Guest Opinion By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Ryan Cooper (left below), an innumerate journalist writing for The Week, asks (alongside the obligatory picture of a cuddly polar bear, right below) the tendentious question, “Have conservatives noticed their favorite climate talking point has been obliterated?
 |
 |
| Dumb journo | Dumb animal |
“Conservatives”, says Cooper, “have long been searching for a reason to do nothing about climate change … Several years ago, it seemed like that crowd had a perfect argument to justify inaction on climate: the global warming ‘pause’ … But lo and behold, two years later warming has surged back with a vengeance.”
Well, actually, it was the unlamented “Dr” Pachauri, railroad engineer turned climate guru, who gave the Pause its name in a speech in Melbourne more than three years ago. Oh, and the Pause was present until its peak length of 18 years 9 months just eight months back:
The WUWT Pause graph displayed by Ted Cruz at a Senate hearing in November 2015
Cooper obediently trots out the Party Line that most of the missing global warming had gone into hiding in the oceans (no original thinker he). He adds that the el Niño that has now ended was nature’s way of putting the heat back into the atmosphere – except that it’s been doing that naturally for tens of thousands of years.
He says, “You should never hang an entire view of a chart on the last few data points” – and then hangs his entire view of the following chart on the last few data points, which show a spike in global warming caused by the more than usually active but now declining el Niño.
Cooper carefully cuts off the observed-temperature trend line just at the peak, concealing the inconvenient truth that in the past two months global temperatures have plummeted as the el Niño comes to an end.
Next, we are treated to a not particularly scary prediction that there is a 99% chance the world will be warmer this year than last (maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but even if it is it won’t be by much, and it won’t be a bad thing).
No Clim-Comm piece would be complete without the usual catalogue of lurid supposed disasters: “Coral bleaching has reached epidemic proportions” (well, that natural defense mechanism happens whenever there is a severe el Niño, such as 1998 or two further great El Niños before that over the past 300 years, and the corals survive it just fine: they’ve faced a lot worse in the past 175 million years).
“The Arctic just had its warmest winter on record” (and a good thing too).
“The ocean level has increased 36.5 mm since April 2011” (except that Cooper carefully chose the satellite data, which have serious calibration problems, rather than the less excitable tide gauges, and he also carefully cherry-picked his period by starting it at a local nadir in global sea level and ending it at the el-Niño-driven apex).
“Extreme drought and extreme precipitation are happening all over the place” (they always were and they always will, but the trend in extreme droughts, as in all droughts, has been downward for 30 years, and even the IPCC, both in its Fifth Assessment Report and in its Special Report on Extreme Weather, says there is no evidence for systemic change in precipitation, and still less evidence that such patterns of change as have occurred are driven by global warming).
Cooper ends with a traditional Marxstream-media rant: “Will they [the non-Marxists] come around and admit their previous mistake, and join in advocating for immediate, aggressive climate policy? The world is waiting.”
Well, it can wait a little longer, just like Cooper’s grasp of grammar (“advocate” is transitive, so “for” after it is superfluous) and of climate science. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that in the first 15 years of the 21st century the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Celsius degrees per century.
Observed global warming measured by satellites and taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly temperature anomalies from January 2001 to June 2016, including the dramatic recent spike in temperatures but not yet including the la Niña that may follow the now-departed el Niño, is well below 0.6 C°/century:
Observed warming over the period, then, is about one-fifth of the IPCC’s originally-predicted central rate.
Before the usual suspects whine that it’s not fair to consider only the past 15 years, and that one should go back to 1990 itself, I say this. The IPCC, following the computer models, predicted in 1990 that, as business-as-usual CO2 concentration increased, the rate of global warming after 2000 should be somewhat greater than the rate of global warming before it.
Global warming since 1990, at 1.2 C°/century equivalent, is more than double the warming rate since 2001, suggesting that the ever-increasing CO2 concentration in the air is causing less and less global warming, contrary to official predictions.
I cannot tell you whether there will be a la Niña later this year and into next year. But if there is, and if it is anything like as noticeable as it was following the 1998 temperature spike, then by this time next year the Pause will have reappeared, and will be close to 20 years in length.
As the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to widen beyond all hope of concealment by further data-tampering, it will eventually become impossible to bury the now well-established scientific truth that, even though CO2 emissions are above the business-as-usual forecast made by the IPCC in 1990, the rate of global warming is a small fraction of what had then been predicted.
How, then, has the scare been maintained for so long? The chief reason is that the climate extremists readopted an unpleasant tactic first developed by the totalitarians of the 20th century: organized, paid, structured vilification of anyone who dared to oppose them.
In the end, politicians know that climate skeptics won’t screech at them and won’t spend tens of billions on front groups whose sole purpose is to trash their reputations. But climate extremists do that, and it works. It frightens off ordinary folk, who would otherwise have seen through the climate scam far more quickly and completely than they have.
In the end, though, the world won’t warm at anything like the predicted rate. By the time even the extremists have realized that scientifically illiterate pieces like Cooper’s can no longer sweep the growing discrepancy under the carpet, how many tens of millions will their cruel policies of opposing affordable electric power have killed in third-world countries?
Mr Cooper should be ashamed of himself. But he won’t be. One needs a conscience first.
Oh dear. WUWT and it’s ridiculous obsession with seeing Marxists everywhere. McCarthy would be proud.
McCarthy was correct. The US Government and academia were riddled with active, conscious agents of mass murdering Marxism.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Russell. See Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, by Ann Coulter. The release of the Venona Papers, as thoroughly described by Ms. Coulter, provided ample evidence that benben’s statement is misinformed (to say the least).
Hmmm well I’m in academia so you’d expect that I would be surrounded. How would you describe a communist?
[Confirmed, he works for http://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en Odd though that given he’s “in academia”, he has to use a fake email address “bspammer66”. You’d think he’d have enough integrity to put that force of academia and the integrity it implies behind his name. Obviously not – Anthony]
It wasn’t easy for me to escape that cruel fate. Luck and pluck.
How would you describe a communist?
Mom. But she went apostate in her later years. (Unlike Aunt Louise.)
look in a mirror?
“How would you describe a communist?”
In this era after the total failure of several communist countries, most notably the old USSR, few call themselves “communists”. And I agree with them, it is better to use the more general term “collectivist”.
