Climate bullying

Guest opinion By Chris Martz [featured image: Eric Holthaus]

For years now, [man-made] climate change skeptics, like myself have dealt with bullying from people on the AGW side of the argument.

There has been constant bickering back and forth between the two sides, and with the current political madhouse, it hasn’t gotten any better. In fact, it seems to be getting worse and worse as time wears on.

I rarely see skeptics bully those on the AGW side – yeah they like to pick on Al Gore – however, I see a lot more bullying and harassment from those on the AGW side.

One example is very recent. On March 28, meteorologist Eric Holthaus went to the extremes stating that we are headed for “an unlivable world within our lifetimes.”

In response, Michael Palmer, a meteorologist at The Weather Company, stated that he, like me, finds it hard to believe that a trace gas in our atmosphere is going to cause an “unlivable world.”

Instead of having a kind, scientific discussion on this, Holthaus decided to act like a bully and say… yeah, you can read it below.

Holthaus wasn’t the only keyboard cowboy to chime in on this. Numerous others who are using Twitter without their real name also stated that Michael Palmer is just a “denier,” among other things.

My biggest pet peeve is probably the word “denier.” I loathe the word “denier” when it is used in the climate change context. There is nobody on Earth who I have met or chatted with that “denies” that climate change exists.

Climate change, by technical definition, means a change in the climate for any number of reasons. Those changes do not have to be man-made. However, the term “climate change” has morphed into a monster. When it is used nowadays, it simply assumes that the climate change was man-made, when in reality, that may not be the case.

Earth has been through ice ages, glacial periods, interlglacial periods, mini ice ages, and times that have been both much colder and much warmer than the present, and all of that seems to get lost in the sauce.

Now, I don’t have an issue with the man-made climate change theory itself. I really don’t. I get the argument, but you have to understand that observations are failing to match what climate models and scientists have predicted.

Scientists were expecting that we would see an increase in severe weather events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves, and drought, yet actual observations show that severe weather is becoming less common and less extreme.

According to a USA Today article (using NOAA‘s data) from December 28, 2018, last year was the first year on record in the United States where there were zero violent tornadoes (EF4 or EF5) (Figure 1). The overall trend of violent tornadoes is significantly downward over the past 69 years.¹

Image result for lowest tornadoes 2018 usatoday
Figure 1. Violent tornadoes by year since 1950. Graph via USA Today.

Both hurricane and tropical cyclone frequency globally (Figure 2) have also seen a downward trend over the past 49 years.² In fact, between the 2005 and 2017 hurricane season, there were no major hurricane landfalls in the United States. None.

Figure 2. Global tropical cyclone frequency since 1970. Graph via Dr. Ryan Maue, Ph.D.

Last summer, meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer uploaded the graph below (Figure 3) to his blog, which is a plot of the average number of 100 and 105 degree days at 1,114 USHCN stations between 1895 and 2017.³ Notice the downward trend? Yep.

Read the full essay here

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “Climate bullying

    • So when they say the world will become unlivable and that 50% of species risk extinction, what they are actually mean is that our capital structure, which basically dates back only 120 years and much of which is refreshed every fifty years or so, will become un-self-sustaining over the next century?

      So not only are they ignorant of economics, precision of language isn’t their forte.

    • Well the economy is pretty good right now so I guess we don’t need to worry about dooms day for a while. Also the fact that we have been cooling down since 2016 would be a pretty good indicator as well.

    • On the climate change front, I’ve been forecasting another pandemic of the “Climate Blues” first caused by the Dreaded Pause that cleared a fair number of consensus warmer proponents with apparent fragile constitutions right out of their profession.

      Hysteria and desperation are definitely on the rise again for a similar reason. Nature isnt cooperating and hanging over the consensus heads this time is the trillions spent on failed renubles, the poverty created and the destruction of economies. Worse (for them), the present massive overemployment in the global warming /government industry complex and plummeting budgets with governments backing away from a failed nouvelle gouvernance globale – talk about unsustainability.

      At the same time a terrible realization has been dawning that actually nothing is going to be done, even on the off chance that there could be some issues needing to be dealt with re climate. The “conference of the parties” has totally panicked. They vainly are trying to foam and shout drastic policies in place so that the odds-on-favorite cooling in the offing, despite business as usual energy use, can be chalked up as a success for the consensus.

