Disruptor vs. Galacticus

From d-bits.com - click

Guest post by Thomas Fuller

Like a supervillain from Marvel Comics, a new threat to civilization has emerged. It is Climate Disruption, the result of a rebranding exercise announced by U.S. Science Czar John Holdren.

George Orwell understood the importance of controlling the terms of political debate, and predicted this level of Newspeak long before John Holdren joined with Paul Ehrlich to demand the U.S. ‘de-develop,’ a Newspeak way of calling for a return to medieval life.

But this one is a real beaut. Climate change, which morphed into ‘global warming’ for political reasons and later re-emerged after the globe stubbornly refused to warm fast enough, is now climate disruption.

What this means is that any unusual event–or even usual events, like walruses showing up on Alaskan beaches, which they do every year–can be called climate disruption in action, and blamed on human activity.

We are fulfilling Orwellian requirements in other respects as well: Cameras everywhere, recording everything (including dust devils that can inflate tornado statistics)? Check. Intrusive software following us around? Check. A devaluing of the English language to suit political objectives? Double check.

Take the term ‘denier.’ Please. It is hate speech, pure and simple. It was dragged into the climate debate specifically to compare skeptics with skinhead thugs who denied the Holocaust occurred. It has persisted despite it being pointed out as hate speech because those who use it are thugs themselves, needing to devalue any contribution from their enemies and because it gives them an almost sexual sadistic thrill.

But ‘climate disruption’ is more dangerous–it is a potent political weapon. There are no terms of reference, there is a certainty that it will be misused and it will cheapen any attempt to objectively observe our climate and to accurately describe what is happening to it.

Where’s the Silver Surfer when you really need him?

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “Disruptor vs. Galacticus

  1. It will have little effect, because the average citizen now sees through the scam and realizes these warmistas are truly now flailing around. Panic mode.

  2. Being a star trek fan the word “disruptor” just makes me think of the klingon weapons and since “resistance is futile” is the catch phrase of the borg i have no doubt that the enterprise will save us from this impending disaster.

  3. I agree with you on this one, Tom. It makes any weather event proof of the evil of CO2…. More hurricanes than normal? Bad, and CO2 done it. Fewer huricanes than normal? Bad, and CO2 done it. Is there a good operational definition for climate disruption? It’s whatever they want it to mean.

  4. I love “Climate Disruption”…early frost? disruption: cold winter? disruption: big return of Sockeye salmon to the Fraser River? disruption.

    Any minor blip is ever more evidence of “disruption”. Does not matter if the next twenty to thirty years are, well, cooler than the climatology. That’s disruption and mankind is obviously the cause.

    This lets policy cut the anchor to that pesky science which seems to be more than a little inconclusive. With “disruption” an unexpected hailstorm or more Arctic ice or a really hot day in Chicago pushes the “mankind is bad” narrative forward.

    Of course, the one tiny problem with the rebranding is that almost no regular person was buying the old brand. Calling a “buggy whip” a “horse enhancer” is unlikely to create more sales of an unnecessary item.

  5. I don’t think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that there is a lot of stuff coming out at the moment in order to prepare the ground for the Cancun Climate meeting in a couple of months.

    http://www.global-energy.org/international/cancun-climate-summit/conference-news

    How about this super-intelligent piece from the UK?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/britain-must-adapt-to-inevitable-climate-change-warns-minister-2077175.html

    (And just check out the “authority figures” the authors of this drivel have canvassed for their comments at the end of this piece!)

    Again, note that they seem to be throwing all the weight into pointing at any “climate dispruption” and claiming that this means we have to do something NOW.

    This will (they hope) pave the way for acceptance of the huge hike in energy costs and taxation which they have lined up for us.

    It looks like a last desperate attempt to stop the public at large laughing about their increasingly far fetched prognoses. But will it work?

    I’m hoping for the peasants with pitchforks and flaming torches turning up at their ivory towers real soon.

  6. Where’s the Silver Surfer when you really need him?

    The Surfer is unavailable at the moment, he is busy in another galaxy with Galactus.

    [note spelling] ;-)

    Ah well, you had to be there I guess! I mean ‘there’ in those early Fantastic Four comics (issue #48 I believe).

  7. You invoke Marvel comics, the Silver Surfer, and then “Galacticus”?

    Blasphemy! It’s Galactus!

    Thanos wishes to show you some real global warming, afterwards Mephisto would like to know if you find things “lukewarm”…

  8. The way in which Holdren continues to heap praise upon the ‘remarkable’ ideas present in the work of his pal Harrison Brown (The Challenge of Man’s Future), it’s almost tempting to infer that it may be Holdren himself who is the real Holocaust ‘denier’.

    Did he just completely skip WWII?

  9. Thank you for stating the obvious, Mr. Fuller, but I can’t dispute your words.

    Where is Dark Phoenix when we need her? Being able to destroy suns she could kick Galactus’ behind, no problem. ;0)

  10. Completely agree, Tom

    ‘There shall in that time be rumours of
    things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to
    where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth
    those little things wi-with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an
    attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friends hammer,
    and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by
    their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night
    before, about eight O’clock.’ – Monty Python’s Global Climate Disruption!

  11. This could back-fire on them even faster than “Climate Change”. Crying wolf so much in the past has already cause credibility overload and to paraphrase Shakespeare “AGW by any other name is still unbelievable”.

  12. One of the unsuspected consequences of the third rebranding of ‘Global Warming is that it has provided a basis for one or more almost irresistible ‘d’-words to characterize AGW or ACD alarm proponents. I think this is unfortunate because this issue should be decided on who has the most compelling facts on their side rather than those who have the most clever irrelevant put-down tag for the other side.

  13. CO2 doesn’t cause disruption, it causes (some) warming. If it’s not warming, there is no conceivable basis to blame it on CO2.

    Maybe we could blame it on, I don’t know… weather?

  14. I quite like this new term Climate Disruption. I think it is their biggest mistake yet:

    1. This is the third rebranding exercise in a decade. Not only is the brand image tarnished, but it is clear nobody wants to buy the product.

    2. The whole theory is thrown into question by this re-branding. The theory goes: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 increases temperature. More CO2 means higher temperature. For the last two decades this theory has used graphs showing CO2 increases and causes increases in temperature in lock step with CO2. This relationship has failed in the last decade. At no time at all during the last two decades was any reference made to Climate Disruption. Where are the ‘peer reviewed’ papers over the last two decades pointing towards disruption rather than warming?