The collectivist looks to the state (government) to control the society and looks for ever greater power to be given to the government at all levels so that it may force everyone to do exactly what the collective has determined is just. No doubt you are surrounded indeed.
The opposite of the collectivist is the individualist who claims that he owns himself and that he and his family should make the decisions about how to live life. He actually thinks that he should be left alone to live his life. If he is a real radical he may even be heard at times to mutter, “live and let live”. (no collectivist would ever say that even on the most dramatic of drugs)
There are many people someplace in between the two poles given above. Most Americans seem to be sheep who are for the government making those hard choices for them, but I still think that a large segment of the population values liberty over safety at this time. But we darn sure have beaten the individualism out of the young. Stalin was right, he wanted to “educate” the young and turn them into the obedient slave-workers the state needs.
The above is just off the cuff. If you really want to dig deeper, there are several links I could provide.
“Hmmm well I’m in academia…”
Ah, you’re a student.
That explains why you know everything.
Jolly good, carry on.
catweazle666,
+97%. 🙂
I think the term ‘communist’ ought to be ditched, by those opposed to what to my mind is better described elitist totalitarianism. Using the former actually helps in the recruitment of useful . . not real smart folks, it seems to me, since they will imagine the goal they are lending support to is a “classless society”, which is the exact opposite of what I believe the actual goal is.
What we just saw in regard to Ms. Clinton’s non-indictment, is a taste of things to come, as is the “immunity” to any civil or criminal prosecution the EU political elite enjoy . .
Communists are those who have a deep, abiding, Gnostic knowledge that the “invisible hand” described by Adam Smith is wrong, but can’t explain why Venezuela has no toilet paper.
@ur momisugly anthony, I prefer to remain anonymous (which I think is wise given the vitriol displayed once again in this thread) and you should really respect my decision by not posting personal info about me in your capacity as moderator. Please remove that link to my workplace.
[nope, sorry. You brought up your position in academia, and the link reveals no personal information about you -Anthony]
Q. “How would you describe a communist?”
A. A socialist with guns.
Anthony, yes it does. There are many Ben’s in academia, globally, but not that many at Leiden. A name and a workplace and 5 minutes of searching is all it takes. Not to mention that you also put the bigger part of my email address out there. Again, please remove it. It’s very unpleasant and servers no function. I’m sure people here trust you enough that you can just confirm my academic status without giving hints about my personal info.
[From the WUWT policy page:
Anonymity is not guaranteed on this blog. Posters that use a government or publicly funded IP address that assume false identities for the purpose of hiding their source of opinion while on the taxpayers dime get preferential treatment for full disclosure, ditto for people that make threats.
You used the University network to make commentary here.
-Anthony ]
@ur momisugly benben
The ultimate in dishonesty is for someone to be utterly ashamed of him/her self, …. but only after being outed, …… for publicly voicing what he/she professes to believe in.
I agree with benben on this Anthony. I too am in “academics” and I choose to not
use my whole name due to the intolerance by the “progressives” in academia that benben can’t seem to find even though it is backed up by numerous studies and surveys (I realize he said communists or Marxists which is a step or two further than a progressive but there are many in academia who proudly call themselves leftist and use Marxist thought in their research). At any rate, I think that the fact that he comes here and tries to engage in dialogue is a positive and there is no reason to partially “out” him by giving his university. And please don’t do it to me. Thanks!
[Ben Ben has been hostile here by saying “Oh dear. WUWT and it’s ridiculous obsession with seeing Marxists everywhere. McCarthy would be proud.”. As far as I’m concerned, that’s an insult, because I certainly don’t see “Marxists everywhere”, yet he paints me and others with a broad brush of his own bias. If he can’t take the risk of using the university network to run his commentary under a fake identity, then he shouldn’t. You on the other hand aren’t using a fake identity, and clearly identify your university affiliation. That’s the difference. Besides, it is in our policy page. I take a dim view of academics hiding behind fake identities in order to hurl insults, and he’s certainly unapologetic for his behavior. – Anthony]
The fact that many of your fellow academians are not as far left as you are is not evidence that there are no Marxists in academia.
@ur momisugly benben
“How would you describe a communist”
[Short Version]
Controlling a populace by controlling its energy use is just way too inviting for Totalitarians. In 2009 shortly after the Copenhagen CO2-Climate Change COP, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus noted the similarity of CO2-Climate Change to Communist thinking, PC, and irrational ideology or Religion:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2009/12/18/czech-president-klaus-global-warming-science-new-religion.html
“We’ll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave,” Klaus said. “What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments.”
A Communist is a Totalitarian and/or Narcissist who thinks s/he has all the answers, but answers which never seem to apply to her/himself – apart from The Party being in as much control as possible over the rest of people in a Society, if not totally. A Communist has chosen Marx’s Revolution as their Model, although in the U.S. they’ve found they need [an Italian Communist] Gramsci’s Hegemony to bring about the Revolution; because the Middle Class has prospered in the U.S., and therefore the Workers didn’t revolt. Thus the Communists decided to abandon the banner of Communism and infiltrate the Democrat Party [and evey other Societal Institution available] because they realized they couldn’t win Marx’s critical First Majority as Communists. Academia has become largely a hot bed of Communist “thinking”
Now they call themselves “Progressives”.
And Diana West’s book, American Betrayal. It references the new information obtained from the Venona papers and Russian records (now re-closed by Putin).
The sheriff and I take a dim view of show offs with guns.
– just love that line from Support Your Local Sheriff.
o Sorry. Carry on.
@Anthony, well I’m sure we can both agree that I’m not threatening anyone. The public money thing… well, my program was actually not driven by taxpayer money but by companies. But sure, there is no way for you to check that so whatever. However, if you’re truly interested in having people from the other side of the fence visit your blog, you should consider removing that part.
Actually, Anthony Watts, I think I’ll stop posting on this website from now on. I really dislike how you threw my personal info out there, and your subsequent self-righteous reaction to my request to have it removed. But I guess that was the objective of your moderation intervention in the first place. Good job Mr. Watts!
Kind regards,
Ben
The only McCarthyism I see going on here involves the RICO20 and the ‘clean’ AG’s. I’m sure you were very concerned about their inappropriate behavior. You live in an awfully fragile glass house to be throwing such stones, benny.
I don’t know if they’re “everywhere” but on 90% of American colleges, they’re all over the place, teaching young skulls full of mush. Wait. Did I say teaching? I meant indoctrinating.
