Saturday Silliness – Speak softly and carry a big Hockey Stick to the Senate

Since there was so much coverage of Mark Steyn’s take no prisoners testimony at the Senate hearing this week, (full text and video) I commissioned Josh to create a cartoon that sums up what went on. It will be in our upcoming U.S. (and Canadian) edition of the Josh -WUWT climate calendar, look for it to be announced very soon – Anthony

steyn-senate-stick

 

Advertisements

61 thoughts on “Saturday Silliness – Speak softly and carry a big Hockey Stick to the Senate

  1. And as a thank you to Mark Steyn for his hours of effort on behalf of truth in science, a little free publicity!
    “Christmas Glow Worm” (Mark Steyn and Judith Curry (played by Jessica Martin))
    (you can buy it via Steyn’s website or Amazon)

    (youtube)
    Of COURSE that is Dr. Curry in the green dress! Do you think she could dress like that on the job and get taken seriously?? She has twenty such lovely outfits!

  2. Haha, yes and the hapless
    Rear-Admiral Donkey-Sycophant,
    papers a-flying. The poor soul
    didn’t have a clue. He has bluffed
    his way throughout his whole Navy
    career probably, by keeping his head
    down and saying aye-aye. Now he has been
    forced to appear and waffle before the Senators,
    he is entirely out of his depth against real scientists.
    Said he; “I am just a simple sailor” ? … in a pig’s eye !

    • He was as “humble” as he was coached to be! If there had been robust cross examination then the house of cards would have fallen.

  3. I’ll be buying some swag from Steyn, again, to support his lawsuit with the ever mendacious Mikey Mann.
    Love this parody of Mikey Mann.

  4. “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” – Wayne Gretzky

    Well, yes, Steyn is a great hockey-stick player. He knows where the hockey-stick is going to be. : )
    He is second only, in my opinion, to Lindzen. I’ve see Lindzen in dialogues where he anticipates where his antagonist’s argument and focus is going and then Lindzen pre-empts it before the antagonist gets to his/her punch line. Steyn does it in a boisterous manner, Lindzen does it in a low-keyed even toned manner . . . the effect is the same in the end.
    John

  5. Same week as COP21 comes this from the Group of Gloom and Doom…Shakun and Clark and Marcott, oh my! (To the tune from Wizard of Oz)….From the report, “….glaciers had largely retreated from the area during the earliest stages of the last termination and before the onset of the deglacial CO2 rise and increase in tropical sea surface temperatures” and “but the trigger for early deglaciation of the tropics remains unclear.”…..Of course it remains unclear, their research couldn’t be massaged enough to show even the slightest conection, and of course, they will need more funding to “help” make the conection clear….smh…. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2822/abstract

  6. My favorite Mark Steyn comment regarding Manns false Nobel prize:
    “But, it is revealing– it is this misrepresentation of credentials by people falsely claiming to be Nobel Laureates –is revealing because it gets to the heart of the problem here that they are attempting to cloak the science [of climate] in an authority that it does not in fact possess.”
    -Mark Steyn

  7. Unfortunately, no-one on either side changed their point of view.
    The majority of the time was given over to the CAGW side with senators asking Admiral Titley loaded questions that he dutifully answered with the Government’s prepared responses.
    It looked like a waste of everyone’s time and effort as no change will come from it.

    • John from Oz, my US centric perspective differs. Inhofe is not a serious player; his book is pure den1al, and he even wrapped it in evangelical Christian overtones. Wrote about that in the opening section of the climate chapter of my ebook The Arts of Truth. Weakens rather than strengthens AGW opposition legitimacy, cause hands more ammunition to the ‘3% flat earthers’ meme.
      Cruz chairs a subcommittee with legitimate jurisdiction over the climate science, and is trying to get that on record. The written submissions are not political theater like the hearing, they are facts the subcommittee is obligated to consider. Plus Cruz is presently the second most popular Republican presidential candidate. And Don Trump cannot be taken seriously (I hope).
      Ditto Lamar Smith’s House committee, subpoenaing NOAA for the emails behind the Karl abomination. NOAA and the Commerce Secretary so far committing very clear obstruction of congress, both a civil and criminal offense. Which shows Smith is onto something, especially since he is going on whistleblower information. What you are witnessing is the beginning of serious US political hardball by skeptics. About time.
      The other thing to read is Harvard Law’s Prof. Larry Tribe court brief on the constitutionality of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. He says it isn’t. That court fight is only beginning, but I put my money on Tribe. The most inspiring, best informed con law professor in the country. Glad I took it from him early in his career. And he is a liberal in a warmunist university who just happens to think the US constitution is more important than Obama’s global warming crusade.
      Hope this missive cheers you up a bit. As Churchill said in 1942 at the end of the Battle of Britain (I paraphrase), “It is not the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning.” We skeptics and lukewarmers (I think the most rational position) are on a long march to victory. We have Ma Nature on our side (Curry and Wyatt Stadium Wave, Akasofu Arctic cyclicality, the Pause…). Takes a long time to overcome 25 years of political momentum when the other side’s motives have little to do with actual climate change. Like the failed $100 billion/year GCF that poor Tuvalu and Kiribati will not be getting from COP21. That is another skirmish victory in a long war.