    3. Climate ‘Disruption’ finally breaks the already tenuous link between CO2 and Temperature and that it is the major source of ‘forcing’: There is only one thing that CO2 is supposed to do and that is warm the planet. Side effects may well be droughts here, more storms there etc. But if the planet doesnt warm? What then? The Gods are angry? We need to placate them?

    The public aren’t daft. Only the gullible and the warmist running dogs will fall for this.

    No, this latest attempt makes them look like the cheap scoundrels that they are. Where can they go after the public laughs this one off? – And the public are already laughing.

    Always remember: That is THREE rebranding exercises in a decade. AGW / CC / CD. They are grasping at straws.

  15. A disruption is a brief event, after which comes a longer period during which things will settle down as close to their previous rhythms as possible, although there may be permanent changes.

    Global Climate Disruption? A large asteroid strike would count. Will they now work at preventing those?

    Nah, they decided NASA doesn’t need to get to space on their own so we can’t do interceptions. Maybe they can outsource it to India. They seem better set up to make rapid advances in space technology than we are. All that cheap non-green energy sure helps.

  16. Power-driven ClimateFraud is a part of the red-greens’ attempt at a slow-moving coup d’état on a global scale. It is so much easier to enslave the masses slowly with indoctrination followed by legislation than to try and conquer them by force of arms.

    Fortunately, even apathetic people have a tipping point where they get fed up with being taken for fools. Then the worm turns and the perpetrators are usually put to the sword…

    The red-greens’ increasing desperation is a sign that day may not be too far away…

  17. Climate Disruption as a paint job will not work.
    Why? Because it comes too soon on the heels of the previous paint job, Climate Change.
    It’s sloppy. There is no difference between Global Warming causes Global Cooling and all Weather Extremes are signs of Climate Disruption.
    It sounds like a desperate & hasty excuse. Anybody with half a brain knows that weather extremes happen every year somwhere. Just watch the nightly news check out the ‘worst since 19XX’.

    Never interfere with a politician or beaurocrat that is hanging themselves in the public eye.

  18. Holdren’s new term falls flat in the public arena. To me “disruption” is something that is very manageable and temporary, and will soon go away. And so the people will view it as if it’s a common cold, which everyone knows quickly goes away. “Disruption” sounds quite benign actually.
    A more forceful term would have been “climate volatility” or “extreme climate instability”. Or how about “climate convulsions”?

    Still, we all know what Dr. Sterilization Holdren is implying: Humans are disruptors on the planet, and as soon as they go away, the earth will get back to its beauty and natural state.

  19. AGW’s New Strategy Against Skeptics

    Alas, they got us – the skeptics…

    When Americans agreed (intentionally or not) to “homeland security” which belongs to the same category of Newspeak as “climate disruption” they were doomed.

    A recent discussion on Alex Jones Radio Talk Show clearly described the dangers of the so called “homeland security” which should be rather called a “national defense”. That the DHS’s naming ambiguities opened road for full implementation of the US Police State is known to everybody (who reads and thinks).

    The same road to the Citizens’ Hell can be found in Europe. Have you ever heard about European “marches against violence”? The same stuff.

    How can anyone deal with ABSTRACT issues? It’s impossible and ludicrous. Alas, most people still buy every s***speak…

    What worse. If there is a Law there must be an “execution”. The Law without executive forces is only a lawlessness. Using the analogy – “climate disruption” as a pejorative statement cannot be thought of without a full force of the (existing) Law behind it.

    Eco Youth Brigades? Check.
    Eco Propaganda in Kindergartens and Schools? Check.
    Eco Police and Green Police? Check.
    MSM(‘s) Censorship? Check.
    Eco County Vigilante Patrols? Check.
    International (via Interpol?) Warrants? Not yet?
    Prison Sentences? Soon.

    BTW. It is being said that China’s recent agreement to “Carbon Games” (aka Carbon Trade) was won at the price of Taiwan. Who knows?

    Regards

  20. Our hypothesis of climate fluctuations every 20 – 50 years are also instrumental in solving a psychological problem which we pointed out at the beginning of our study. We described the clash of opinions about the issue of climate change, some predicting a dryer or warmer climate, others claiming that it will be moister or colder, and finally a 3rd group predicting no change. The identification of climatic fluctuations resolves at least some of these contraditions. In fact, in our opinion, climate does change in one direction for a certain time and then again in the other — so it depends on when the prediction was made as to what the prediction will be.

    The table below shows the number of articles advocating a change of climate (wetter or dryer) for the current century…according to the time of publication….It is quite evident that during each dry period — and particularly at the end of it and at the beginning of the succeeding wet period — many voices were raised assessing a tendency towards a dryer climate, which then grow silent again in the course and at the end of the wet period. They are replaced by authors arguing for a tendency towards a wetter climate…


    Almost all the studies confirming the link between deforestation and a decrease in rainfall are produced during dry periods, and those attributing an increase in rainfall to reforestation during wet periods. Blanford’s findings belong into this category because his increase in (local) rainfall due to reforestation falls exactly into a time period when rainfall in general increased over global land masses. In the (dry) 1830s, 1860s and the (dry) beginning of the 1870s it is common opinion that deforestation reduces the water levels in rivers; in the 1850s, however, the view prevails that it is deforestion which increases the water level.


    The most drastic change of opinion took place in Australia. As common as it was 20 years ago at the end of the last dry period to blame deforestation for the increasing drought, as sommon was the view in the 1880s, that deforestation in particular was to blame for Australia’s wet climate. ‘Protect the Forest’ used to be the slogan; ‘ Down with the Forest’ it is today.

    Eduard Bruckner’s closing remarks in his argument against anthropogenic climate change in Klimaschwankungen seit 1700 (Climate Change since 1700), 1890, based on trans in Stehr & von Storch 2000

  21. You have to be completely out of your mind to claim some sort of governmental conspiracy behind AGW. Stuff like this is the reason the word “denialist” is used, much harsher words apply very well too.