BenBen, your statement is ridiculous. WUWT does not see Marxists everywhere. There are people posting comments who believe government and bureaucracies are inefficient and thus making government and bureaucracies bigger will lead to more inefficiencies and thus more taxes, less growth, smaller middle class, and more poor.
Ha! I invite you to read the other comments.
Well, Howdy benben. How’s the old red flag hammer and sickle these days.
“A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.”—King Oscar II of Sweden
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/head-heart-and-science/
I have read the other comments, and you are either paranoid or lying.
re: “‘A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.’—King Oscar II of Sweden” Ron Clutz
The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to
mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot:
Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.politics/MF0PiYYN_AM
Dan Kurt
Actually, a major theme of WUWT posters is the promotion of right wing and Conservative politics, and the trashing of anything which smacks of Socialism. I have posted here for many years and it has always been thus. Sadly it often detracts from useful information that can be found here. By the way, a Communist is the opposite pole from someone who thinks they are the centre of all that is important in society and only they and their beliefs matter. Both poles are dysfunctional, but the individualist has been in the ascent for some years now in the West.
“with seeing Marxists everywhere:”..
When they are parading themselves down the street in front of you, its pretty hard not to see them.
Open you other eye.
You can’t see the Marxists if you’re suffering from proctocraniosis, as [snip] apparently is.
@jorge
There is now a surgical procedure that mitigates the worst effects of Proctocraniosis called Plexibody. Plexibody surgery inserts a Plexiglas window into the lower abdomen allowing those suffering from Proctocraniosis to see where they are going. Unfortunately, it is not a popular, well known procedure.
A homophobic slur! Wonderful! Please keep up the useful contributions to this debate, Jorge.
now, implying that Proctocraniosis is related to being gay, THAT is homophobic slur, benben.
But it’s still good joke, thanx
Like most leftists, benben is incapable of arguing honestly.
He has to lie about what others believe in order to vilify them.
Proctocraniosis? Is that like “He views the world through a glass navel?”
bebben. Please look up the Venona Papers and see that America was the most penetrated country, in modern times, by Communists. Your statement, is incorrect, unfair to WUWT and its readers and either stems from willful deceit or ignorance of the role of Marxists in the last century as well as this one.
Given what marxism/socialism does to standards of living, we’ve got a right to be paranoid. Venezuela being the most recent example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/the-left-who-lust-after-a-socialist-paradise-should-look-at-what/
To quote Sowell.
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Benben
What other names have you used here?
benben is the poster who wouldn’t stop insisting that the “there hasn’t been global warming since ____” claims were based on the cherry-picking of dates. “Academia”…how sad. That sort of intellect would’ve been much more useful in the janitorial field.
I believe this says it best, to wit:
Academics are those who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
benben you wouldn’t know your Troposphere from your Uranus, why would anyone be interested in anything you have to say?
Well, I for one am very entertained by your highly intelligent jokes. Please continue!
Fair point that the linking of ‘failure to read graphs’ with ‘Marxism’ is unjustified.
Even if it was true, the article doesn’t justify it.
Which is a weakness.
“Don’t let El Nino write off the Pause until the next La Nino is factored in”.
That is a well-reasoned argument.
“Don’t let Reds under the Bed mention El Nino”.
That is unpersuasive.
My thinking exactly
La Nina.
Aye.Typo.
My record shows I know my atmospheric science
But not my Spanish, alas.
Benben: that’s your takeaway from the post?
Well, as per my original comments, I think it’s quite ridiculous attempt to overtly link concern about climate change with Marxism (not actual Marxism of course, but the evil left wing boogeyman that conservatives Americans have made Marx to be). For example this quote, where the author inserts Marxism into something completely irrelevant to actual Marx. It’s just plain bad journalism which only panders to people already agreeing with the author.
“Cooper ends with a traditional Marxstream-media rant: “Will they [the non-Marxists] come around and admit their previous mistake, and join in advocating for immediate, aggressive climate policy? The world is waiting.” ”
Then, content wise… meh. For example, at one point the author complains that a graph is used that does not show the last two months of a temperature line. But then the author himself uses a graph that ends in 2012. Why would you do that? Plenty more errors in the work, but I don’t think this thread is the right place to discuss that.
If your comment wasn’t poor quality irony then clearly you didn’t read the post. But analogy is tough for true believers to grok.
I got in trouble for criticizing the Yanamamo, once. But the drug-crazed warmongers grew on me after a while.
(Still don’t think much of the Yanamamo, though.)
benben,
I too prefer the term “collectivist” because it covers all the bases (socialism, marxism, etc.) Here is a simple way to look at it: An individualist says “People should help those that are less fortunate than themselves.” But a collectivist says “People MUST help those that are less fortunate than themselves.” And then the collectivist sets about creating a government to do just that, forgetting how easily power corrupts people.
Collectivist is too broad a term, IMO.
I think that part of the problem is trying to put people into neat little boxes How many here support public education?
What about people who believe that government should be as small as possible, but who also believe that small as possible includes providing education, police, army etc…
Where does the logic go then? “Collectivists are bad, and I’m not one of them, except for the issues that I’m a collectivists on”
How many people who are anti collectivist would do away with the army, police, public education etc….
Hey Phillip, +1 for that. It’s very difficult to even respond to a lot of the replies here because everyone just throws around terms like communist and collectivist with no clear definition whatsoever. Nobody just wants more inefficient government without getting anything in return, and it’s just shows how little people actually talk to people with other opinions, to see people here claim that leftwing ‘marxists’ are only interested in exactly that.
It’s about providing the basic services that you would want of a modern nation state (security, education, healthcare) so that every member of society has access to it at reasonable costs. It’s quite an interesting intellectual challenge to think about what structure society should have to achieve those goals, and that is probably why academia is more left wing than the general population (at least in the US, in western europe everyone is way left compared to the US).
Cheers,
ben
Paul, beyond that, the collectivist usually sets up so that others are the ones who are forced to help, and he and people he likes are those who will always get the help.
Government should only provide those services that only government can provide efficiently.
Police/Fire/Defense fall into that category.
Education doesn’t. Government ruining of education is one of the biggest problem this country has to solve.
Literacy in the US was in the 90th percentile before any public school system had been established. Families and communities took teaching the next generation seriously. The goal of establishing public education was not to shore up lacking private teaching (which was not lacking). It was to make it easier to indoctrinate the young by putting a degree of separation between them and their families.
