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.
But if they get 7 million out of 300 million to say yes, they’ll take a victory lap, just like Obama did with Obamacare.
Never mind, I think I see where; it’s right next to a sign that says “park your brains here”.
Greg says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:28 am
TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.
Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.
========================================================================
Actually, since you have to vote to get to the results as far as I could tell, I assume the check mark indicates the section that represents the way the user voted..
PS No is up to 83%
MattS says:
April 2, 2014 at 10:35 am
Actually, since you have to vote to get to the results as far as I could tell, I assume the check mark indicates the section that represents the way the user voted..
PS No is up to 83%
===============================
Yup, it does. I just voted differently twice using 2 different ID’s (purely in the interests of research of course) and it confirms which way I voted on both.
Climate scientists going on strike is the best idea Bill McKibben will ever have.
Thirty years would seem like an appropriate length of time……
It’s up to 83% now. LOL.
Before this WUWT post I had already registered my vote. Quite a shocking result! This is why they imagine there is a well funded opposition. There isn’t, people have had enough of the garbage and scare mongering.
Well, I just voted “no” on the poll. On the strike, however, I vote “yes”. And if they refuse to strike, lock ’em out!
If the results were reversed, this poll would be touted very loudly by the MSM, progressive politicians and all the warmist sites. They way it stands now, you will not hear a peep from any of them.
The warmists’ propaganda still has some traction among true believers and is still repeated as a mantra as long as the past warming does not reverse. Reversal of the 0.7C warming of the last 70 years is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by something else (it’s the solar magnetic cycle and something that is related to the solar magnetic cycle) besides the increase in atmospheric CO2.
I find the late climate war exchanges and propaganda, in the context of recent observational evidence and at least eight observations/analysis results/logical pillars that identifies the mechanisms, that supports the assertion that an abrupt climate change event (cooling) is imminent, to be surreal. I am struggling to imagine how the climate wars will change if the reality is the planet is unequivocally cooling.
There is a physical reason for the sudden activation of Svensmark’s GCR ion mediated cloud formation at both poles. A physical change (sudden increase in Antarctic sea ice all months of the year) and the start of recover of Arctic sea ice requires a change, to cause what is observed. Warming of the Antarctic region is not the explanation as the planet has not warmed in 15 years, so there is no warming change to cause what is observed.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.3.31.2014.gif
In a large part due to the climate wars, the scientific community has failed to solve the puzzle ‘what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle’ and ‘what causes the cyclic warming and cooling events’ that occur during the glacial and interglacial periods. The warmist scientists have failed to explain (ignored) why the pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not agree with the pattern of warming that should be observed if CO2 has the forcing function and have ignored the fact that the pattern of warming in last 70 does match the pattern of warming observed in past cyclic warming events which (both logical pillars) supports the assertion that past warming events and the warming period of the last 70 years are due to the same forcing function. The warmists scientists have failed to explain why there was a period of no warming for 16 years (an end to warming is difficult to explain if CO2 is the forcing function as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and the CO2 forcing does not turn off, the end of warming indicates that something in the high regions of the atmosphere causes the CO2 mechanism to saturate as the higher regions of the atmosphere did not warm in the last 70 years, the higher regions of the atmosphere should have warmed based on the general circulation models, if the CO2 warming mechanism saturates something else caused the warming in the last 70 years). The warmists scientists and media are remaining silent concerning the fact that there is now the start of cooling both poles.
There has already been a strike by a small core group of so-called climate ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists in this 21st century. Those scientists, of whom Michael Mann (PSU) seems to be typical and whom also seems to be the unofficial leader, have been on strike for ~15 years to prevent providing their published work product info. The info they have not provided is: specific used data, exact detailed methodology, function actual code, all work related emails and overall correspondence.
Consider that without them supplying such info on their published work product then they have not actually been participating in and party to any scientific process or within professional integrity guidelines. Thus, their work cannot be yet included in the domain of science. Their successful strike to produce things not within the domain of science continues.
What Mr McKibben is in effect asking for with his strike call is for all other ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists to join Michael Mann and the small core group of his associates on their ongoing ~15 years strike where they have failed to produce both within the formal domain of science and also failed within the code of professional scientific behavior.
John
The MSM is governed by advertizing dollars and winning some sort of popularity contest, i.e winning ratings and readership.
With 83% of MSNBC’s readers not believing the climate junk they peddle, when do they start to realize their editorial slants start to upset people. Their stance HAS to affect readership and ratings.
CAS
Alberta
Where AGW has caused ALL of the lakes in Alberta to be frozen solid still. Ice melt here is at least two weeks behind where it was a few years ago. “Ice off” has been late the past few years compared to ten years ago.
The game is not going my way, I’m gonna take my ball home, and won’t everyone be sorry then.
Sorry if this is redundant.
The results poll forces you to have to click to see the result. Yet they put a tick right next to the 83% that said NO. I they trying to mislead. PS don’t forget to click SEE ALL, there are now 20 with most being hostile to the CAGW poll.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-see-climate-change-threat-your-life-or-well-being
What a wonderful day. 🙂
83% “no”.
FYI folks, the tick mark on the pie chart is just to indicate the poll winner (regardless of the position relative to the question.) Simple, yes?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-how-should-we-address-climate-change
this is one they will be touting.
re: Sasha (at 8:37) list of 107 failed predictions.
Fantastic work, Sasha! Do you have a version of the list with hyperlinks to the source?
Anthony, Sasha’s list needs to be added as a separate post in the “Climate Fail Files.” It’s a keeper.
And thanks for showing us your site, Donna Quixote.
I just voted and the tally was 9,056 votes.
No – 7,528 (83%)
Yes – 1,402 (15%)
I am not sure – 126 (1%)
_Jim says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:14 am
Any chance of getting that organized from earliest to latest prediction for next time?
Thank you for your kind comments. The list was gathered from my own files and several other websites as an answer to another poster’s question. The Viner quote was duplicated because I was in a hurry and a bit tired so I rushed the editing. Your idea to put this in chronological order is a good one and maybe this will be done later. It looks like this list may form the backbone of a database of failed climate predictions – maybe Anthony would be happy to do it?
Some quotes are not referenced fully and have no links, but this is not a thesis for a Doctorate, just a bit of fun at the expense of people who should know better. This is in no way a comprehensive list; I left out about 150 other predictions, most notably the predictions covering millions of “climate refugees” and various ridiculous claims about sea levels,the Arctic and the Gulf Stream. I thought putting everything I have into one post would be too much.
My favorite quote is about the cannibals (77).
i just tried to vote for the first time but, no matter how many times i choose “no” & click to vote, i’m told i haven’t made a choice. obviously i haven’t made the “right” choice, but….
I am volunteering to carry a picket sign for this one.
Just cast my vote. Currently at 83% with 7904 votes for NO.
Since these nimrods are now using “carbon” instead of carbon dioxide, shouldn’t Bill change his web site address to: 12/44 *350.org to 95.45.org? There is only 95.45 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. From now on, we should refer to his site as 95.45.org.
McKibbon would LOVE a “climate strike” because the more research that comes in the worse the entire AGW hypothesis is looking.