      • Ristvan: “We skeptics and lukewarmers (I think the most rational position) are on a long march to victory. We have Ma Nature on our side (Curry and Wyatt Stadium Wave, Akasofu Arctic cyclicality, the Pause…).”
        I think so too. Depending on how hard Nature spanks us with a cold period, and how soon, the defeat of Climatism will deeply discredit persons, parties, and persuasions (like environmentalism) associated with it, just as the defeat of the Germans discredited those 3 Ps associated with fascism. Then it will be our turn to say, “This changes everything.”
        Today’s proud parade has reached its peak–“whence every road leads downward.”:
        The unaffordability and unreliability of renewables will become undeniable in 2016 in Europe.
        Populist parties will win elections there.
        The CO2 satellite will reveal emissions and absorption patterns that conflict with warmist doctrine.
        A major recession cum financial crisis will cut down on contributions to the UN’s green fund.
        (And maybe Rossi’s E-Cat gadget will make the whole matter moot–I’m hoping but not hopeful, though.)
        Nit: “As Churchill said in 1942 at the end of the Battle of Britain (I paraphrase), “It is not the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning.””
        Actually, that was after the victory at El Alamein. (The Battle of Britain ended in 1940.) Later he said, “Before El Alamein we never had a victory. After, we never had a defeat.”

    • Senator Jim Inhofe is alive and well!
      And still speaking out against AGW:

      Republicans in Congress had a decidedly different response. Almost uniformly critical of President Barack Obama’s efforts on the national and international stage to address climate change, early reactions dismissed the news of the agreement Saturday.
      “What is significant for the United States is that we can expect the administration to cite this ‘agreement’ as their excuse for establishing emission targets for every sector of the U.S. economy not only including utilities, but petroleum refining, all manufacturing, agriculture, and others,” Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, Republican Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has dismissed climate change as a “hoax,” said in a statement.
      Inhofe and others have sought to force the Obama administration to submit the agreement to the Senate for approval. The White House and a range of legal scholars, however, say the accord – because its language is largely vague – amounts to an executive agreement instead of a treaty, and therefore does not require the advice and consent of the Senate.

      {Note: the U.S. Constitution clearly required that such an “agreement,” to be binding on the American people, must be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Otherwise, it is “words, just words”(B. Hussein O.); the above legal scholars are just as trustworthy as the scientists touting AGW — paid-to-l1e (mainly by “special interests”).}
      (Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-12/nations-sign-historic-climate-change-agreement )
      {Emphasis mine}

  8. Myself, being descended from a couple of Canuck’s, I fear that the term “Canuck” may cause consternation in certain individuals (mostly those unluckily of another persuasion), and there might be hell to pay.
    Then again, “Canucks” are pretty forgiving when not playing the Chicago Blackhawks.

    • Your comment would have been even funnier if you had said “playing the Boston Bruins” instead of Chicago. But given that Chicago is the home of you know who and we have been called “Canuckistan” in the past, no insult is possible. We’re usually too busy trying to keep warm this time of year to worry about what we are called. Put another log on the fire, Martha, and cook me up some bacon and some beans …. Love that C&W. Thanks for the chuckle.

  9. And keeping on topic, eg, Saturday Silliness…parody, a liberal tries to explain why she thinks the world will end, and what should be done about it.

    • This was just awesome. The scariest thing from that whole event was the poster from obama’s website telling people to go after and report deniers. The normal rule of arguments over the internet is that the first person to call the other a nazi loses, but that poster could have been pulled from ‘The rise and fall of the third reich’ (a long and excellent history on Nazi Germany). The reports of children turning in their parents for speaking out against the regime. The government urging citizens to report their neighbors.
      I wasn’t aware of that, and am quite frankly in shock. A sitting President should be impeached for endorsing that kind of rhetoric, it goes against everything we sacrificed in WW2 to prevent. For the first time in my life I’m ashamed to be an American, to see our values so easily trampled after so much sacrifice to preserve them.

  10. Canada loves WUWT! Leo DiCaprio was the laughing stock of Canada yesterday cuz he claimed he watched climate change in action when filming a movie in Calgary. He said he watched a warm wind blow and melt, like 8 feet of snow. Firstly, Calgary has never had 8 feet of snow, and he was clearly referring to one of “Chinook winds.” The main stream media reported widely on it, and cast him out to be pretty stupid.

  11. Yes, it was somewhat “disconnected and random”–but he was fighting fire with fire–and it was effective in trumping Markey, where sweet reason wouldn’t have been. (What a world.)

  12. I thought the most brilliant part of Mark Steyn’s presentation was not during the initial testimony but very near the end when he asked permission to respond to what the admiral had to say about why the Pentagon is preparing to address the threat of climate change.
    As I recall, Steyn reviewed what he sees as the main security threats and then told the admiral that the Pentagon’s approach was a complete and utter waste of time.
    I though that Senator Cruz failed in his heroic effort to suppress a smile but did succeed in suppressing a laugh.
    I wonder if the admiral secretly agrees with Steyn. I noted the admiral did not respond in a direct way when Senator Cruz twice asked him point blank if he agrees with the President’s views about climate as a security risk that the Pentagon must prepare for as a priority concern.

  13. They couldn’t find a way to tax the air we breath in, so they decided to try and tax the air we breathe out . It’s called ” Cap and Trade ” or ” Carbon Tax ” !! ….Don’t be fooled again !!

Comments are closed.