Should the State provide food as well? I can guarantee that without it you will die of one of a number of well documented medical conditions, therefore food must be considered medicinal. This silly notion that the government ‘provides’ so many valuable services is laughable. There are extremely few things that the government provides that the private sector cannot let alone do it better: defense, courts, police, standards. Charter schools routinely outperform the
public schoolsteacher’s unions, LASIK and cosmetic surgery have come down in cost with no third payer; private roads are better, faster, and cheaper; etc..You don’t like the tarring of being called a Marxist? Then stop advocating for coercive central planning. Just because you don’t like the darker implications and side effects of your pining for a return to feudalism and serfdom (is it truly a coincidence that Europe leads the way?), doesn’t mean that the shoes don’t fit. And the kicker in all this: you actually think you’re entitled to anonymity when you actively advocate enslaving those around you. It’s a kinder, gentler slavery but it still tells them what they can do, what they can earn, where they can live, what they can say, and most importantly what they can think.
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion
Temasek PKG How Temasek is investing post-Brexit
1 Hour Ago|04:23
The U.K. economy will be negatively affected by the country’s vote to leave the EU, according to a new CNBC survey of chief financial officers (CFOs), with the results also suggesting the recent referendum will do little to boost the chances of Donald Trump becoming the next U.S. president.
Ninety-seven percent of global CFOs across a wide range of industries said that Brexit would have a “negative” or “very negative” impact on the U.K. economy over the next six months, with 81.8 percent stating the same for the economy of the European Union.
Benben, something for you. Another 97 percent …
(not to counter your point, Janus100, just to amplify and remind bb of how accurate 97%ers are…..)
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/truey.jpg
#(:))
If the economy of a large number of grouped countries is going to be so negatively impacted by the leaving of one, then they were fraudulent in their percieved performance in the first place. Just look at the annual balance of payments deficit and increased annual debt individually and collectively. Some of the decline is punishement for leaving, the rest is that the economies were and still remain on life support anyway. If you take away the constant cash infusion most are negative growth.
Oh that is a universal trait common to collectivist masses world wide:
As just happened in Australia: http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/politically-tragic-soft-left-journalists-completely-missed-the-defcon-vote/
They constantly read their own press and believe it without a hint of skepticism and thus are susceptible to government propaganda and are inclined to uncritically accept the climate change alarmist meme.
benben —
When a name becomes tainted you change it. Communists now call themselves Progressives. If you don’t think Progressives are Communists consider what type of society the Progressives envision the future should hold for humanity.
There are two types of Progressives. Those Progressives who know they themselves are Communists and those Progressives who are too dumb to know that they themselves are Communists. I think you fit into the last group.
Eugene WR Gallun
Oh dear benben you seem to be as illiterate as Mr Cooper; that’s very embarrassing. You claim to be “in academia” but are not aware that possessive pronoun “its” does not have an apostrophe. How stupid is that?
We have been penetrated. My tablet has been programmed by others to change “its” to “it’s”, causing me the nuisance of extra time to correct it.
Next they will change “they are” or “they’re” to “their” or “there” as many are now writing wrongly.
Or “cite” to “site”.
Or use “sex” for “gender”.
As in the job application that asked “Sex: M or F” and gained the reply “M’d last night. Have not F’d for months.”
Apologists will say that language evolves and that it is wrong to fight change that the people adopt.
Well hell, but I am “routing” for the clarity of the old, correct way.
Yeah I’m often commenting via my phone and it leads to quite a few autocorrect errors. Unfortunate fact of modern life
Geoff Sherrington July 8, 2016 at 12:46 am:
“Or use “sex” for “gender”.
As in the job application that asked “Sex: M or F” and gained the reply “M’d last night. Have not F’d for months.”
Apologists will say that language evolves and that it is wrong to fight change that the people adopt.
Well hell, but I am “routing” for the clarity of the old, correct way.”
GOOGLE:
gen·der
ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
“traditional concepts of gender”
synonyms: sex
“variables included age, income, and gender”
2.
GRAMMAR
(in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.
Sex – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
Wikipedia
Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex,
Me: It looks to me like using “sex” to describe one’s biological identity is the old way, while using “gender” is the new way, in order to discuss one’s mental state.
SR
Steve at 5:39 am
Agreed, sex versus gender, but my tongue was gently in the cheek.
It does not work in reverse.
Have you ever tried “Want to have gender with me tonight?”
Geoff.
So if that was their objective, why did they choose to employ means which resulted in the exact opposite happening ??
I would say that the best method to improve the population’s economic welfare, is simply to focus all of your efforts on improving your own economic welfare, so you don’t become a drag on everybody else.
G
Well Geoff, as far as I am aware, there are two of the known 57 genders (not including hermaphrodites) that actually do engage in sex.
Whatever it is that the others do instead of sex, is quite beyond my imagination.
G
Actually traditional marxists at least had the objective of improving the population’s economic welfare . The watermelons overtly want to suppress it .
Yes I agree with this. If you actually read Marx his analysis of what was wrong in society at the time when he was alive is quite well done. It’s just that his proposed remedies didn’t quite work out so well, to say the least.
But just because one part of Marxist theory turned out wrong doesn’t mean that his initial line of thought should be completely ignored. Especially after Trump and Brexit, which Marx would probably see as a perfect example of the proletariat rising up against the elite.
benben said:
HA, does the following quote define your noted “one part of Marx’s theory that “turned out to be wrong” simply because it defines the basis of Capitalism which involves “selling one’s labour for wages”, …… to wit:
I find it ironic that the University of Leiden’s motto is:
“‘Praesidium Libertatis’ – Bastion of Freedom”
http://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/about-us
Just research for youself what Sen.McCarthy uncovered and not blithely except what some blinkered academic tells you hopefully you might just learn something.
benben
you need to look under your bed of course…
Oh dear. An academic who doesn’t know the difference between it’s and its. The village idiot would be proud.
with seeing Marxists everywhere
===================
classical fallacy. argument by exaggeration. someone says they see X. You exaggerate this to “X everywhere”. And since there isn’t X everywhere, there must be not X anywhere.
X exists, it doesn’t exist everywhere, but it does exist.