    It is especially ironic that his kind of thing comes from people whose favorite way to kill time is to write posts accusing climate scientists in not doing good science. How about doing some good science yourself and checking your conspiracy theory against the data – if it was correct, we would have rationed fossil fuels, instituted a nearly complete moratorium on births for a few decades, invested all available resources in energy technology development, etc. Note that if we were doing the above, it wouldn’t mean that the conspiracy theory is correct, these are the kind of kind of things you do if you really have a serious sustainability problem in front of you. But we aren’t doing anything remotely approaching that kind of seriousness towards the problem, in fact we are doing absolutely nothing as the world is pretty much on BAU path.

    So the conspiracy theory is clearly falsified by the data. Then why do we have to keep hearing it every day if it’s not a secret???

  22. And when that does not happen what will he call it? Holdren is certifiable and certainly is operating beyond his level of expertise.

  23. John Marshall says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:57 am
    And when that does not happen what will he call it? Holdren is certifiable and certainly is operating beyond his level of expertise.

    Someone who has been studying the issues if sustainability for nearly 50 years certainly has more expertise on the subject than people who deny that humans are part of the global ecosystem of the planet

  24. All these name changes (Global Warming > Climate Change > Climate Disruption) are worrisome, but they also provide an opportunity: they allow us to see which members of the Mainstream Media are more or less subservient to the current White House.

  25. GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Someone who has been studying the issues if sustainability for nearly 50 years certainly has more expertise on the subject than people who deny that humans are part of the global ecosystem of the planet

    Doesn’t make him right, though. Until Newton and Hooke and all their counterparts and adversaries came along the consensus on mathematics was that, to take one example, a 100 pound ball would fall 100 times faster than a 1 pound ball. This had been studied for decades by many people, those people being experts in their field and standing on the belief that because they had studied for so long they had more expertise to proclaim that it was so than people who said they were talking out of their unobservant arses. They were still wrong as can be, despite that expertise.

    Studying something for decades might make you an expert, but that doesn’t mean you’re remotely correct. Holdren is simply wrong. and has been proven wrong repeatedly by events. Claiming he’s right because he’s spent so long studying the wrong things smacks of some sort of, well… denial.

  26. jmrSudbury says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:52 am

    “Climate change, which morphed into ‘global warming’ for political reasons…”

    That is backwards. It was global warming first.

    John M Reynolds

    That is my understanding as well. Some supporting links.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
    http://www.ewg.org/node/8684
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

    “Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe “global warming” as “climate change” since “climate change” was thought to sound less severe.”

  27. Gordon Gekko would understand the why of this re-branding. Greed is not always about money. It’s also about ego and political power.

  28. GM 2:27 am: “…..if it [c word] was correct, we would have rationed fossil fuels, instituted a nearly complete moratorium on births for a few decades….”

    Who’s we?

  29. GM,
    You left out a couple of details in your attempt to blame skeptics for what AGW promoters are doing:
    1) it is the AGW promoters who are rebranding the issue, not skeptics.
    2) Holdren has, as you said, been studying what you euphemistically call sustainability.
    -you forgot to mention that Holdren has been wrong in the conclusions he has made regarding ‘sustainability’. Holdren has aligned himself with the likes of Paul Ehrlich, the infamous false profit of doom. Holdren’s own words over a lifetime show him to be a nutcase. That is the issue, not the skeptics pointing this out.
    It seems to be a very predictable habit of AGW true believers like yourself to make omissions, attempt to deceptively reframe an issue and then to accuse the people pointing out the problems in what you support of being conspiratorial paranoids.

  30. By the way, I think the rebranding efforts of the AGW marketers has gone something like this:
    climate change > global warming > climate change > climate disruption.

  31. The existing confluence of individual aims and incentives sufficiently explain those solo and corporate activities, and the copying of tactics and vocabulary, of green alarmists to educate the people – at the point of a fine or prison sentance – into the paths of virtue and voluntary servitude. A worldwide conspiricy could do no better.

  32. Archonix says:
    September 19, 2010 at 3:38 am
    GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Someone who has been studying the issues if sustainability for nearly 50 years certainly has more expertise on the subject than people who deny that humans are part of the global ecosystem of the planet

    Doesn’t make him right, though

    Not with 100% certainty. But the odds of the experts being right vs the laymen being right are always greatly skewed towards the experts. A point that those who reject expertise on the basis of certain primal anti-intellectual “who are you to tell me” instincts rarely appreciate (or prefer to omit when they do understand it)

  33. Christopher Hanley says:
    September 19, 2010 at 3:49 am
    GM 2:27 am: “…..if it [c word] was correct, we would have rationed fossil fuels, instituted a nearly complete moratorium on births for a few decades….”

    Who’s we?

    Humanity as a whole

  34. I actually think they’re shooting themselves in the foot with this one: “Disruption”, to me, implies a drastic event. Using it as a catch-all to cover all events which were previosly attributed to “climate change” will reduce their credibility even more.

    Giant tidal waves inundating cities: Disruption.
    Slightly warmer summer evenings: Disruption? Really?

    Complete melt of all arctic ice: Disruption!
    Slow, steady recovery of ice extent, with the occasional step backward: Disruption as well?

    It casts too broad a net to include things that aren’t disruptive at all, and can easily weaken the case for action. “Climate change” as a term is so bland and inclusive that every minor event could be claimed to be related. But if you’re calling it disruption, then it damn well better be disruptive: I want my state-wide firestorms as proof!

  35. Not with 100% certainty. But the odds of the experts being right vs the laymen being right are always greatly skewed towards the experts. /

    Except, as I pointed out and you apparently ignored, Holdren has been proven wrong many times. Expertise counts for very little when it’s demonstrated to be incorrect.

  36. hunter says:
    September 19, 2010 at 4:06 am

    -you forgot to mention that Holdren has been wrong in the conclusions he has made regarding ‘sustainability’. Holdren has aligned himself with the likes of Paul Ehrlich, the infamous false profit of doom. Holdren’s own words over a lifetime show him to be a nutcase. That is the issue, not the skeptics pointing this out.

    To the extent that actual predictions (as opposed to scenarios) have been stated, Ehrlich and Hodlren were wrong in the same way that physicists are wrong when they make the prediction that a blind person jumping from the roof of Empire State Building will splatter himself on the ground and die with close to 100% probability and while that person is somewhere between the 30th and 40th floor on his way down – he’s doing perfectly fine at that time but he doesn’t see how close and fast approaching the ground is. Which doesn’t make the predictions any less accurate.