      To paraphrase George Carlin, the planet is just fine. It’s you guys that need the saving!

    • They are talking about Venezuela, I think. Oil is no guarantee for prosperity. But, it has to do with Human Capital….

    • Donald,
      Show me somebody that has consistently predicted the economy decades into the future. Not that plenty haven’t tried, but accuracy rates are no better than throwing darts. I don’t care how how smart these people claim to be, or how many PetaFLOPS they throw at the problem, their “prognostications” still have no credibility based on past performance.

  1. Most people don’t want to have to think. It’s either too hard or too disturbing. They would rather go along with the crowd and follow whomever or what ever is currently in vogue. When someone truly believes in something their first reaction to criticism of it is fear which then leads to anger. Since they don’t have the knowledge to defend it they always resort to ad hominem, attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the other person.

    • Primarily these weak-minded people are narcissists and can’t abide losing their “friends”, who have since become rabid Leftard Cagwists. They have to agree with them or there’s no more going out to all night raves, parties and later having smashed avocado on toast with them at their dining setting made from Tasmanian oak they railed against, but they’re hypocrites and so feel obliged to share in the spoils of their “war”.

      Bookface and Schitter are full of these hypocritical ‘tards that spout inane green feel-goodery to all and sundry on tech made primarily from oil. It’s high time Green voters were forced to power their TV’s, laptops, fridges, microwaves, garden fairy lighting, pool pumps, EV chargers, garage door openers, treadmills and iPhones, all made of wood. But they’ll use the AOC excuse “I’m only living in society”.

  2. The author states:

    My biggest pet peeve is probably the word “denier.” I loathe the word “denier” when it is used in the climate change context.

    Now, I don’t have an issue with the man-made climate change theory itself.

    Now why would anyone claim to loathe the word “denier” if they are a believer in/of the man-made climate change theory?

    • I don’t recall ever being called a denier but it wouldn’t bother me if that happened. I would just consider the source.

    • @Samuel C Cogar. I don’t have an issue with the theory of AGW. There’s nothing wrong with having a theory. However, I strongly disagree with the theory that humans are to blame for the bulk of the warming observed over the past say… 100 years. That doesn’t make the theory wrong.

      In the climate change context, I don’t like the word denier. It’s not professional to use such a word because for one, it’s derogatory, and for two, nobody that I have met or talked to denies climate change of some kind (man-made or natural).

      I hope this clarifies things. 🙂

      -Chris Martz Weather

      • @ Chris Martz Weather,

        People who “talk” out of both sides of their mouth at the same time ….. really irritate me.

        Chris, first you stated —“I don’t have an issue with the theory of AGW.

        Then in your next paragraph you stated —“In the climate change context, I don’t like the word denier..

        So, …. GETTA CLUE, ….. Chris Martz Weather, …. and educate yourself on the FACT that there is the “junk science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) climate change (1880 to present) …… and the “factual science” of Interglacial Global Warming (IGW) climate change (22,000 BP to present).

        Thus Chris, since you can’t have both, …… TESTIFY, …… which “climate change” do you NOT have an issue with, ….. the AGW climate change or the IGW climate change?

        It’s not professional to use such a word (denier) because for one, it’s derogatory,

        That is understandable, …… when the “truth” causes one emotional pain and embarrassment, …. those persons affected shur as ell don’t like hearing it.

        And Chris, ….. you think the word is derogatory (showing a critical or disrespectful attitude), … HUH?

        So, giving your above thinking, Chris, you must truly believe that no matter what a person says or claims about another human or subject matter, …. be it truths, lies, falsehoods, agitprop or concocted imaginations, …. said person should be treated with utmost respect and courtesy, ….. while touting their praises for the rest of the world to hear?

        Yeah, right, …… all “losers” deserve to be treated like they are the “winners”.

        • Mr. Cigar, your uncivil response confirms Mr. Martz’s point. You could have used a calmer approach to voice your disagreement.

          • Mr. Depundit, …… those who express their disagreement via a calm voice ….. accomplish little to nothing ….. unless they have the power, control or authority over that which is/was responsible for said “disagreement”.

            Public school teachers are a prime example of ….. accomplishing little to nothing in their attempts of using a “calm approach” to control inappropriate behavior of their students.

        • SCC
          You are a little over the top here with your response. Civility goes a long ways towards fostering an exchange of ideas.