On the other hand, I believe that Monckton was engaging in his own exaggeration and probably knowingly for effect and due to being fed up with leftists. While there are many (a large majority) of progressives and leftists at most universities, most would not call themselves Marxists or communists.
And yet ask them where they will draw the line limiting government power and intervention in the private lives of citizens and they would be hard-pressed to find it anywhere outside of reproductive ‘rights’ which are so ironically named. I can guarantee a vast majority of them will favor redistribution to ‘fix’ the inequality ‘problem.’ that is the real bogeyman in today’s political world.
Noting that a person’s tactics are the same as those used by Marxists is not the same thing as calling someone a Marxist.
Once again, you prove yourself to me not as smart as you believe yourself to be.
Does it ever wear on your ego to be wrong all the time?
“I prefer to remain anonymous (which I think is wise given the vitriol displayed once again in this thread.”
Well, BoBo, considering the snark with which you opened this thread, I’d say you earned it.
And I am just SO surprised you are ‘in academia’ – a close-minded community of conformist indoctrination, living in a world of pure theory, untouched by reality, but slave to funding.
And I never wondered at all why you don’t have the courage to use your own name.
benben,
Who is John Galt?
If you do not know may I suggest reading “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. It is written by a woman who lived through the Russian revolution yet is incredibly relevant today. It will help you understand why so many abhor collectivist ideology.
Oh, dear, Monckton makes several salient attacks on a faux journo, and ben sees it as cause to slur the entire site as McCarthy-ites. Went down the string a long way, saw no apology or any type of correction, only whining that somebody might try to contact you in person and say naughty things. Dear, dear. Please let us know if a single reader does send you an insensitive email, prof(haha)essor, most of us will be satisfied to mock you where it’ll be appreciated. And using your University account to send personal emails? You should be less worried that somebody will email you, more concerned that your employer might be compelled to produce your emails. You read here, yet you haven’t learned THAT? Dear, dear, dear.
You are an honest man Benben, but you will be made to suffer for your observation. There are people who post on here who see left wing tendencies in Mein Kampf, so are extremely unlikely to allow you to make such comments without firing a barrage of personal criticisms against you as a person.
Well, Mein Kampf was written by the world’s most progressive Leftist, so… yeah.
Has anyone thought that benben’s post is clearly a Red Herring? The article is about how the Alarmists think that an El Niño somehow voids all the arguments we have been making. However, the article gives good evidence that this is not the case. Debating Marxism vs, Progressives vs. Collectivists is interesting, but taking away from the excellent data presented in the article.
Here’s a commenters take on a book – “Marked to Read” by Ryan Cooper – “Finally, a book that bridges the best of the scholarly and activist literatures in socialist ecology! Sophisticated and compelling, eschewing academic jargons �postmodern’ and otherwise, Ecology and Socialism more than competently champions a Marxist approach to environmental crisis and the kind of economic democracy needed to achieve an ecologically friendly system of production and human development.” —Paul Burkett, author of Marxism and Ecological Economics.
I do not know if it’s the same Ryan Cooper as I did not go thru all the pages to find out. But it came up in a search on Marxism and Ryan Cooper. Here’s the link to the book and more comments… espousing Marxism, Socialism on ecology, etc…
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8493487-ecology-and-socialism
This took just a one second search. There’s so many other Marxist-Green links I can provide if you like and connections to Climate Change. None of this is surprising since Communist and Marxist have long been the Front of the Green Party movement on environmentalism.
It’s not about “seeing Marxist everywhere” but there are connections and it is perfectly OK to point out far left ideology, many socialist and Marxist, including those ignorant of such ideologies and socialist solutions rage against Free Market solution in favor of Marxist solutions including the Climate Change “crisis.”
This exist in leaders like Communist-Marxist Van Jones being appointed as Green Czar by Obama. A man ruled by hatred and Marxism who lashed out about racist related green issues in America. He was quickly removed from office as Green Czar once his Communist-Marxist roots were exposed along with his crazy rants.
Obama himself trained and mentored by Communist Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers to hate America and Free Markets, received his first nomination by the “New Party” in Chicago by Communist Party USA “former” members. Including Marxist and Socialist in Bill Ayers home. Ayers, himself an American hating, pro-Communist, pro-Marxist believer and domestic terrorist activist, responsible for attacking police officers pushes Global Warming along with many other favorite far left, Marxist memes. This is nothing new under the sun. And well known.
Obama is also a Saul Alinsky trained “community organizer.” Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals dedicated to Lucifer, was the Communist-Marxist author’s manifesto in how to divide and conquer in order to gain power from evil ways of Free Markets. Again, out of Chicago.
So yes, Communist and Marxist in the West are largely tied to Climate Crisis solutions, and many are largely anti-Free Markets, or in case of our very President attached to and trained by communist and Marxist during much of his life.
Just because many young people and others ignorant of this information do not know it, does not lead to it being non-existent. It clearly exist.
So, why run away from Marxism? You should embrace Marxist. And why run away from Communist? After all, they are some of the most fundamental and ardent supporters of Global Warming. They do you a good service.
Marxist and Communist have long been associated with the Green Party that champions Climate crisis and the environment. That you protest this connection shows either ignorance of the historical connections or your own bias to dissuade readers that ideology plays a role by many of those leading the so-called climate crisis. Why deny that much of the drive behind it is ideologically driven for global governance in directing of laws and rules for how people must behave collectively as a group? When in fact, everything tied to the movement is about control over how people live, drive, eat, breathe, go to the bathroom, etc?
There are many great reasons for clean energy, fuel efficiency, etc. I’m all for it for many good reasons. But what I hate is lies, lies and damned lies as told thru the scandalous emails that surfaced in attempt to hide the failures of climate models. Climate models that could not and did not include all facets of potential forces to create an accurate model.
Lets not pretend that far left radicals are not involved as Marxist when it is clear they are. Lets not pretend many scientist themselves are not far left ideologues feeding at the banquet of Red-Green Marxist, like the Green Party, or far left zealots in political power in many Euro nations and America that push global warming, global-collective force-fed governance.
Obama, himself a lover of Marxism – sought out Marxist – as stated in his own book. Trained with Marxist and Communist much of his life pushes global warming – telling the world that he would stop the oceans from rising.
Much political leadership on the far left are driven by corruption themselves with large companies banking them for the profits, like Goldman Sachs in the crazy Carbon Credits scheme out of Chicago with Al Gore. Or, GE which owned NBC, MSNBC at the time promoting Global Warming and heavily promoting Obama for the Presidency. GE was well rewarded financially for their propaganda and election of Obama.