  37. Which doesn’t make the predictions any less accurate.

    That’s assuming he doesn’t take the lift down. Holdren’s predictions, and those of his forebears, are based on categorical errors of that sort: they see a blind man on the observation deck of the empire state building and assume that obviously he’s going to jump off, when in actual fact he’s going to take the lift.

  38. GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:27 am
    “[…]But we aren’t doing anything remotely approaching that kind of seriousness towards the problem, in fact we are doing absolutely nothing as the world is pretty much on BAU path.”

    GM, i live in Germany. It’s Malthusian hell. You’d really like it.

  39. No doubt volcanoes and Earth quakes will now be miss-classed into climatic events.
    And make science more stupid than it already is.

  40. GM

    “physicists are wrong when they make the prediction that a blind person jumping from the roof of Empire State Building will splatter himself on the ground and die with close to 100% probability”

    Citation please. Which physicists predicted this? Or did you just make up a strawman?

    “Humanity as a whole”

    Citation please. When was the last time “Humanity as a whole” rationed anything or “instituted a near complete moratorium” on anything? Or did you just make this up?

    ” those who reject expertise”

    Citation please. Who rejects expertise? Name one? And if you are referring to Climatologists, what “expertise”? Which “climate scientist” has made any prediction that hasn’t been demonstrably wrong, unskilful, was not based on cherrypicked and “homogenised” data and periods, incompetent or agenda driven algorithms? Which shroud waving prognoses have been demonstrated to be based on firm measured and replicable evidence and are not controversial?

    I could carry on working through your lame troll comments but even you should get the idea. Come up with some real facts or buzz off and comment elsewhere.

  41. Just attach the phrase “Climate Disruption” to “Made in [snip]” every time you use it.

    [I know what you are refering to, but do not make one country accountable for the opinions and actions of one person. Your comment might be viewed as some by racism ~jove, Mod]

  42. William Briggs has a fun blog post on the subject:

    “Climate Calamity” Rejected In Favor Of “Climate Disruption”
    “President Obama’s White House has been hard at work trying to discover another term for global warming. The old phrase was deemed staid and passé, so much so that its repetition was judged unlikely to motivate political forces any more than it already has.”

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2902

  43. Has the hockey stick been traded for a (more palatable) bowl of spaghetti?

    The message seems to be:
    “Citizens, You are the cause of deviations from average.”

    Perhaps seemingly clever [upon first glance], since most people expect weather to be normal (and are endlessly amazed when it isn’t).

    A 2nd look:
    It will be interesting to see the graphs…


    Dear Minister of Truth,

    In an effort to form a well-based opinion, I write with the following request:

    I want to see “climate disruption” defined graphically. (A picture is worth 1000 words.)

    Please do not delay as my deadline for forming an opinion is Friday.

    Thank you sincerely.

    Up next:
    Lazy reliance on “chaos theory” to explain the bowl of spaghetti [and its forecasting failures]. (i.e. prepare for more good laughs)

  44. #
    John Marshall says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:57 am

    And when that does not happen what will he call it? Holdren is certifiable and certainly is operating beyond his level of expertise.
    #
    GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 3:01 am

    John Marshall says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:57 am
    And when that does not happen what will he call it? Holdren is certifiable and certainly is operating beyond his level of expertise.

    Someone who has been studying the issues if sustainability for nearly 50 years certainly has more expertise on the subject than people who deny that humans are part of the global ecosystem of the planet
    ====================================
    Congrats, GM. You responded to John Marshall within 4 minutes. Dunno if it’s a new record here. But glad to see you’re all wired up and ready to go!

  45. Climatic boundaries are the big ones, like drops of 2 to 5 degrees Celsius in 2 to 5 years, during the Older and Younger Dryas.

  46. GM, We are not talking about predictions that have not come true yet, we are talking about predictions that have already been measured and tested and proven false.

    For example, the esteemed Dr Hansen’s prediction that global warming (as it was called at the time) would cause the Hudson River to flood Manhattan to the extent that even the ground floor of his current New York office would already be underwater within 20 years.

    He made this prediction over 20 years ago and the Hudson has only risen one inch in that time, not the 20 feet he was predicting.

    To use your scenario, it would have meant the blind man jumped off the roof, and landed 3 feet lower on a window cleaner’s hoist and then was lowered safely to street level where he walked away unharmed!

    People do not disbelieve the climate alarmists because they are stupid, or ignorant, but because they take great exception to being lied to by “experts” who abandon the scientific principles to selectively cherry-pick data, misrepresent or hide inconvenient data and then use PR, Spin and name calling to try to get people to believe them.

    The truth always comes out in the end and needs NO PR to support it.

    What I have discovered within my engineering peers, is that when intelligent, doctorate level people look at the totality of the evidence, people who are expert in their own fields, people who have not yet abandoned the scientific method, they become more sceptical of the alarmist’s claims, not less.

  47. I’m with you, Tom. The change of terms is about climate as a tool for political control and thus not really about actual climate.

    I have a niggling feeling that this may backfire. The serfs might start calling “climate disruption” and demanding action when the elites don’t want to act.

  48. It seems to me that, in order to claim that some current climate condition has been disrupted, there needs to be some baseline of what a disruption-free climate looks like.

    I suggest that a global surface temperature of 2.7 Kelvin (cosmic microwave background radiation’s blackbody temperature) is what can be defined as a disruption-free climate (no sun, no geothermal heat, no cosmic ray flux). Based on that, the current average global surface temperature of 288 Kelvin (15 C) is hellishly disrupted already, and variations of a few degrees C up or down are inconsequential.

  49. @whoever
    “instituted a nearly complete moratorium on births for a few decades”

    Nearly complete? And who would ‘you’, the rulers, the deciders, permit to breed then? Only those who agree with you? Only those who look like you? And how will you stop the rest, two generations of humans perhaps (how many decades?), from having offspring? This is a disgusting and, if it weren’t so vile, puerile standpoint and a clear expression of an arrogant acceptance of fascist ideology (this is not an ad hom moderator, it’s a simple statement of political theory) . I don’t know who this troll is and I know I shouldn’t feed it but any decent person who believes in liberty needs to speak out and stand against this. My father and my uncles fought a war to stop it and I’m on their side. Contemptible.

