An ode to climate alarmism at the museum

Global- Warming to Climate-Change Alarmists.

By Ruairi Weldon

The alarmists understand science,

As consensus to brute-force compliance,

With political views,

That only they choose,

To stamp out all climate deniance.

 

More raids from the climate police,

Is everywhere on the increase.

One museum they say,

Dared use the word ‘may’,

And near caused a breach of the peace.

 

Many ‘scientists’ with a degree,

Do not want to keep science free,

From the activist goal,

To wield total control,

And abuse it politically.

Inspiration: More Manntastic denigration from the ‘climate agitator in chief’ over the American Museum of Natural History

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

A little poetry never hurt anyone.
[In my case, very little…..but do do appreciate the effort!]

Alan Tomalty

I had a talk today about climate change or global warming……or AGW … whatever with a PhD in physics . WE got on to the proof. He said that the data was clear There has been warming. And that the models were clear they predict even more warming. I asked him what the proper level of CO2 and the proper average temperature should be. He was noncommittal. When I suggested that the small warming there has been might just be due to natural cycles he got all agitated and then said if that is the case then we are all screwed(meaning the whole human race). At that point I resisted the attempt to ask him why he would say that. I realized at that point that he is an idiot. I ended the conversation there. For anybody that cant follow the idiocy of his argument, note the following: What he really meant was that if the observed warming was all natural then it superseded the effects of CO2. But that would mean that CO2 has no effect at all during the natural overiding causes. Then when the natural events ended then CO2 would rear its ugly head. But he forgot that in his logic there always is an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 100 years. So how can a natural event crowd out a factor like CO2 which is always increasing? Surely the increasing CO2 would always have some effect (assuming that it has an effect which is his assumption not mine). Imagine our universities are putting out PhD’ s that are this idiotic. I think his religious zeal for AGW has affected his brain.

Alan, Back during the Ozone scares (well before the hole), the atmospheric scientist and pollution expert Richard Scorer discussed the problem of the ‘Clever Moron’. An early, forgotten but accurate appraisal of a character only then on the ascendancy in atmospheric science. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11585768

BillP

IMHO the problem is confusion between intelligence and knowledge.
The education system, and hence qualifications, are all about knowledge. So it is entirely possible to get good qualifications with low intelligence, provided one has a good enough memory. In a few fields is is now necessary to be unintelligent, in order to accept the junk you are required to memorise.
So the person with a PhD in physics mentioned above has a good enough memory to pass the exams but lacks the intelligence to evaluate what he is being told.

@BillP A rule I have used when hiring staff for more than 40 years: Never confuse education with intelligence.

Many opinions
But no one checks the data
I feel alarmed

afonzarelli

(ah, yes, a little too much poetry would have the denizens of wuwt sitting around like beatniks in a coffee shop… ☺)

TA

That makes me think of Maynard G. Krebs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_G._Krebs

texasjimbrock

At Bannockburn the English lay, the Scots were na’ so far away….

Leo Smith

yebbut deNIANCE?
denial or even maybe denialism…

Annie

Poetic Licence; it’s permitted. I think it’s funny and clever.

Bryan A

It needed to rhyme and it is far better than Vogon Poetry

Leo ==> I suspect the author has an Official Poetic License — issued by the proper authorities — just like me.

Pop Piasa

Kip, did you hear that poetic license fees doubled under Obama?
/s

Mohatdebos

USSR had Gulags and psychiatric sanitariums, the Chinese have re-education camps, Iran has the hangman and the bullet in the back of the head, I wonder what the alarmists have planned for deniers.

Hivemind

Deniers will be forced to recite warmist cant while standing in the snow and saying how warm it has gotten lately.
(cant = noun: insincere, especially conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety)

WTF

Less time wasted on triva and more attention to the scientific method may see WUWT taken more seriously by the scientific community.

afonzarelli

(a different handle might see you taken more seriously)…

James Bull

It stands for “When’s the funeral” as explained by Oliver Pritchett in the Sunday Telegraph on 4th Nov 2017. He also says that OMG means “Oh mustn’t grumble”
James Bull

beng135

+100

TA

Who determines what the scientific community takes seriously?

WTF

TA
I just said “the scientific method”, you know, what the real world has run with for a long time.
Any serious scientist wouldn’t hide their opinions here.
Outside their confirmation bias bubble, the denier sites have provided no viable counter evidence.