Demonizing people who are skeptical of computer models that have utterly failed in predictions has been the norm. Whining when people push back against the machine on the far left and point out the ideology of the left – when the Far Left constantly attacks Free Markets and the Right is utter hypocrisy.
Alinsky radicalism…
And Joe was correct anyway. Enough of us have died to hold them back, and it does not seem to be quite over. To our sorrow.
McCarthy was right ,benben….
Oh dear. A climate troll armed with the usual ridiculous strawman and ad hominem arguments, topped off with a non sequiteur. We’re doomed.
Considering the other responses I’d say I decided a pretty accurate observation. How is that a straw man argument Bruce?
Benben, got any thoughts on the data, I’m not interested in your politics
benben is just here to troll. He comes out from under his rock from time to time. Claiming everyone is using a straw man argument is one of his favorite things to say, regardless of any data, facts or argument that is made.
Anyone with the (nick)name benben hasn’t gotten out of elementary school yet.
“Anyone with the (nick)name benben hasn’t gotten out of elementary school yet.”
Oh dear!
For those like the above comment poster who are ignorant of what a “benben” is, then …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benben
“Benben was the mound that arose from the primordial waters Nu upon which the creator god Atum settled in the creation story of the Heliopolitan form of Ancient Egyptian religion. The Benben stone (also known as a pyramidion) is the top stone of the Egyptian pyramid. It is also related to the Obelisk.”
Lying about what others have said is always a form of strawman.
Even an “academic” should be able to figure that out.
…Sorry Toneb, he spelt his name benben, not Benben ! Your assumption is incorrect ! Reality matters !
imagine the sound of thunderous applause. Now, take a bow.
Oh dear. Benben’s ridiculous obsession with finding fault with WUWT, even though WUWT is just a blog and thus cannot have any obsessions….ridiculous or otherwise.
He hangs around for about half a thread until any points he’s made get utterly demolished. Then he slinks off into the interdark.
time difference my friends. Gotta get some sleep eventually!
I love the hindcast period. Shucks, I could do as good or job with the assumption that the AMO is going to go up for the next 36 years in a somewhat sinusoidal pattern. For this they want extra bucks? Good grief. I wonder what the lame excuses are going to be now that the AMO has rolled over and is heading down. Oddly, the AMO does appear to be in sync with the solar magnetic field which is in sync with the TSI. But never mind, we all know that it does not have anything to do with the flame under the teapot, what matters is what is in the teapot. That determines how hot your tea is.
Science realists have most definitely not been
AGWers have not yet made a prima facie case for their conjecture. Causation has never been established to ANY rationally meaningful degree. That is, the burden of proof is still on the fantasy science club, Mr. Cooper.
Thus, Mr. Cooper’s entire essay is based on a false premise and, having no foundation at all, his argument never even gets off the ground.
Then, to pound it into the sand beyond all hope of recovery, as Lord Monckton replies above ad arguendo, the stop in warming, i.e., the current plateau upon which the most recent El Nino made only bump to step over, is.
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Game over.
even so, it is good to have the Lord back and writing –
“the less excitable tide gauges” – nicely done
Hi, Bubba — glad you wrote that, for I didn’t realize (we all have a bit of a blind spot for our own writing, I think) that my remarks seemed to imply that Christopher Monckton’s writing was a waste of time or something. Not at all! His arguments, so powerfully stated, bear repeating OFTEN. And, yes, after his “final broadcast” (v. a v. Brexit) we’ve all been a bit concerned…
Hope you are enjoying summer back there!
Janice
Janice, when will you ever learn that logic in an argument has nothing to do with the cultist reality?
They are regurgitating the dogma of their faith. Of course you realize that I do indeed agree with your analysis – Touch et check-mate.
That was to be “touche”…..(spell checked again!)….
Glad you clarified that. That could get you in trouble!
Hi, Scott — Yes, yes, (smile). “Touch,” eh? Heh. That means I am now “It.” Cool (as in, “She’s really ‘it.'”) lololol IN MY OWN MIND.
Janice wrote: “Thus, Mr. Cooper’s entire essay is based on a false premise and, having no foundation at all, his argument never even gets off the ground.”
That goes for most of the papers posted on this website promoting AGW/CAGW, and goes for the Leftwing AG’s and their prosecution of Exxon and Skeptics, too. They all assume *way* too much. They assume facts not in evidence. As you say, they operate on a false premise.
Finally, we get to the heart of the matter. The Eco-Fascists keep talking about AGW like it’s an established fact, when it’s not, and never will be. No evidence of causation continues to be the issue that they need to address. “We can’t think of anything else it could be” just doesn’t cut it.
Well, to be fair, they probably won’t identity as Marxists – they have a number of cuddly names now. And many don’t even know where they’re headed or what a worn out, dangerous path it is. Marxist will do as well as any name.
“Cooper carefully cuts off the observed-temperature trend line just at the peak,…” Yet another example of the hide the decline mentality that is so enduring among AGW stalwarts.
“Mr Cooper should be ashamed of himself. But he won’t be. One needs a conscience first.” Strong words. One might even suspect, after dealing with such nonsense all this time, that your patience is become taxed.
Temperatures will be going DOWN for the next eight months considering a mild La Niña is expected.
We can come back then and see what the warmists/leftists/anti-progressives/benbens say then.
If the La Niña occurs (it may or may not) and if it is small, then there will have been a small and quite harmless warming rate this century – but well below the models’ hysterical and scientifically unjustifiable predictions.
No worries. We will just redefine the meaning of acceleration. We will instead call it the rate of acceleration in hopes that no one will notice its been redefined to become the rate of a rate.
Doorman is perhaps not familiar with the concept of the magnitude of a first derivative, which is not, as he naively implies it is, the same thing as a second derivative. If the rate of warming is small, then the consequences of the warming will be generally harmless and beneficial. And that is what the unconcealable and inexorably widening discrepancy between childishly extreme prediction and unexciting reality indicates.
So Lord M of B, are you familiar with the function: y = exp (-1/x^2), which is zero for x = zero, and equals 1/e for x = 1.
But ALL of its derivatives are also zero for x = 0
So your thoughts on how it ever got away from zero, if all of the derivatives are zero there.