  50. GM:
    “Not with 100% certainty. But the odds of the experts being right vs the laymen being right are always greatly skewed towards the experts. A point that those who reject expertise on the basis of certain primal anti-intellectual “who are you to tell me” instincts rarely appreciate (or prefer to omit when they do understand it)”

    The counter-views that I have seen expressed against AGW by other experts in the same field, or related fields, maths, physics, chemistry, statistics, oceanography, or solar science, make very valid points.

    However, the most valid observations have come from people who see the actual global temperatures charts over the last fifteen years, and can come to the conclusion for themselves that there has been no global warming.

    You do not need to be an expert yourself to know that an expert is wrong if you compare their predictions against reality.

    In the late nineties the experts told us that they had comprehensive data, a full understanding of climate feedbacks, the computer models of sufficient granularity, and the agreement of ~2,000 peer reviewers to validate their approach. They told us that the results of the model runs showed conclusively that the temperatures were to increase at an unprecedented rate. The observed reality over the following decade shows no increase in temperature, instead a levelling off.

    If an expert in any field tells you that definitely this thing will happen, and indisputably something else happens, how much of an expert are they?

  51. Any one notice that the Character of “Galactus” has hockey sticks on his helmet?…
    Not silver on top myself-more “Lex Luthor”…

  52. Right now in Australia, Climate Change (they’re not using Climate Disruption yet), Carbon Footprint and Price on Carbon (Emissions Trading not so much now) have come back to haunt us and are spoken about by the licorice allsorts Labor/Greens/Independents Minority Government; Marius Kloppers (head of BHP); the head of the Business Council of Australia and many other leading figures – you wonder where their brains are or their honesty, when you know they know it’s one big CON. It’s very depressing. Has the world gone mad?

    We, the people, stopped it last time the ETS was going to be passed in the Australian Parliament by sending hundreds of thousands of individually written emails and placing calls to our politicians. Even our conservative Coalition Party won’t stand up and tell the world it is crap. They have to play politics to appease the believers by saying they will lesson Australia’s carbon emissions by 5% by 2020 through direct action instead of a great big new tax on everything (carbon tax).

    If it looks like being passed again, the people won’t let it happen.

  53. They should have been honest and called it “CO2 concentration disruption”. That way they can incorporate their newer bugaboo of ocean de-alkalinization and various unknowable and potentially alarming climate impacts. Plus having more CO2 in the atmosphere is correlated with increased volcanic activity and even asteroid impacts.

  54. I think of Aztec priests killing thousands (of their enemies?) to make sure the Sun returns every day or after an eclipse.

  55. Dear Mr J. Holdren,

    I am delighted that you follow reasoned & rational thought by realising that the Evil Empire, or what used to be called the USA, should be de-developed as soon as possible to save the world from impending doom from Global Climate Disruption. The evil wrong-doers or deniers who peretrate & peretuate the capitalist propaganda wicked myths by saying that people should look at real-world observations is nothing more than a trick & slight of hand by unreasonable, irrational far right lunatics, clearly out to destroy Gaia!

    Therefore, Sir, we must weed these deniers out & I have developed from original thought guranteed scientific methods to test who these deniers are. Firstly, if we suspect a man in a denier or has denialist tendencies, he could be put on trial, & by the simplest of scientific tests he could be made to walk across a large room carrying in one hand a red-hot iron bar. If when he reached the othre side of the room he is found to have no burns on his hand, he is guilty as tried by scientific method & has used the very devil to protect him flesh from the searing life-long disfiguring heat! Admittedly they would never be able to use that particular hand ever again, but they could live happily in the knowledge that they had proven their innocence to one & all. On the other hand if we suspect the same of a woman, we could place her on a stool & continuosly dunk her into a pond! If she unfortunately drowns we will at least know that the poor creature was innocent after all, as the water clearly accepted her, however if by some trickry & consorting with the devil she survives this scientifically proven ordeal, she is evidently guilty! Having successfully used both rigorously tried & tested peer-reviewed methodologies, the guilty parties should be burnt at the stake to purify their mortal souls!

    Please let me know what you think as soon as possible as loyal my band of freedom-loving & peace-loving brothers & sisters are itching to get started straight away.

    Scincerely yours,

    Wit Chunter, General, First Batallion, Green Malitia.

  56. GM, it would seem, speaks for
    “Humanity as a whole.”
    What an inflated idea these AGW types have of their own importance

  57. Richie P,

    “I don’t know who this troll is and I know I shouldn’t feed it but any decent person who believes in liberty needs to speak out and stand against this. My father and my uncles fought a war to stop it and I’m on their side. Contemptible.”

    Allow me to explain. GM is well know as someone with an extreme neo malthusian ideology and fanatical belief in the writings of ‘Limits to Growth’. His past postings have shown that he believes that civilization is in ‘overshoot’ because we have reached peak oil, and civilization is about to collapse. They also show a total rejection of market solutions in favour of a totalitarian control of everything.

    He also seems to have ‘spidey’ senses that alert him whenever an article appears on WUWT that suggests that resource depletion or AGW might not be a problem. His modus operandi is fairly consistent. He will single out the first post that contains any semblence of the view that humans have the ability to continue to improve their lot by inovation and technology. The response will always begin with an opening salvo attacking the mental faculties of the poster, followed by a series of strawmen arguments and non sequitors. Eg, don’t you just love “. . .and while that person is somewhere between the 30th and 40th floor on his way down. . .”

    Wow, I’m starting to sound like one of those psychological profilers who work with the FBI. Better stop.

  58. I’ve always thought of a ‘disruption’ as a short break in an ongoing, well oiled, perhaps hectic, assembly line existance of something; an opportunity to take a breather, have a smoke, get to the WC, rest a sec. Never anything long or really big. Something the mechanics took care of quickly. Well, I have to tell you, I’m sure glad this insanity about blowing up Civilization for the good of the common cause of the Warmistias is over. I guess it wont be long before the wackos dream up another crusade for their inevitable Marxian Utopia –guess we ought to enjoy the time we have to take a breather, have a smoke, get to the WC, rest a sec. Aren’t ‘disruptions’ great?

