a classic eugenics nutter. End of the world blah blah blah.
honestly thinks he knows better than all the professional, study-deep-into-the-night, sweat-the-data, devote-their-lives scientists about all this.
Obviously doesn’t believe in thinking for oneself, thinks Scientists are gods, or at least part of the Heavenly Chorus who hath neither sins nor weakness of the spirit.
Wonder if he could do any of the elementary back-checking the average skeptic does?
Yeah, there’s a reason these guys study deep into the night: they’re trying to figure out how to get something “significant” out of junk, with limited skills to draw from, leading to an inability to understand where it all went wrong. Sigh…
Mark
These guys are now on the defensive. They never expected to have to play defense, so they didn’t write a defense play book. All they seem to be able to do is run around yelling and screaming at anyone who isn’t on their side. Pretty soon, they will be yelling and screaming at each other, as they point the finger of blame at their own team mates.
Another clueless authoritarian a** h*** calls for criminalizing speech. Sadly, we must grant DA the freedom to mouth his offensive idiocy, even though he would deny the same to others.
Although, by condemning, indeed advocating the criminalization, of the free expression of ideas, DA devalues his own ideas to less than zero.
You need to broadcast your Wifi name, too. I keep mine hidden so my neighbors don’t get any wise ideas and attempt to hack in (I live in an apartment for the time being, lots of neighbors). I wonder if broadcasting “FBI Surveillance Van” would invite curiosity seekeers, or just idiots?
Mark
First they’ll make it a crime to deny climate change, next they’ll make it a crime to think it.
Anthony,
How big a bounce in ratings have you gotten from these reactions?
Not exactly instilling confidence in the average reader that this guy has what it takes to make credulous claims such as he has.
Mark
I am sorry but if someone is going to rant about the ignorance of another they should not close the argument with a statement about not remembering their own WiFi password….
Between work and personal life I have multiple (10+) usernames/passwords I have to remember and I am a published researcher (not climate though), so it is possible to do both…
“When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.”
Oho! So the courts will put all those who doubt the great Mann’s work in jail for him, will they? Again, whether quoted by sceptics or alarmists, Mann comes across as a maniac with a one-track mind – “I’m going to get everyone who’s ever questioned my work. I shall do such things – what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth”.
PS: h/t Shakespeare.
PPS: Er, can I say that without being sued? 🙂
Er, incredulous.
co2phobia, no?
There is no chance the theory is partly wrong then?
So far, the climate model forecasts are off by quite a bit (on “everything” that is except for perhaps the Arctic sea ice). One would have to be very bought into the theory to ignore that fact.
And one would have to be “something – I’m not quite sure what that description would be – to try to suppress others from knowing about that fact, let alone trying to charge people with a crime for letting others know about that fact.
‘…I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again. It always seems like a crapshoot, and frankly, I don’t even know if I remember the password.’
Hm. ‘Fucking idiot’ (Mod: quote from above!) doesn’t ‘even know’ if he can remember a password. I think it is fair to call that an ‘Ouch’.
Did ya notice all those grammatical errors?
Did he end with “I’ll be flying home tomorrow.”? Do jets not emit CO2?
Who’s the criminal: the person who says CO2 emissions are not a problem and drives an electric car, or the person who claims CO2 emissions are destroying the climate and yet contributes to those emissions by flying on planes?
So many people are drawn to the terror and ecstasy of contemplation of an apocalypse…it has always been so and will always be so. Whether from the Book of Revelations, Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter, or Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick, somehow they find the home of their particular apocalyptic fantasy and dwell therein.
The apocalypse always follows a pattern. There is always a way out (“If only the fools would listen to me!”) and always of some axis of good and evil (“How big is your eco-footprint?”). The endgame is always conveniently just over the horizon, near enough to excite fear, yet far enough to be unseeable, hence un-disprovable (“the missing heat must be somewhere…by the time we see it, we’ll be beyond the tipping point and all hope lost.”).
We need to recognize when we are dealing with the psychopathologic, like this fellow, or the corrupt and mendacious, like Algore. There is no rational discussion to to be had with either type.
Fortunately, the great mass of people just want to live in safety and prosperity and are responsive to reasonable argument—–hence, every poll shows the “lukewarmer, non-apocalyptic” argument is winning out over the hysterics.
I know the usual thing about Godwin’s Law, and I’m not going to say anything overt. But are there any groups in history that we might think of who talk like this? I can think of quite a few in the last century, and several right now around the world.
In other news: UK Met Office scientists labelled as (no prize to guess it) WILFUL DENIERS!. Their crime? For once, they have not jumped on the “it’s worse than we thought” bandwagon:
One wonders if Mr. Appell is familiar with the terms “ad hominem” and “argumentum ad verecundiam”? That’s all I see in his rant. Sounds like he was, as they say in Spanish, “echando chispas.” [literally …giving off sparks]