G
Karl Marx was an unhygenic slob and an ingrate to those closest to him. On the other hand he didn’t have a clue about the human condition. So there you go, you just never can judge people by outward appearances! 😉
Christopher Mockton is always on point. I had a few Marxist instructors in college, and that was nearly forty years ago, and lived in the same area as Berkeley, with a great deal more. The major thing the US got wrong in the late forties and early fifties was lumping the very diverse communists into one group, and inducing solidarity, when the Trotskyites an Stalinists hated each other.
Tom, you will enjoy Tom Wolfe’s essay on this subject, if you haven’t already.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/warmists-and-rococo-marxists/
That’s pretty funny! Everyone, come! All will be accepted in our Socialist paradise! Wait! No Socialist paradise for you! Socialist Hell for you! Yes, I know. They look identical! Lol!
Benben says”Oh dear. WUWT and it’s ridiculous obsession with seeing Marxists everywhere. McCarthy would be proud.”
From the article: “climate extremists readopted an unpleasant tactic first developed by the totalitarians of the 20th century: organized, paid, structured vilification of anyone who dared to oppose them.”
The only way Warmunists can avoid see marxists is by not using mirrors.
Actually, Marxists leave no reflection in a mirror.
Wooden stake through the heart is still effective against a wide range of creatures, physics defying or not.
The whole communist/socialist/progressive/liberal side of is pretty much the same. They seem to think there is a significant difference in their viewpoints.
In reality it looks like more evil, midevil, and slight less evil. Differing shades of bad and worse.
Like Chaotic Evil versions of Robin Hood: take from the good and give to the bad.
Nice to see benben playing troll today.
Why? You write interesting articles about actual data. This author is just randomly injecting the term Marxism into a debate that has nothing to do with Marxism. Since the term Marxist is used as a derogatory term around here, the only point this article serves is to vilify climate scientists, with no basis whatsoever (as noted elsewhere I certainly am no Marxist and neither are any my friends and/or colleagues in the field).
If anyone is trolling it would be the author of this post.
Oh benboob, stop playing dumb. You’re a troll and you know it.
Bruce, I know this is a difficult concept, but just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t make them a troll. Or a marxist.
Ho, ho!
Come on Benben, you have to admit that deluded 21st Century Marxists have enthusiastically hung their hat on the CAGW scam
https://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/themes/climate-change-and-the-environment.htm
http://www.cpusa.org/party_voices/marxism-on-climate-change-nature-is-also-fundamental/
http://www.environmentforbeginners.com/content/view/98/51/
http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/marxism
http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/20204
I have to agree with Benben that someone who happens to disagree with you in a comment thread is not a troll.
Shouting “troll!” at someone is just an attempt to shout down debate.
It is no better than the apologists for islamic atrocities shouting “racist!” at someone who expresses opposition to the Islamic faith, despite the fact that Islam is not a race.
A troll is someone who consistently lies about what others have said in order to distract and derail conversations.
benben is definitely a troll.
Ehm MarkW, could you give an example of where I lie about what others have said? I don’t do that as far as I know. And why would I?
It would be quite entertaining if you now fail to show a good example of me lying, because that would make you, by your own definition, the troll. Looking forward to your evidence!
MarkW,
I don’t regard benben as a liar, just seriously deluded 😉
Are those labels on the photos in the article correct? Shouldn’t they be reversed? Just asking.
There is a problem with the photo captions, but they are not reversed.
The polar bear is captioned as “dumb animal”, but we know they are smart, even cunning, and resourceful animals.
The dumb journo on the other hand, belongs to phylum cnidaria, class cubozoa, along with jellyfish and other gelatinous zooplankton.
I agree. I hope that the captions are the work of some editor. I would hate to think that Lord Monckton is guilty of libel.
Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. Based on the 1848 publication ‘Communist Manifesto’ by two German political philosophers, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his close associate Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), it envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state. In such a society, social relations were to be regulated on the fairest of all principles: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/communism.html#ixzz4Dll3KnJz
More or less sounds like the “Millennial Generation” to me?
Bernie Sanders incarnate. “Free” everything – paid for by the working people’s tax dollar.. …..”for each according to his ability (I’ve never seen any Communists espouse this tenant in practicality. Cronyism in the extreme is more like it), to each according to his needs”. Now this sounds like the snow flakes of the “liberal” education system. I need a “trigger warning”, a “safe space”. I’m a “social justice warrior” a “gender equality” warrior and the list goes on. The “needs” of the newly college educated will indeed by great as their professors have dissuaded them from actual carriers in many cases; certainly productive ones.
“The withering away of the coercive power of the state”…..That didn’t seem to work out too well for post WW2 Russia unless your last name was Stalin.
Hopefully you teach a subject which has an actual value in teaching young kids how to THINK rather than what to think?
I make no inferences of who you are or might be. You asked what the definition of a communist was.
The chap who wrote this article used every tactic of Saul Alinksky who himself was a self described communist.
Where do you stand on this Benben?
Just for clarity:
I was of course referring to “dumb journo” who used the Alinsky method, not Christopher Monckton.
Karl Marx said: “Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time’s carcass.” With an attitude towards humanity like that, who but a madman would follow his philosophy? Marxism has hatred for mankind and murder at its core
well, as I wrote elsewhere, I think that marx was completely wrong about his proposed remedies the problems he observed in his society. Obviously communism was a terrible mistake back then and given the fact that our current example of venezuela is also pretty miserable I think we can conclusively say that communism as a form of state is bad.
The point here is that certainly none of friends and climate change ‘believers’ would want communism. And to link the two together is pretty bad form and very disingenuous.
Bingo.
The problem is, as the links I provided up-thread demonstrate, the hopelessly naive and misguided hard-left/socialists/marxists/communists have embraced the CAGW scam with relish as it suits their purposes. That is something that cannot be ignored.
“The point here is that certainly none of friends and climate change ‘believers’ would want communism. And to link the two together is pretty bad form and very disingenuous.”
I’ll hope you’re simply ignorant of the facts? Making such a definitive statement without substantiation is the Alinsky method in the flesh. Polarize and demonize on this blog will have you instantly placed in the bin of trolls.
Sorry Benben, but what you said above just isn’t true….
Read Naomi Klein, Naomi Oreskis, Christins Figures – a short quote from she who now wants to head the UN.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.
