Weepy Bill McKibben is fed up, because he says nobody is listening to the climate sirens any more. He says in an MSNBC editorial published on Tuesday April 1st, that we need a climate labor strike. I think it isn’t an April fools joke, but it’s hard to tell with Bill since most of his writings are borderline crazy even on regular weekdays.
He writes:
So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.
Oh, what a GREAT idea!
- Imagine weeks without Michael Mann bloviating about his hockey stick, or his lawsuit, or how the #Kochmachine is funding opinion contrary to his, worldwide.
- Imagine weeks without Stephan Lewandowsky claiming climate skeptics deny the Moon Landing without actually ever having asked any of them.
- Imagine weeks without Gavin Schmidt thumbing his nose at people on Twitter that he thinks aren’t worthy of having an opinion.
- Imagine weeks without Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat and offering excuses for why it has disappeared.
- Imagine weeks without Jonathan Overpeck lecturing us on Twitter about how we have to “tackle climate change threats”.
- Imagine weeks without Andrew Dessler saying “Skeptics should keep their mouths shut. Here’s why: Dick Lindzen talking about environmentalism”
- Imagine weeks without anyone referencing the new IPCC report as gospel.
- Imagine weeks without weepy Bill claiming that #divestment is going to stop fossil fuels from being used, when all it does is shift it somewhere else.
You get the idea. The world would be a kinder, gentler place if climate scientists and their fanboys went on strike. Personally, I’m all for it. I could use the rest.
While we are on the subject of weepy Bill’s MSNBC article, I note there is a poll at the bottom of it asking this:
Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?
And here is the poll result as of about 10:30PM PDT Tuesday evening.
No: 2,718 votes Yes: 947 votes I am not sure: 91 votes
With those kind of numbers, I don’t think WUWT readers need to weigh in.
When you can’t even get the ultra-left MSNBC crowd to agree with your premise of climate change being a threat, maybe a strike isn’t the answer; maybe it’s just time to just give up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?
This is music to my ears. Nice post Anthony.
“So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.”
No fear of this ever happening from the grant addicted. Their comfortable lifestyles depend on churning out the BS as fast as they can. The highly profitable business of ‘crying wolf’ about the prospect of imminent Thermageddon is not about to end anytime soon.
The BS is a mixture of:
i) Biased and highly inaccurate climate models, nearly all with pre-conceived results.
ii) Papers where the raw data and methodology is not disclosed, or partially hidden behind paywalls.
iii) Papers written where the original data has been so manipulated/homogenised/tortured or cherry picked to make the results meaningless.
iv) Promoting economic policies designed to cripple the western world’s economies.
v) A censorship war against those who dare to question that the science is not settled.
vi) Papers which totally ignore the effect of natural climate cycles and the evidence of the geological record which clearly shows CAGW does not exist.
On the minus side, if it ever happened WUWT, Jo Nova, Climate Audit, the GWPF, etc would see a steady decline in readership after a few months.
Typo? Had to tell or hard to tell?
What were they predicting 25 years ago? Has it happened?
Typo alert.
“Imagine weeks without Michael Mann bloviating about his hockey stick, or his lawsuit, or how the #Kochmachine is funding opinion contrary to his, worldwide.” … should be world-view or world view I think.
[Reply: No, try re-reading it. ~ mod.]
The result of that poll will be taken seriously at MSNBC. I’m sure they are trying figure out why their ratings have been so poor lately, and they want to know where their viewers stand on this question. Now they know.
I’ll bet they start changing their tune at MSNBC with respect to climate alarmism, their ratings and revenue are at stake. Nothing like good ol’ money to cause a news outlet to make some changes.
“So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. ”
I think he meant
So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the pseudo-scientific community to churn out more alarmist reports.
Pete Brown said “Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?”
There’s always a tick at that position on the circle. Users can click on each section of the circle in turn. The section goes yellow and a pop-up box indicates what it means and how many voted for it. Right now the Yes vote is 24% (995 votes), No 73% (2990), Not Sure 2% (95).
More or less the same as the 98% Consensus on Dear Leader Care.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/98-consensus-reached/
From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.
I’m hoping for “years” or longer, not “weeks”.
No
3,069 votes
Yes
996 votes
I am not sure
95 votes
And rising
Jimbo,
When you read in on this article would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).
I will copy and paste to a word doc for later argumentative use!!!
Please…
Luuurve your work by the way.
MSNBC was featured prominently in a recent movie I watched, Sudden Impact, and seeing as I endured such inanity, I felt I deserved to participate in their poll. Its at 74% No now.
It is always important to take part in these surveys. It is rather like taking part in a de-militarization process. I am hoping that the total can reach 97% to 3% as that would jog their memories down at MSNBC. Perhaps they will learn a bit more about the real percentages with respect to climate alarmism.
There is nothing wrong whit climate science its the pseudo science you call climate science wits is wrong.
Your problem is not the number of reports but what is in it. People tent to stop believing if the things you tell are wrong. And indeed all reports you make are wrong so instead of complaining about us not believing better start making reports in line whit the real world.
“You get the idea. The world would be a kinder, gentler place if climate scientists and their fanboys went on strike. Personally, I’m all for it. I could use the rest.”
Go on strike , or just shut the f up with their corrupt masquerading of a political agenda as climate science. Either would suit me fine.
Weepy says: “We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described ”
Well no, actually climate science has wasted most of the last quarter century trying to prove what they already “knew” to be the case, instead of doing scientific research. Their models and the whole paradigm is an abject failure. So maybe going on strike from producing and endless stream of propagandist garbage and take say, five years, off to do some real research and come back when they have some real understanding of how climate works and some models that work.
Now if any of them are capable of analysing system behaviour let them go on a propaganda strike and get on with the job. If they are not capable, I hear Walmart are hiring ….
Make that “Deep Impact”.
Weepy says : “….when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described ”
“when you deal with the trouble we’ve already caused ” would be more like it.
TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.
Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.
McKibben, who admitted to being a deliberate liar about being an American Indian in order to get attention, is on to something here.
Perhaps the companies that have been funding climate obsessed profiteers like McKibben could go on strike.
He also admits something interesting: That the ‘climate science’ industry is churning out products designed to scare us into accepting the idea that the world is ending due to CO2 and to give himself and their pals more and more of our money.
I have to agree. If they stop the rampant alarmism until can verify the next 25 years of predictions, I’ll be happy.
If it is anything like as good as the last 25 years of predictions, my prediction is there’ll be no more predictions. But that is just a prediction, of course.
McKibben ends his piece with a couple of interesting statements, first, that “preachers can preach about climate change”: Is he referrring to priests, or has he picked up the idea that alarmists are rather like religious preachers?
Second; “You can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending.” Does he seriously mean that the world is ending? In that case, I can understand why alarmists are losing ground by the mile.
“We all have day jobs, and in those jobs we can sometimes do some good on these issues: preachers can preach about climate change, and carpenters can build solar homes. But our other important role is as citizens. On nights and weekends we have to do the (also volunteer) work that at this point is the only thing that can make a difference.
Because it’s perfectly clear by now that you can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending.”
For once I’m 100% behind Weepy Bill. Go for it!
STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!
Even if it takes years of not producing another CAGW paper to bring the average Joe/Jane to their knees begging for more catastrophic climate claptrap, I will support the striking climascientologists.
(Sheesh! What a maroon. Does Bill even read what he writes?)