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.
> Imagine weeks without Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat and offering excuses for why it has disappeared.
Snarkier version:
Imagine weeks with Kevin Trenberth having to search for his missing heat instead of offering excuses for why it has disappeared.
77%
and
Go Bill, go!
ay, April 2, 2014 12:38:00
Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3976695.htm
Alternate WMA version | MP3 download
ELEANOR HALL: An Australian National University science academic says it is time to call in the advertising industry to make sure that the warnings from climate scientists hit home.
This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report which revealed that climate change will have severe, pervasive and irreversible effects on the planet and on human survival.
Dr Rod Lamberts, says scientists have done all they can to alert governments to the need for action, but that professional marketing may be more effective.
Simon Lauder has our report.
SIMON LAUDER: Scientists have been raising the alarm about climate change with increasing urgency for decades. This week the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri said he hoped the panel’s latest report will jolt the world into action.
RAJENDA PACHAURI: If the world doesn’t do anything about mitigating the emissions of greenhouse gases and the extent of climate change continues to increase, then the very social stability of human systems could be at stake.
SIMON LAUDER: The deputy director of the Australian Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the ANU, Dr Rod Lamberts, says the latest IPCC report has failed to make a difference to the debate.
ROD LAMBERTS: This looks to me to be unfortunately the case of the same thing happening over and over again, where people who support the science and are concerned about what the science is telling us believe that throwing more and more facts at the issue in the public space will make a difference, and I seriously doubt that it will.
SIMON LAUDER: He says it’s time for a less scientific appeal.
ROD LAMBERTS: If the goal is to affect change, then I believe we need to step more into the realms of advertising and marketing and so on, in terms of delivering messages that are supported by what the science is telling us, but don’t have the science in those messages.
That’s not what we need anymore.
SIMON LAUDER: And why do you think that would work?
ROD LAMBERTS: I think it would have a much better shot at working because we’ve seen evidence, there’s evidence to suggest appealing to people’s emotions will have a stronger effect than trying to appeal to their brains via some kind of, you know, fact channel.
So there’s something to be said there.
I don’t think the climate stuff is being put into real, everyday contexts very well for people. So, it is very hard to relate these kinds of broad scale reports to your everyday life.
SIMON LAUDER: And presumably, the target of an advertising campaign would be politicians?
ROD LAMBERTS: Probably not. I think many of those folks; their positions are not set by the science necessarily, but their positions are fairly set by the other forces. I think it’s more about the people in the middle; people who may or may not change, who aren’t really sure what to believe, aren’t sure what they can do.
A lot of people thinking about it a lot could create more groundswell than we’re getting now, and it’s quite clear that a big report – even a 40 page executive summary – is not the way to do that. We need to test further I think on these sorts of things. Try them out.
SIMON LAUDER: Another question I have about using advertising and marketing which is, I guess, divorced to the science to some extent. Does that open up the opportunity for critics and sceptics to label it a scare campaign again?
ROD LAMBERTS: Yeah, they’re doing that anyway. I just don’t think that matters anymore. If people are truly backing their science and they’re genuinely worried, then it strikes me as crazy that you wouldn’t step up and do something further or, at least, support further action that isn’t just the repetition of facts and carefully worded scientific reports.
The bottom line is if you believe it, then you’ve got to start acting. That’s really where we’re at right now.
SIMON LAUDER: It’s not a new idea; there are already ads which attempt to spread the word about climate change.
VOICEOVER (excerpt from climate change advertisement): This is the biggest threat humankind has ever faced. Humans have caused this…
SIMON LAUDER: Copywriter and creative director at Jara Consulting, Jane Caro, says advertising isn’t effective if it’s too shocking, but she doesn’t believe more scientific facts will be convincing on their own.
JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything, sadly. It’s very hard for scientists to understand this, because they’re highly rational people, but in actual fact, no-one has ever been rationalised out of a belief.
There are only two things that change people’s attitudes and behaviour, particularly their behaviour, and they’re two emotions, and they’re hope and fear.
=================
enough to make you puke!!!
good old aunty at it again
Does that mean we won’t have any climate as usual, in the UK, while the strike lasts; can you let us have a date so I can book my holidays!
Psychology could hold the key to tackling climate change
“Funded by a €1.5M grant from the European Research Council, Dr Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University’s School of Psychology will for the next five years lead an international team tasked with providing evidence to support this theory.”