  59. http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now

    Imminent global famine caused by the explosion of the “population bomb” was the big issue on Earth Day 1970. Then–and now–the most prominent prophet of population doom was Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich. Dubbed “ecology’s angry lobbyist” by Life magazine, the gloomy Ehrlich was quoted everywhere. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” he confidently declared in an interview with then-radical journalist Peter Collier in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

    “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Ehrlich in an essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe!,” which ran in the special Earth Day issue of the radical magazine Ramparts. “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

    I should believe what Paul Ehrlich says now? Why?

  60. PaulH- Thanks for posting the link for “William Briggs has a fun blog post on the subject:”

    Briggs has great insights today. Here is a wonderful example-

    “One could look forward to the day, for example, of the creation of the Climate Calamity Civil Patrol, the CCCP, a group which will ticket citizens for anti- environmental activities.”

    You know, CCCP sounds familiar…

  61. Changing the name again looks like desperation to salvage a damaged cause. It will be interesting to see if the news outlets pick up on the new name. I doubt it except for maybe the History and Discovery Channels and public radio.

  62. *sigh* Holdren’s been on this “climate disruption” kick for years:

    “When addressing the issue during a Harvard symposium on Nov. 6, 2007 Holdren said, “The first message is that ‘global warming’ is a misnomer. It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign. And what we are experiencing is none of those. It is rapid in relation to the capacity of societies and ecosystems to respond. It is highly non-uniform and it is certainly not benign. And that’s why I prefer the term ‘global climate disruption’ to ‘global warming.'” ”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75296

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln

  63. I can’t believe that no none has linked to this yet. If you are going to refer to Newspeak, you have to share Orwells appendix “The Principles of Newspeak”. Everyone who visits WUWT surely appreciates a good essay, and Orwell was the master of the essay. Here is a taste:

    “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”

    “The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of consciousness.

    For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words, with their harsh sound and a certain willful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit of Ingsoc, assisted the process still further.”

    Enjoy.

    http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

  64. GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:27 am
    You have to be completely out of your mind to claim some sort of governmental conspiracy behind AGW. Stuff like this is the reason the word “denialist” is used, much harsher words apply very well too.

    Not sure if there is a conspiracy but there is definitely a movement that wants to use AGW (or GCD) to instill a global government, redistribute wealth both within and between nations, and to transfer technology and technological know-how from the ‘North’ to the ‘South’ all in order to reduce wealth disparities force a convergence of GDPs by the year 2100.

    I can back up every point I just stated with multiple links from links from credible sources (i.e., the UN, academia, news, and various pro-environment sites).

  65. Why Climate Disruption?
    As Holdren is saying in one of his presentations:
    “WITHOUT climate there is no environment.”
    So the danger obviuously is that climate disappears one day soon.
    And then the environment disappears. How sad.
    Climate Change > Climate Disruption > Climate Disappearance.

  66. I am sure that we paid to have a private (outsourcing) marketing firm come up with the catchy new and improved phrase “Global Disruption”. It probably didn’t cost more than a few million, as it was a rush job. Does anyone know which firm should be getting the accolades, so richly deserved?

  67. Isn’t disruption what happens when you and you’re spouse are having some intimate exercise and your teenager barges crying into your bedroom to announce that they’ve just been dumped by their best friend?

  68. Al Gore Dumped by warmistas.

    “The Al Gore approach to climate-change education didn’t work,”.

    Throw Albert from the train, a chart, a chart;
    Throw Albert from the train a goodbye ….

    The problem with WAG (Whither Al Gore?) :

    “Too many charts.”

    Warmistas pay no attention to O’s Commissar.

    They are going shopping at the “fundamental gap”.

    The slogan remains: climate change.
    …-

    “USF grant to get people thinking about rising sea levels”

    “TAMPA – The Al Gore approach to climate-change education didn’t work, says University of South Florida geologist Jeffrey Ryan. Too many charts.

    He wants people to see the evidence around them – wells turning salty, beaches and mangrove islands disappearing, signs that billions of dollars’ worth of waterfront property could be under water in the next several decades.

    Sea levels are rising, “and that means there are adjustments we have to make,” Ryan said.

    He received a grant this week from the National Science Foundation to persuade Floridians to start considering those adjustments.

    Ryan, a USF professor and geology department chairman, is one of 15 researchers across the country to get a piece of the science foundation’s $20 million Climate Change Education Partnership.

    He and partners from the USF colleges of business and marine science have nearly $500,000 to spend over the next two years planning the project.”

    “”We need folks to start to connect the dots,” Ryan said.

    “There is still a fundamental gap in what people understand about climate change,” Karsten said.

    “Although there’s a consensus among scientists, the public isn’t there yet. The goal of this program is to get information into the hands of the average citizen,” she said.”

    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/19/na-usf-grant-to-get-people-thinking-about-rising-s/

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014900.html

  69. Darn it – my link doesn’t go directly to Orwells appendix to 1984 “The Principles of Newspeak”. From the link you have to click on “1984 Newspeak” which provides a drop down menu where you click “Principles of Newspeak”. Funny website though – I bet many readers will save this one to favourites….

    Here is a more direct link I hope
    http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app

    BTW – the novel 1984 was completed by Orwell in 1948. Best guess is that finally he just transposed the last to digits of the current year. In other words 1984 symbolizes now

  70. GM,
    I expect a true believer like yourself to come up with at least sincere arguments against my points.
    Ehrlich and Holdren have never been correct in their predictions. Period.
    That is why it is appropriate that true believers in CO2 caused climate crisis dogma hold them in such high esteem.

  71. LOL

    Chicken Little. “The sky is falling!”

    From Wikipedia: (Read the last sentence) The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a ‘happy ending’, the moral is not to be a ‘Chicken’ but to have courage, which is the conclusion of the film “Chicken Little” (2005). In other versions the fable is usually interpreted to mean do not believe everything you are told, as in the first version of the film (1943). This was one of a series of four produced by the Walt Disney Studios at the request of the U.S. government during World War II for the purpose of discrediting totalitarianism in general and Nazism in particular. Its dark comedy is used as an allegory for the idea that fear-mongering weakens the war effort and costs lives.[3] The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox manipulates for his own benefit.

  72. Chicken Little: “The sky is Falling!”

    Read the last line, and watch Disney’s 1943 version to the end. Hilarious, if it were’t so true.