Greg Woods

Who cares what the ‘Scientific Community’ takes seriously?

F. Leghorn

What’s wrong with “Welcome Tide Fans?”

texasjimbrock

WTF: Where’s the food.

Justanelectrician

WTF,
they’re old school on this site. They just haven’t caught up to the new scientific metho d that includes hiding your data and methods (because people just want to prove you wrong), personal attacks and blacklisting for anyone who asks inconvenient questions, and totally ignoring any possible benefits from what you’ve predetermined to be unequivocally evil.

MarkW

As always, the troll defines evidence as being anything that supports his favorite delusion.
Everything else is, by definition, not evidence.
It’s so easy when you can just declare everything you disagree with to be wrong.

michael hart

There is no such thing as the “scientific community”. This is same line of wrong-think that leads people to believe that if “97%” of scientists believe something, then it must be true. ‘Consensus’ doesn’t count in real science.

TA

“Outside their confirmation bias bubble, the denier sites have provided no viable counter evidence.”
I think you have the wrong idea about what a skeptic does. Skeptics don’t have to provide counter evidence. All skeptics have to do is point out that the person/s promoting the hypothesis has not proven their case. It is up to the promoters of the hypothesis to provide the evidence to support their claims.
The Skeptic’s basic position with regard to AGW/CAGW is the Earth’s climate and weather are driven by Mother Nature until proven otherwise. As soon as one of you guys gets some proof of some other driver, let us see it.

WTF

TA,
” All skeptics have to do is point out that the person/s promoting the hypothesis has not proven their case.” – this has not been done, hence the denier’s relegation to the alternative science blogs.
” It is up to the promoters of the hypothesis to provide the evidence to support their claims.” – they have, where have you been ?, go argue with NASA instead of wasting time here.

TA

TA: ” It is up to the promoters of the hypothesis to provide the evidence to support their claims.”
WTF:” – they have, where have you been ?, go argue with NASA instead of wasting time here.”
I’ve been around since the Human-caused Global Cooling days. I’ve seen wild speculation before, and it looks to me like the current Human-caused Global Warming is just more of the same type of hype: Lots of claims but no evidence the claims are true.
You don’t have any evidence of CAGW, otherwise you would provide it instead of sending me off to NASA. NASA’s climate science division may impress you but it doesn’t impress me. I have watched them distort the truth for too long.

WTF

TA,
So all the world’s scientific institutions, holding the same conclusion, can’t convince you and you want MORE evidence from an anonymous individual ?.
Sounds like you’re beyond science.

Mickey Reno

You do understand the role of ridicule in political philosophy, don’t you? Joking and degrading is serious business. BTW, joking and degrading is how Scientology describes the behavior of it’s critics. If you are a joker and a degrader to them, that means you’re 1.1 on the Tone Scale, a very bad place. In the cult of Climate Scientology, they have much less discrimination in their derisive labels. Everyone is just a denier, worthy of nothing more than waiting for the red button to be pushed. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, google the term “10:10 No Pressure.” Remember, climate science is not science, it’s totalitarian politics. So lighten up and start laughing at the stupid, Mr. WTF (if that really is your name).

thomasjk

……And just how much effect does what they believe have on what really is? If they are right, they’re right. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Spending time arguing is time that’s wasted.
There is a universal reality and there’s just one version of the universal reality. Reality is what it is. A truth is what it is. Each truth is a part of the whole truth. The sum of all truths equals the one universal reality.

The Reverend Badger

If it really is his name I bet he has a personalised car number plate.

Crispin in Waterloo

Who give a hoot what the ‘scientific community’ thinks about WUWT?
I do ‘serious science’ all the time, and I am here every day, no matter where I am on the planet. The ‘serious scientific’ community is already here. The Joker scientific community as it applies to the climate story can take a long walk off a short pier. As we leave the Adjustocene and enter the real world, let us celebrate.

So poetry is “trivia” to you, is it, cretin? WTF indeed.

Pop Piasa

Thanks B. K., you typed it for me.
These carbon-warriors always kick the door open like we’ve never seen anyone of their intellect and resolve before.

Annie

Oh, do get over yourself please and your handle is unpleasant. Everyone is entitled to a light moment or two, especially if it pricks the bubble of pomposity displayed by the alarmist nellie-know-alls.