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-psychology-key-tackling-climate.html#jCp
Maybe hypnosis is the cure for climate change? anyone got a watch? You are getting sleepy. You will sign a grant for $1million.When i snap my fingers you will wake up and remember nothing.
I agree that they should go on strike. It’s their sacrosanct right written in any democratic constitution, as long as they don’t get paid for the duration of their strike. Furthermore I hope that their days on strike would be many; many as in ‘forever’.
I couldn’t get the MSNBC link to work. Here’s the link to the Weepster’s article (with poll at bottom) instead: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/time-for-climate-scientists-to-go-on-strike
We’re up to 76% now. Yes, they are deliberately trying to hide the fact that their poll is going horribly against them with that check mark. LOL.
As fun as it is to say “Weepy Bill”, it’s getting a bit old. Here’s his weepy article, posted on Mother Jones Dec. 13, 2009, about halfway thru the failed Copenhagen Accord: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/reason-and-faith-copenhagen
Notice the upbeat roll-up-our-sleeves tone at the end. Climatism really is all about emotions, not science or facts. Oh, but has happened, some 4+ years later? The Cause has done nothing but backslide, and now the emotion has turned to anger and petulance. “Petulant Bill” may not have the same ring to it, but it’s more current at least.
@Peter Miller
April 2, 2014 at 1:19 am
Great observations! You forgot to add:
vii) Papers where the main content and research are completely divorced from the abstract and conclusions.
This seems to be a common theme in a deluge of worthwhile and worthless scientific papers that shoehorn in Climate Change as a grant-seeking afterthought..
Greg, I couldn’t get your msnbc link to work either. Is it possible they are blocking folks from WUWT?
Yep, I believe that is precisely what they are doing. I copied and pasted the link in a different browser, and voila, it worked.
I vote they all go on indefinite strike.
I’d love ALL climate scientists to go on strike. They might find that the world keeps running and no one notices. Or gives a …..
Prehaps the phrase “This is the sort of weather we should expect from climate change” should go in the bin.
Its doing my head in. Heard it this morning in the UK about our little pollution problem were having….
If you did a poll of reverends asking if they believed in god? you should get a 100% correct response rate, as their jobs and career depend on it.
Similarly if you asked climate scientists if they believed in “climate change” of course the response rate should be 97-100%…..
So next time someone asks you that 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change, respond with isn’t that exactly the same as asking members of the clergy if they believe in god ?
ozspeaksup says: ….
I must say, I have to agree with Rod where he says ‘I dont think’ and a couple of sentences later where he reinforces the statement,
None of the MSNBC links work for me when clicked via this blog. All subsequent attempts to load in a blank window (using the same browser) fail too. However, when using a Private Window (or another browser entirely, entering the links manually), the pages load immediately.
I really don’t get it! Or I must be really stupid the poll chart above is saying that 72% believe climate change IS a threat to their lives!!!
It’s 78% now
Ok I did not see the bottom line explanation. The tick is very confusing however LOL
Sasha:
Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
It is me, or a typo in the link?
No – 78%, Yes – 20% currently.
Warmists will interpret the vote as a sign that their message isn’t being understood by the stupid ‘general public’, more exaggeration and faster arm-waving will be necessary. Eventually climate scietivists & their followers will actually start to burst, leaving fewer to do more arm-waving – which I hope will prove to be a tipping point.
There is serious problem with the yes tick just loom at a few of the comments. AW youd better make 100% sure that its not a yes.
@squigglycat
3 hours ago
What is the TICK there for. It Seems to Say YES, but is actually NO. Why would anyone want to confuse like that?
reply
Mark Hladik says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
Try these links (they all work for me).
http://linkis.com/wp.me/uQESG
http://quixoteslaststand.com/
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Anyone else having problems?
Nice thoughts, but huge amounts of cash are being dangled in front of the alarmists (or is perceived at risk) — even more than usual now because of the upcoming Nov elections. It’s like asking the mob-syndicate to stop shaking down people on their turf if cash suddenly appeared in the people’s hands.
Mark Hladik says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
If all else fails, try this:
http://quixoteslaststand.com/?s=things+caused+by&submit=Search
then click on the first link returned.
I wonder where they would intend to stage this strike. Cancun? Durban? Bali? Tahiti?
The Tick represents your vote, I suspect.