    The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a ‘happy ending’, the moral is not to be a ‘Chicken’ but to have courage, which is the conclusion of the film “Chicken Little” (2005). In other versions the fable is usually interpreted to mean do not believe everything you are told, as in the first version of the film (1943). This was one of a series of four produced by the Walt Disney Studios at the request of the U.S. government during World War II for the purpose of discrediting totalitarianism in general and Nazism in particular. Its dark comedy is used as an allegory for the idea that fear-mongering weakens the war effort and costs lives.[3] The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox manipulates for his own benefit.

  73. The term “disruption” is very very clever, it can mean anything the cultists wish it to mean.
    It may mean everything that the cult can represent in an easily digestible visual format, the key is the dissemination of easy to understand, uncomplicated and simple bite sized lies. The acronym ‘KISS’ is relevant, keep it simple stupid and its the very first rule of political propaganda and used to great effect by the Nazis and the Soviets.
    With the overarching term of reference set the lies can be huge, the misrepresentations can be brazen and shameless with the key ingredient being the makers of the visual stimulus. Anything can be termed ‘disruption’ and providing the visual propagandists do their job properly then millions of combinations are possible. Obviously the visual propagandists have to pick subjects that are emotive and elicit the base emotional responses from the target audiences, cuddly polar bear and sad panda etc.
    We are living in the prelude to 1984 and brave new world, the scene is being set, the audience dumbed down and trained by means of petty laws and fear and guilt.
    The ideal audience is trusting,stupid,gullible,frightened,guilty and credulous, many people believe and trust what they are told, its why many suckers are ripped off every year and its what the AGW cultists are banking on.
    The greatest enemy of the political classes is? When you know the answer to that single question you see everything clearly. The answer is of course ‘we the people’, the lowest of us can destroy the highest of them and they are not at all happy about that and mean to fix it. As far as they are concerned the lower orders are their to obey and the political elite are their to give the orders.

  74. Tom,
    I agree 100% with your comments in this post. They are well thought out and presented.
    Given his power, Holdren scares me with his radical positions on many fronts including global warming , which have been well documented on WUWT. Are his positions also representative of the President’s positions? Does the “consensus” scientists agree with his numerous statements or are they just in it for the $$$.
    Read his entire presentation where he proposes “climate disruption”and you will see that it is filled with numerous scientific errors and exaggerations of consequenses that have no basis in science.
    It escapes me to comprehend how such a radical person can be the science advisor in the White House given the statements he has made in the past as well as the present positions.
    Imagine the damage he will inflict on this country since he has been appointed to oversea fishing, coastal development policies, etc.
    It is a shame that the MSM does not expose this advisor and reveal his positions.

  75. We have a lot of climate disruption around my way. Those of us whose mother language is English call it “weather”.

  76. So what they now have is a selection of terms/causes; Global Warming, Climate Change, Environmental Pollution, and the new catch-all, umbrella term – Global Climate Disruption, that they can choose from to “fit” whatever manufactured crises they are going to use as an excuse to further control the population directly or through redistribution of wealth via the tax and spend programs.

    But “educating” the masses to their way of thinking is essential, so – Re-education Camps. Check!
    They have now been funded by the NSF to the tune of $20 million. Of course, that’s just to start. It’s call – Climate Change Education Partnerships. No doubt it will be shortened to CCEP, like to “ccep” into your sub-conscious mind. And a near-by science institution applied for part of that grant $$$, but got turned down (by the NSF reviewers) because in their presentation they wanted to present ONLY what is factually known (in other words the real science) and where unproven theories or model projections were the only “science” at hand, they wanted to show both sides of the issue.

    Those that stuck to the dogma of Human Caused Global _____________ (fill in the blank) the administration is disseminating, via it’s propaganda ministries, (NSF, EPA, NASA, UN), got their money as in the case of this geologist @ USF.
    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/19/na-usf-grant-to-get-people-thinking-about-rising-s/
    The article starts with:
    The Al Gore approach to climate-change education didn’t work, says University of South Florida geologist Jeffrey Ryan. Too many charts. He wants people to see the evidence around them – wells turning salty, beaches and mangrove islands disappearing, signs that billions of dollars’ worth of waterfront property could be under water in the next several decades.

    $500,000 over the next two years – to find ways to educate people, from school children to adults, about the effects of climate change, sea-level rise in particular. 500K divided into 20M – – so a total of 40? such “education” programs around the country. Don’t you just love it when the government spends YOUR money so prudently.

  77. SamG says:
    September 19, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Interestingly, George Orwell was a socialist.

    So where a lot of the Sturmabteilung, steak- sturm as they where called, brown on the outside but red on the inside. On the other side of the political spectrum these days we have the watermelons, green on the outside but red on the inside.

    So when is the Science Czar holding is his own version of the Night of the long knives?

  78. Classic ‘re-branding’! Shows that Madison Avenue is not operating only in corporate American.

    I wonder where the line item for the PR consultants is in the administration’s budget? Or maybe they came up with this garbage in-house? I’d say the tactic is just as much Goebbelian as Orwellian.

  79. GK says:
    April 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    It is time for us to start calling for criminal charges to be laid against the MSM journalists and politicians who have enabled the AGW hoax, the crime of the century. The few scientists who invented AGW are just doing their job (albeit incompetantly). The moron left wing activists are just doing typical leftwing moron violent activists do. It`s the MSM media and politicians who enabled the AGW hoax to propogate by lying about the science, by lying about the scientists, and by lying about every bit of it.

    The AGW hoax will never be exponsed en-mass untill the journalists and politicians who enabled it face prosecution for the fraud of the century.

    It`s only a matter of time before some left wing nut does something terrible, and for that, the MSM and politicians should face the full force our hate laws. They invoked the hate through their lies, and they should face jail for it.

    We are wasting our time arguing the facts and evidence with people who lie at every turn, and were never interested in the facts in the first place. The MSM and politicians know the globe isnt warming, they know the science is flakey, they know sea ice is increasing – but that`s irrelevant, because this was never about climate, and untill people and politicians start calling for their jailing, it will continue and get worse

    And sadley we all know what happened at discover channel a couple weeks back.

    [REPLY – It must not come to that. I am content not to try and chuck them in the clink so long as they don’t try to chuck us in the clink. Besides, for them, public humiliation is a far worse punishment than jail. ~ Evan]

  80. “Disruption” tends to bring the expectation that the event would be a visible disturbance, otherwise it would not be a disruption (an interruption by causing a disturbance).