I am the “scientific community” and I take it seriously.

hunter

More attention to the scientific method would mean the end of climate alarmism.

texasjimbrock

The scientific method requires skepticism. And, by the way, an ability to falsify a theory. CAGW is unfalsifiable, everything is supposedly consistent with the theory. Warming, cooling, tornados, hurricanes, etc etc.

M Courtney

The scientific method has already dispensed with newsworthy anthropogenic global warming. The warming from 1900-1950 is the same rate as from 1950-2000. As most of the warming from 1900-1950 there is no need to imagine other causes for 1950-2000.
Fantasising additional causes is not science. It’s superstition.
Outside their confirmation bias bubble, the climate industry have provided no viable evidence.
So laughing at them is a reasonable response.
It is the duty of those imagining new things to show the necessity of their hypotheses.

1910-1945 ~ 1978-2017…comment image
CO2 didn’t cause 1910-1945 warming.

CO2 might have caused some of the 1910-1945 warming, but certainly not all. And maybe none at all.

texasjimbrock

What is an interglacial period?

What a screwed-up chart, Drew Middleton. There is no 1910 to 1045 rise. The actual rise goes from 1910 to 1940, not to 1945. From early 1940 on we had the World War II cold wave that some idiots still show as a heat wave. That WWII cold wave lasted till 1950 when a new warming set in. Global temperature slowly rose but did not reach the level it had 1940 again until 1980. Beyond that, your steep rise is purely imaginary. From 2980 to 1997 there was no warming but you show it as a continuing warming which is just a plain forgery. To find out the correct temperature for the 80s and 90s look at my figure 15 in “What Warming?” To see hoe the faking was done look at figure 24 in the same book.

RockyRoad

Ans to texasjimbrock: An interglacial is the period of warm climate between glacial periods, which generally last around 100,000 years or so. We’re living in one now and we’re beyond the 10,000 year time length (some would argue we’re at about 12, 500 years since the end of the last Ice Age).

TA

I think it is kind of funny that although the Climate Change Charlatans changed the surface temperature record to make it look cooler in the past and warmer in the present, they still couldn’t erase the magnitude of the warming from 1910 to 1940, they just changed the look of the chart.
Unfortunately, the “look of the chart” is what most people use to make their judgements of the situation.
A huge Fr@ud has been perpetrated on all of us by the Climate Change Charlatans and their bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.

TA

“From early 1940 on we had the World War II cold wave that some idiots still show as a heat wave. That WWII cold wave lasted till 1950 when a new warming set in. Global temperature slowly rose but did not reach the level it had 1940 again until 1980. Beyond that, your steep rise is purely imaginary. From 2980 to 1997 there was no warming but you show it as a continuing warming which is just a plain forgery.”
Look at this Hansen 1999 chart and then say that:comment image
As you can see, it warmed from 1910 to about 1940, then it cooled from 1940 to about 1950 and warmed to about 1955, and then it cooled from 1955 to 1975, and then it warmed from 1975 to 1998, and then the temps practically flatlined from 1998 to the present (not shown on this chart).
You need to look at a *real* chart of the temps, not those Hockey Stick charts everyone insists on using.
Hansen had the surface temperature chart right in 1999, before he decided to bastardize it and completely change its look in order to make it look like the CO2 chart.

The Reverend Badger

I think you will find it is taken VERY seriously, but not in the way you mean.

Specify some trivia you refer to.

MarkW

Unlike alarmist sites, we can handle reality and have a little fun on the way.

dennisambler

Define “the scientific community”.

This ain’t poetry but is music to my ears:comment image?dl=0
Opinion item on Peter Ridd’s campaign in the Townsville Bulletin. they rarely kick ar$e like this.
I cannot provide more at this stage as the online TB has better than average blocking of non-subscribers,
I’ll go the hard yard (walk 100 of them down the road) and actually buy a paper copy :-O

Mike Brown

I am 63, I grew up in Nebraska. In 1971-73 America sold its strategic grain supply to Russia. The reason we did this was two fold.
1. America needed to replace its supply with new grain, so we mixed it 50/50 with new grain and sold it to the Russians.
2. Russia couldn’t grow wheat because it was to cold. I know Canada also had problems growing wheat.
American’s don’t seem to remember this, NOR do they remember all 5 Great Lakes Freezing Solid for the 1st time in recorded history in 1979.
IF we return to the cold of late 60’s and 70’s that I remember it is going to be very bad because we don’t have the 100+ coal fired power plants that were closed over the last 10 years.
IF it get’s colder than that period then a lot of people will die.

