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.
I think they should go on a hunger strike and not eat until the whole world admits they’re right (no matter the facts) OR until global warming is proved to occur beyond a scientific reasonable doubt.
Ol’ Al and Michael could lose a few pounds.
At 10:18 EST
Yes: 1077( 18%) , No: 4853 (80%), Not sure: 107 (2%), Total: 6037
That’s an outstanding idea. Go on strike, please.
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.
============
Agreed. Cut the funding on climate research and spend it on something useful like repairing infrastructure.
rather than blame flooding on “global Warming”, as if there is nothing that can be done, spend the money instead on flood control and prevention.
or is the claim that we never had floods in the past before global warming, so there is nothing we can do except stop using fossil fuels?
how will sitting cold and in the dark make flooding less a problem in the future? how will paying more and more taxes to churn out endless climate studies prevent future floods? take the money being spend on climate research and instead spend it on engineering better infrastructure.
It’s up to 81% no. I added my tiny sliver to the result.
I vote yes on the strike, as well. Actually, I don’t care if climate scientists keep working and even keep their funding. I just want them out of politics, I want to see statistical competence in the field, and I want uncertainty to be clearly explicated instead of presenting paper after paper containing Bayesian arguments with catastrophic warming (predicted by the GCMs) as a near-certain Bayesian prior. IF global warming proceeds at the pace predicted by GCMs (which we consider “very likely” because we are told that they are very reliable), THEN baby seals will perish. If we simply succeeded in getting the words “very likely” changed to “possible”, or “possible, but unlikely” what a difference it would make!
rgb
“..it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports.”
He at least understands that it isn’t really science. Scientists don’t just ‘churn’ out reports on demand. Activists, journalists and political committees do that sort of thing. I find myself agreeing with Bill on some points, although he may be unaware he is making these points. I would heartily endorse his latest – yeah let’s let these tired, frenzied scientists go on strike for a few years.
TC says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:56 am
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.
Of that, there is no doubt.
Currently:
81% NO – 5042 votes
17% YES – 1082 votes
2% I Am Not Sure – 107 votes
Poll results right now —
Yes: 1,084
No: 5,061
dunno: 107
Therefore 81% do not see climate change as a threat, neither to their life nor to their well-being.
hovered at 82% then went back one.
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.
“Give up?” Maybe, but better would be for them to “Accept reality”, something they probably can not do since it would go against their ideology.
– – – – – – – – –
Bill McKibben,
I strongly support your idea of a strike by all the so-called CAGW ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists you are referring to!!!! Please push your strike idea into reality!!!!
Then, the skeptics in the climate science dialog will have much more grant money and space available in journals.
John
It was 79% about 20 minutes ago when I voted. The copy of the pie chart at the top of the WUWT article is just a snapshot, methinks. If you click the link to the BM MSNBC article you can scroll down and vote. At least I had no trouble.
Over 5000 responses when I voted.
Im not sure what the point of the polls are, they always come out on the no side even when they try a phycological trick of putting a tick on the chart to try and signify this is how many are saying yes.
How many more do they need to do.
Oh and by the way. When you read the McKibben article from 2009 (please do), scroll down to the comments and read the first one.
Coffee, nose, keyboard!!
as in the question is ” do you see you life threatened by ……….” on the main chart with the yellow tick as in saying yes .
oh the little tricks they play to try and massage the figures upwards for a yes.
May need to review the poll, 76% now say answer 1, everything at once?
Also, did the answers change?
1 – everything
2 – cost benefit
3 – not clear we should act
4 – not sure
Throughout history there have been false prophets making dire predictions. As their predictions fail to pan out, people pay less and less attention to them. They revise their predictions and their bloviating about their predictions becomes more strident. People tune out more. This appears to be happening now as it is becoming obvious that the global warming models are cow dung.
As for the idea of a climate labor strike, bring it on. Imagine whole global and government agencies shut down.
Now as for a strike, I have a different idea: A Day Without Electrons.
CAGW proponents and environmentalists rail against coal fired electricity (and environmentalists against nuclear), so how about all the hard working people that keep the electrons coming from those power plants take one day off and shut down coal and nuke plants. That would have an impact.
Updated results show the percentage of those who do not perceive a threat as up from 72 percent to 81 percent. Clearly a trend which will soon demonstrate that it is “extrememly likely” that no one cares.
Just a single day without reading that the world’s climate will turn on its head tomorrow and if not tomorrow the next day would be refreshing.
Not sure what some of you are looking at – it is still at 81% “NO”.
I sorta fudged on the poll. Climate change is a threat to my health and well-being because politicians are using it as an excuse to pillage my bank account and, in general, make my life more miserable.
Still using Windows XP on my old computer. Could not make the no-vote. Computer began running like mad and antivirus program had to remove 13 adware tracking cookies.
I just voted at the poll.
It says 82% of votes are NO to climate threat.
John
in the 5 mins or so i was following the poll it was 55 no and 15 yes.
You all are misreading the graph. I checked just now: 1,091 rational, consensus-science-based votes saying “yes, I am threatened by climate change” and 108 climate-communication-impaired votes for “I don’t know/not sure”. If you do the math, that means 91% agree climate change is a serious problem and 9% indicate we need to fund more climate education initiatives.
Since the scientific consensus is overwhelming, the 5,242 big oil-funded climate-denialist pathetic and criminal attempts at disinformation do not matter and should be ignored.
More research is necessary, which is why I will be working with other noted experts in the field to publish a paper tentatively titled “Denialist Delusion, or How Climate Change Impairs Basic Math and Statistic Skills in Selected Populations of Climate Change Deniers”. It is clear from research to date (and the MSNBC poll is a perfect recent example), that people with climate denial and other conspiricist ideations have greatly impaired math and other reasoning skills compared to the normal population who correctly accept consensus science. What needs further exploration is just how climate change is accelerating this decay. We propose novel new modelling techniques to project the effects of higher temperatures on both basic and advanced reasoning skills.
Early results with multiple model runs seeded with a range of starting parameters indicate this problem is likely much worse than previously suspected. The implications if this trend continues are quite likely catastrophic.
Failure to take immediate action can only be considered gross criminal negligence. We have only a few more years before large numbers of people will be incapable of even the most basic rational behavior and must be maintained in carefully controlled environments for their own good.