”ALL of them have made direct references as to how climate change legislation would benifit from the elimination of capitalism and democracy. I could go on, but if you’re just trolling, I won’t waste my time.
Hey I said that I have plenty of climate scientist in my social circle and none of them would remotely qualify as marxist. I have no idea what UN career politicians think or say and I care very little tbh. I think you guys underestimate how little interest in politics scientist generally have.
Now obviously there will be plenty of marxists that climb on the AGW train. But so what? That line of argument is akin to saying that white supremacists like Trump, and therefore Trump should be seen as a white supremacist. Obviously not a valid line of reasoning.
Outside of the US AGW is just not such a political issue and groups from all sides of society agree that action should be taken on AGW. They might be wrong, and the science might be faulty, but to claim that this has anything to do with marxism is just… very strange. Unless of course you use Marxist as a general catchphrase for ‘someone I don’t agree with’, which is what you guys seem to be doing.
In the last figure, after correcting for 60-year sine curve,the linear increase disappear and show the clear heitus — no significant change associated with CO2 increase — this is both surface plus ocean temperature.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-four-legs-good-two-legs-bad-george-orwell-139704.jpg
Cooper: Will they … admit their previous mistake …? The world is waiting.
(Eye roll)
Well said and again, “Touche”….(still embarrassed about the spell check above….:-))
Thanks. And, again — (smile). 🙂 Don’t be embarrassed — I thought nothing of it (except that it was fun to make a joke, heh).
“Touché” actually, spellcheck is completely blind to diacritical marks. Picked nit! Check.
“… the el Niño that has now ended was nature’s way of putting the heat back into the atmosphere …”.
====================================
If that were so, since the 2016 El Niño peak is only marginally above the 1998 El Niño peak (within measurement error) in the bulk of the atmosphere where any CO2 warming ought to be measured, then the ‘pause’ definitely continues:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
“nature’s way of putting the heat back into the atmosphere”
One way of looking at that statement is to argue for a step change in the overall temp after a big El Nino event, as happened after the ’98 event. Will a step change happen again? Well, that is the big question.
I looked at how long and how deep a La Nina must be for the Pause to reestablish, and as of May, st seemed like maybe 18 mo. at the earliest. With June data, we see that the current peak is only about half as wide as the ’98 event, and the cooling has been truly dramatic. I don’t think anybody expected that. So the Pause getting reestablished quickly (9-12 mo.) becomes all the more plausible.
Place your bets for beer money here, now.
I bet cooling, and the Pause, NO step change up.
The actual fact is, we have absolutely NO IDEA. The warmists have been proven wrong, it’s not CO2 that is driving temperature. But what is?
All it would take is a particularly deep La Nina to erase the step we’ve been on. I personally think that is more likely than a step up.
And regardless what their ridiculously precise temperature charts purport to show, temperature control on this planet is remarkably stable.
Yep, with 30% more CO2s around the el Nino peaked 0.09C above the last one. 18 years down the track. The 21st century trend calculated by Lord M is bang on that, and way above that of the late 20th century (with the normal 60 year cycle as a tailwind).
CO2 appears to be having an effect at around the +0.3C per doubling calculated by Dr Evans. That means all the “AGW” that has ever been is about 0.15C, and swamped by both the post-LIA trend that was in force 100 years before coal power AND by the 0.5C of a decent el Nino.
I’d like to read more about the calculations of Dr. Evans. Have any links? Thanks.
Dumb animals are so called because they can’t speak. Polar bears are actually wily and not-to-be-messed-with.
The implied comparison between polar bears and journos is a serious insult to polar bears.
If only the journo could not speak. Or write!
Let’s put the journo and the polar bear in a cage match. My money is on the bear.
I’d actually like to see a cage match between the RICO 20, plus Gore, against the Polar Bear. My money would be on the bear, too. And after the bear is done with the RICO 20 and the fat boy hypocrite, we can follow up by feeding him “cause” pushing “climate scientists.” 😉
Look, Chris; I get you many well informed points but bears aren’t dumb. Bears are actually pretty damned smart. So the next time you decide to compare a bear to some idiot, consider the bear.
And “for the record” I was referring to Christoper Monckton. It should have read “your” not “you”, other than that I think I’ve managed to echo Bob’s sentiments; don’t malign the bears.
Unless it’s the ManBearPig. You can malign him all you like.
I hate this web site. Why is it you haven’t been drug into the 21st century with an “edit” button? It’s not hard.
We like to go “commando” here, Bart
In response to Bartleby, I do indeed owe an apology to the bear.
“The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process (CAGW) as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
That old repetitive history.
Anyone want to join me in poking a self pompass prick?
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/exxon-fighting-right-deny-climate-change/#comment-2771129560
I’ve decided my new word for particularly ignorant kids who don’t even realize that they’re on a marxist bent is “benben”. As in, oh come on bono, you’re just being a benben.
Marxist? As best I can tell the WUWT logic goes like this:
You claim global warming is a problem, and that society as a whole, including government, needs to act. But you know it isn’t real, so you must just be part of the conspiracy to push this in order to gain dominance over the people to enforce your Marxist ideology.
Boom.. Can’t argue with that…
[Mr. Schaefer, that’s your twisted logic, not mine nor “WUWT’s”, Don’t put words in my mouth or the mouth of others to fit your own imagined biases – Anthony (edited for punctuation, spelling)]
…Wow, I bet you convinced a lot of people with that twisted logic ! ..I bet BooBoo is convinced !! /Sarc off
Exactly the point made by me and other here in this thread. People just use the term ‘marxist’ to refer to others they don’t agree with, without any thought given to what marxism actually is, or that those other people have absolutely nothing to do with that.
See my reply to you above. Maybe time to troll along – nothing to see but facts here.
I believe that Van Jones, Obama’s original Green Czar and I believe a firm proponent of CAGW is a card carrying Communist, by his own admission, if I am not mistaken. He is also one of the leaders of 350.ORG. It is too bad that 350.ORG doesn’t have any people trained in science in the leadership of their organization. I believe, that they do refer to Michael Mann as the writer of their “manifesto”.
Dan Sage
Correction: It was James Hansen not Michael Mann.
The ultimate example of this was US voters calling Obama a Marxist , (as well as on this site). If someone really thought Obama was a Marxist, or a Communist or whatever, they patently have very little understanding of political terminology. It’s the same when people call Bush a Fascist, or suggest that Tea bag supporters are mainstream.