Sara

Mike, all the Great Lakes froze over again just a few years ago. It’s not something particularly alarming.

Mike Brown

I would love for you to provide a reference supporting that. We have seen “almost” frozen over in 2014, but even then the statement was the worst seen since 1979 when they All Froze with 100 percent ice coverage. ONLY reason I know this is I was mapping the ice in a USCG C-130 for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab, USCG, Great Lakes Carriers Association, just to name a few.

Mike Brown
Be aware that in both 2016 and 2017, the sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea did NOT melt out 100% over either summer – for the first time ever in the satellite sea ice era. (Both of these are right at latitude 60 north, so they receive substantially more summertime solar insolation than the Arctic Ocean receives up at 76-78 north latitude.) The sea ice in the Gulf of St Lawrence did melt out as it usually does in both summer 2016 and 2017, but its sea ice remained present far, far longer into August than it ever has before.
Now, recognize that, right now (early Feb 2018), the total Arctic sea ice area IS lower than previous years. On the other hand, there is NO solar radiation falling on this exposed Arctic ocean area, so “Less sea ice right now = Greater cooling of the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean.”

Sara

Fair enough. Dates: 1977, 1979, 98% coverage in 2011, 2014, etc. – see the animated chart from NOAA at the link. You used the term ‘freeze solid’. I think you misspoke. Lake MIchigan is 975 deep. it would take far more than one harsh winter to freeze it to the bottom, ditto Lake Superior. There is, in fact, near-complete ice cover on Lake Michigan now. And yes, I do remember the 1979 freeze-over. People who have no common sense decided to walk from Chicago to Gary, IN on the ice covering Lake Michigan.
And you said ‘in recorded history’, which is incorrect.
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/historicalAnim/

GHowe

Yep, Good ol’ GLERL…

> remember all 5 Great Lakes Freezing Solid for the 1st time in recorded history in 1979
If they froze solid, that would probably be the first time since the last glaciation.
They can freeze over, but there’s always a lot of liquid just a few feet below.
I’m also amused by claims of Niagra Falls freezing solid. I image that would make for an interesting spring melt when plug lets Lake Erie drain. (Or perhaps the hydroelectric plants save the day.)

Ode to climate alarmism:
$92,000,000 in Federal spending on the soft sciences
19,500 careers in the hard humanities
One election upset
A new, Weekend-at-Bernie’s-esque lease on life for the putrescent cadaver of Consensus Science
“The most emetic tsunami of pseudoscience I’ve ever had the displeasure to feel washing over me” (H. Lewis, physicist)

Mark Eastman-Flood

Science is failing!
Only stupid sheep accept the scientific communities bullshit!

No, science doesn’t fail. Scientists fail to do science. That’s the problem.
The method works.

Alan Tomalty

Science is in trouble when 50% of scientific paper results cant be duplicated and 99.9% of computer climate model papers are jokes

Ernest Bush

Scientists get it completely wrong and fight against changing bad science for decades. Then along comes an Einstein and turns conventional thinking on its head. He was not the first nor is he the last.

Sara

Thanks for the poetry. Alarmians are getting sillier and sillier every week. The more they shout, point and howl (and leave piles of trash behind them), the more likely they are to disaffect people who might otherwise take them somewhat seriously.
It’s necessary to have those who scream ‘WOLF!!!!!’ yell it as loudly and as often as possible. The real wolf is the distinct possibility of a prolonged cold spell, growing glaciers in areas where they were shrinking, winter snow in dry places that have not known it in recorded history (Kuwait, Atacama Desert, Sahara dunes in Morrocco), and other, similar phenomena.
As long as WE pay attention to these things, and observe the frantic exaggerations of the CAGWers and Greenbeans at all levels, we’ll be prepared for the worst (prolonged cold, shrinking agricultural resources, etc.) and they will not.
Okay?

thomasjk

Is CO2 a cause or is it an effect? That may seem a simple-minded question but it is about as serious as I am capable of being.