    As there will be no such events that are out of the ordinary, this new terminology will soon die for lack of content.

    They should try “Potentially Unequivocal World-Ending Event” next and call it a PUWEE.

  81. I wonder what Czar Holdren looks like in green and ocean blue tights and what is his secret call sign?

    A Groundhog with a shadow, one would guess.

    “Paint your roof tops, white!”, cheered the Czar.

  82. Don Shaw said: “It escapes me to comprehend how such a radical person can be the science advisor in the White House given the statements he has made in the past as well as the present positions.”

    It appears that being radical and antihuman/antipeople is a prerequisite for working in this administration. Look at all the other socialists and Marxists that are there. It’s an embarrassment that our leader would think that staffing with antiAmericans would not be an affront to the people.

    It’s alright to have your own views but, if you are elected by the people, it beggars the imagination to assume that this is a mandate to impose your personal (radical) views on everybody. There is no live-and-let-live here. This bespeaks that he fails in the concept of democracy, little understands that he represents, not rules, the people, and has no respect for the Republic (and its limiting constitution).

    This is not the first leader to impose personal views, but I bet this is the most aggressive and wide spread agenda pushing unwanted, unpopular, and unneeded goals that we have ever seen.

  83. So…

    Global warming got downgraded to Climate Change.
    Climate Change got downgraded to Climate Disruption.

    And when the catastrophies still don’t arrive as predicted, eventually Climate Disruption will get downgraded to… Climate Anomoly, maybe ?

    The way I see it is these guys are running out of downgrades to cover their butts for when disasters aren’t happening.

    Eventually we’ll just be back to good ol’ “weird weather happenings”.

  84. Did someone suggest that the esteemed Dr. Holdren is an expert who has been studying “climate change” for 50 years? Since he was a teenager? Hunter beat me to it but I will reiterate, name ONE prediction made by Holdren that has EVER come to pass. Remember, Holdren was warning of a coming ice age in the 70s. Holdren in a political hack and a left-wing college professor (I know, sort of redundant). He has performed scant little empirical science in his entire career.

    “Global warming” due to CO2 at least has a tenable (albeit unproven) theory to support it. “Climate change” is ridiculous because that is, by definition, what climate does. What proof or even a working hypothesis does Holdren present to support “Global Climate Disruption”. I have to admit, from a political and propaganda standpoint, it’s a very clever term. Politicians can blame any untoward weather event on “man-made disruption” (therefore we must tax CO2 to prevent further disruption). Scientifically it is meaningless. It will be interesting to see if this nonsense is actually adopted.

  85. Thomas Fuller writes:

    “It [‘denier’] has persisted despite it being pointed out as hate speech because those who use it are thugs themselves, needing to devalue any contribution from their enemies and because it gives them an almost sexual sadistic thrill.”

    I really admire you for taking off the gloves. On a related note, the term ‘disruption’ carries with it the suggestion that there is a disruptor. That little bit of semantic cheating should be really helpful to grammar school kiddies and teachers. Maybe the Russians are controlling the weather. “Climate Disruption,” the movie, cannot be far behind. Guess who will direct?

  86. Maz2 writes about Professor Ryan from USF:
    “He received a grant this week from the National Science Foundation to persuade Floridians to start considering those adjustments.”

    Maz2, do you know where we can apply for these grants? I believe that I would be very good at playing to the hysterical tendencies of masses of humanity. The first time I saw a Florida beach, it occurred to me that these structures could be easily destroyed by storms. It just did not occur to me to whip up hysteria and cash in.

  87. I think if they really thought about it, the name they would have chosen would have been something like “Atmosphere Contamination” or “Anthropogenic Atmosphere Contamination” as an idealistic issue in and of itself without regard to any disprovable dangerous climate or environmental disruptions.

  88. Lemme see… GM says that physicists seeing an Empire State jumper would predict he will fatally splatter with “near 100% certainty”.

    Well, I’m not a physicist nor, for that matter, any kind of expert BUT I predict that the probabiliy is exactly 100%.

    Does that make me a superexpert?

  89. L said on September 19, 2010 at 2:14 pm:

    Lemme see… GM says that physicists seeing an Empire State jumper would predict he will fatally splatter with “near 100% certainty”.

    Well, I’m not a physicist nor, for that matter, any kind of expert BUT I predict that the probabiliy is exactly 100%.

    Does that make me a superexpert?

    You have to allow for the sudden unexpected localized extremely-strong updrafts (weather) due to the globally disrupted climate. Isn’t the probability of strange severe weather events supposed to be increasing because of global warming | climate change | global climate disruption | (To Be Announced)? The TV told me that’s what caused those storms that hit New York City. There were tornadoes!

  90. Actually I think that Galactus was initially a heard but unseen character “speaking to you from twenty million” miles or light-years, I forget which, on the Sandy Becker TV kids’ show in NYC in the early or mid-1960s. I tried looking it up to check, but all I found was that Becker voiced Captain America in the Marvel Super Heroes cartoon series (on the other hand, that is a Marvel connection like the Silver Surfer and his Galactus).

  91. GM says:
    September 19, 2010 at 2:27 am

    The Terms of the COP 15 treaty are NOT a theory. The planned distribution of CAP n TAX funds are NOT a theory. The new call for global taxation for the UN to “fight” climate change is NOT theory. All of these things are fact. It isn’t a theory of conspiracy because the conspirators are conspiring before the light of day. Somehow the “solution” to this “climate crisis” looks EXACTLY like Marxism. Huh! Imagine that!

  92. A good indication that they’ve really gone off the rails now:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html

    This guy, Pentti Linkola wants eco-gulags to “re-educate” us climate disruption deniers,
    a greenie police state (he and his merry band proudly call themselves “eco-fascists), forced abortions, and a social system wherein “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.”

    “This system would be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.”

    You can’t make this stuff up. It is indeed as if we live in a comic book world.

  93. This newspeak hypothesis is no different than any other hypothesis. Holdren’s “climate disruption” supposedly caused by humans needs evidence to support it.

    Where is Holdren’s evidence that humans are causing any ‘disruption’? The burden of proof is entirely on John Holdren. It’s his hypothesis and skeptics are right to demand his evidence.

Comments are closed.