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.
IMHO, I think you will find the ‘tick’ is what you voted. Had you voted NO, the tick would be in the NO section.
Just a thought.
McKibben’s article on CP is truly illuminating – I suggest everyone read it! I found that, just like him, I was crying by the end – but with tears of laughter that were almost impossible to stifle!!! When he gets to the part where he and his followers are in a church in Copenhagen, watching the Holy bits of Coral and the Withered Ears of Corn being paraded down to the altar in some bizarre parody of the sacrament (I’m not kidding, read it!) I realize that he’s not even trying to hide the fact anymore that this movement has become a bizarre religious cult with its own ceremonies and dogma.
No surprise when he calls for preachers to speak on his behalf this from the pulpit!!! That’s really all he’s got left, isn’t it???
Well, they must have a veritable fortune in their strike fund and they do need a break. I can’t wait to hear what their demands will be.
p.s. I realize that the weepy Bill article is from 2009; however, this is the first time I’ve ever made myself read it all the way through. That should never be forgotten, and my thanks for reposting the link!
The thing that this poll tends to tell me is that; the only people interested in educating themselves about climate change are the skeptics. The people the alarmists are attempting to indoctrinate arn’t listening. In other words all the progressive voters are to busy collecting and spending government give aways and could care less about tommorow.
This morning the link worked from my ipad and the total no vote was 79%
That should be too busy and also the current vote is at 78%
The web page does not allow me to vote. I selected “NO” and then clicked on “Cast your vote” and I get an error message: “please make an answer selection to cast your vote.” Are they not allowing “NO” votes anymore?
Put me down as a “No” on the question, “Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?”. As of 7:25am MDT we have:
4286 No (79%)
107 Not Sure (2%)
1059 Yes (19%)
I was tempted to answer “Yes” when I considered the excessive taxation that is coming, the decrease in my liberty and choices, and the EPA regulations already implemented and pending, etc., but that seemed to be reading too much into the question.
The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.
Up to 79% . “NO” . now … and what a deceiving graphic, too!
Can’t leftists be open, honest and forthright on anything?
.
I see no insects in this graphic!
6:41am Pacific time…. It’s 79% No.
Will the strikes include not attending multi-million dollar junkets to the worlds tropical resorts?
Here’s my suggestion for turnabout’s fair play : design a survey to be administered to global warmists (include the big guns as well as rank and file). The questions are devised to measure just how alarmist the respondents are to various events. In other words , to what extent they believe that catastrophe’s occur. A perfect question would be :
“How many deaths and casualties: resulted from the nuclear accident at Fukushima , Japan?
a) 957 deaths, 17,000 injuries;
b) 35 deaths, 6,347 injuries
c) 0 deaths, 2 injuries
d) 5,200 deaths, 56,000 injuries.
c is the correct answer. Repondents must not be allowed to look up the correct answer.
Oh yes, please, punish us evil deniers by going on strike! Please! Yes. Two thumbs up!
re: 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.
It is me, or a typo in the link?
A few questions:
1) What DNS (Domain Name Server) are you using?
2) What browser and version are you using?
3) What virus-protection software do you have running?
4) What does a trace route or ping look like to the site http://www.msnbc.com ?
5) Does the address resolve to: 23.75.250.231 during the ping or tracert?
.
Striking workers don’t get paid.
Not going to happen.
re: Greg says April 2, 2014 at 4:37 am
Here’s another MSNBC poll to try:
http://pollpot.people.msnbc.com/_news/2014/04/02/23348855-do-you-understand-a-tick-mark-to-represent-disagreement-with-a-proposed-question#51390
Greg, that’s a “tick” question …
And the blog name, is that a play on ‘Polpot’ (another patron saint to communists, nottobeconfusedwith, say, Idi Amin, patron saint of cannibalists?)
.
When an English major speaks of science you have to listen.
re: Daniel says April 2, 2014 at 5:31 am
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.
Sounds like a server denial based on the referral page URL (and that would be: “WUWT”) … BTW it worked okay for me, using Chrome and simply opening the link in a new ‘tab’ …
.
please go on a permanent strike, bill. hopefully, your MSM friends will come out in solidarity with you. especially bloomberg & reuters point carbon, who are the “analysts” referred to in the following, & whose “predictions” would seem to be as woeful as the IPCC’s:
2 April: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon Pares Gains as Analysts Revise 2013 Emissions Estimate
Carbon permits pared gains as analysts said European Union data showed emissions from factories and power stations probably fell more than their predictions made earlier today…
Emissions in the EU’s carbon market fell 3 percent to 4.2 percent last year on a like-for-like basis from 2012, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which earlier estimated a drop of 1.6 percent. Point Carbon, a unit of Thomson Reuters Corp., revised its estimate to a 3.1 percent drop from a fall of 1.6 percent earlier today…
Last year’s fall in emissions is close to the median forecast for a 3.8 percent decline by seven analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News…
The European Commission data show “several installations increased their covered emissions scope between 2012 and 2013,” New Energy said in an e-mailed statement. “This is likely due to the inclusion of new sectors and gases, or an aggregation of previously separate installations into single ones. This appears to particularly affect steel, refining and combustion installations.” ….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/eu-carbon-rises-after-2013-emissions-fell-slower-than-expected.html
The American public has had enough of the lies.
Sasha:
Link to Quixote worked; thanks!
Jim: Unable to answer those questions. The height of “tech-savvy” for me is getting and sending e-mail … … …
Mark H.
It worked for me. 80% no at this time. How long before they take it down and claim it got spammed by a dee NY er website?