Steven Curried

From the documents I have read there have been several times where an increase in CO2 has FOLLOWED an increase in temperatures. I believe these were from ice core studies on the 500-600,000 year time frame.

Michael Darby

Good to see that WUWT welcomes verse. Here is the Green anti-humanity theme
If we can stop all mining lots of people won’t get fed
And then the cold will get them and they’ll quickly drop down dead.
There’s room upon this planet for just a few of us
So why don’t you stop trying and give up without a fuss?
Cease raising rotten children, forget you have a soul
Leave all the minerals in the ground
And don’t dare go mining coal.

Poetry has infected WUWT before, at least in the comments. Even limericks!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/#comment-16568
(And no, sunspots didn’t vanish, the downward trajectory of magnetic fields gradually leveled off a few years later.)

Annie

Great stuff. Is that ‘our’ Ruairi of the limericks on Jo Nova?

GHowe

Hmmm….is this where Steve Mosher works?
“Russian nuclear scientists arrested for ‘Bitcoin mining plot'”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43003740

The Reverend Badger

GCHQ jubilant as NSAs Bitcoin scam finally enables Stuxnet4 to infiltrate Russian nuclear bunkers. It was when they connected the supercomputer to the internet that the damage was done. One simple lead beween this and that. Priceless!

Gary

Can we get some CAGW-mocking hiaku too?

Gunga Din

A tree ring
A Climate Ring
Cabal

The Reverend Badger

More please !!

Pop Piasa

Excellent! I can hear the koto playing in the background. Yes, more please.

Gunga Din

A Cook
A consensus
Nonsence

Gunga Din

The Stick
The Mc’s
Smack!

Gunga Din

Climate Models
Reality
OOPS!

John M. Ware

I enjoyed the limericks. One quibble: limerick 2, line 2: “are” not “is” to agree with previous line.

The Reverend Badger

I like making my own poetry. RhymeZone is quite useful in this respect. Unfortunately 5 seconds into looking for words that rhyme with GRAVITY it was clear there were only 3 really ; cavity,depravity and concavity. I widened my search to “nearly rhymes” for GRAVITY and it helpfully suggested near the top of the list the 3 syllable ANTHONY.
God moves in mysterious ways.
If you dig a deep hole in the ground
It’s hot at the bottom, I’ve found
What causes the heat in this cavity
Why its the thermonuclear reactions of isotopes in the earths core, NOT gravity
Apparently.

Pop Piasa

Brother badge… What does your poetic premonition present as promise for people to proliferate?
(in other words, clue us in on what you are saying)

The Reverend Badger

It’s just my little joke.
Obviously if you engage your brain you can work out whether the centre of the earth is or is not likely to be heated via radioactive isotopes. We have all the data. We know what the isotopes are, what their half lives are, the energy produced when a given mass of isotope X decays, the age of the earth to a fair approximation (minimum figure is OK here). It’s number crunching.
What do you find if you do it.? Do you find a confirmation that the hypothesis of radioactive heating is reasonable or not ? What does that then tell you? Where do you go next?
With respect to gravity there have been numerous comments over many years on WUWT in connection with hypotheses which consider gravity to be a “driver” of heat through the atmosphere and hence account for surface warming. These are typically derided as “junk” by the majority , including Anthony.I simply draw your attention to them . Maybe they are sh1te? May be they have an element of truth? Who knows? How would YOU find out?
What is important is to think. Don’t assume I know anything, I could be making up everything I say and trolling incessantly because i am paid to. How would you know? Data and information is out there for qall to find, you just have to take the time and trouble to think logically and questions certain things and certain people. Where will it lead? How would I know – that’s your journey to find the truth.

Pop Piasa

I get it, the faith of the open-minded. Yes?

Hoyt Clagwell

The comedian Gallagher liked to point out how people like to say “maybe, maybe not” and then he would remark, ‘isn’t that the same thing?’. Now every time I see the word ‘may’, my brain automatically replaces it with ‘may or may not’ which changes the meaning considerably.

Pop Piasa

Geez, all I remember was the watermelon and sledgehammer routine. Did he also invent Bass-o-Matic?

Gunga Din

Is recycling allowed?
Gunga Din says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Stopping by Yamal on a Snowy Evening
By Mikhail Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.