          • Shur nuff, …. Clyde Spencer, …. you are 100% correct about your claim that … “Civility goes a long ways towards fostering an exchange of ideas” ……. and as they say, …. “the proof is in the pudding” ……. because in the past 20+ years, due to the tremendous amount of polite and courteous treatment of the pro-AGW “warminists” by all us actual, factual learned scientists …. there has truly been an enormous exchange of ideas and beliefs between both parties with both educational institutions and the public as a whole, ….. benefitting greatly from the aforesaid “actions of civility”.

            Clyde S, ….. iffen the aforesaid civil discourse of ideas and beliefs continue for another 2 months … this website will no longer be needed for educating the world on matters of science.

      • AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming, and that´s OK theory to you.
        Then you strongly disagree that humans are to blame… hmmm.

        Is this some kind doublemode newspeak perhaps?

    • I am comfortable with the article; the author makes his point well.

      If we are to pick nits; the author did not say he would take objection to being called a “Global Warming” denier; presumably because he doesn’t “have an issue with the man-made climate change theory itself”.

      Again, there are a wide range of reasonable conclusions to be reached when considering theory and observable evidence. No problem with that quote.

      His objection is to the inference that anyone would deny that “climate changes”. Still on the same path.

      What I do disagree with is the very use of the word “denier” for any skeptic of AWG, CAWG, or Climate Change. It is intentionally pejorative, with the intent to conjure thoughts of racism and totalitarianism.

      • When being called a “denier”, I can live with the obvious unpleasant associations it is trying to elicit.
        What infuriates me is the person using the insult clearly hasn’t spent even a little time asking themselves what it is that they think I am denying.

        To be insulted by a great intellect is a lot better than being insulted by lazy people with a very poor command of both logic and the English language.

        • The word “deny” implies that one is claiming an established fact is untrue — e.g. the moon landings, the Holocaust, etc. This is very different to being skeptical which is simply asserting that a claim has not be objectively established as likely true. To me it’s a big difference and that is why the warmists are so fond of using the term “denier”. But in science skepticism is integral to the process. No one calls astrophysicists who are skeptical of the Big Bang theory or dark matter/energy “deniers”. Rene Descartes said: “I doubt, therefore, I think. I think, therefore, I am.” Without doubting what we are told to accept by some authority, there would be no reason to investigate and learn and no science.

          • Rick C PE – March 29, 2019 at 6:05 pm

            To me it’s a big difference and that is why the warmists are so fond of using the term “denier”.

            Well now, the above noted fondest for the use of said term “denier” by the pro-CAGW “warminists” really shouldn’t surprise anyone ….. simply because said “warminists” are also devoutly nurtured in the art of composing obfuscated (obscure, unclear, or unintelligible) rhetoric.

            When the subject is CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) climate change, …. said “warminists” will obfuscatinglly accuse anyone that disagrees with them as being a “denier” of Interglacial Global Warming (IGW) climate change.

            The proponents of AGW/CAGW (warminists) will not admit that they have “highjacked” all of the IGW from 1880 to present …… to justify and/or prove their “junk science” claims of AGW from 1880 to present.

            Cheers, …. Sam C

        • Embrace the label!

          I deny that the Earth is flat!

          I deny that the Earth is only a few thousand years old!

          And I deny that human activity is causing some kind of catastrophe to world wide climate.

          I deny all of those for the same reason: SCIENCE!

          • Because I´m denialist, I call climatealarmists Science deniers. They hate that furiously.

            I think it´s very polite to use same language with your opponents. They don´t agree that. I think they are very unpolite. Well, I´m very polite old man, and I understand that politeness can be very confusing. And it´s very enjoyable to feel their steaming rage.

      • George Daddis

        Sticks and stones mate.

        They can call us what they like. Who cares?

        We don’t need safe rooms or counselling, we are grown up’s.

        They can make all the jokes or ‘hurtful’ comments about me being a Scotsman. They can call me a ‘denier’, a racist, a fraud, ignorant or a liar relative to climate change.

        The Brexit campaign in the UK has had our own government calling the majority supporters, and winners of the referendum to leave the European Union, ignorant, ill informed, xenophobic, Nazi, racist, misogynistic, bigots.

        That’s all they have.

        On the toss of a coin, humankind decides it’s fate. Despite all the predictions, that’s what it comes down to. Until someone actually demonstrates to me the 100% certainty of their guesses for the future, I’ll bet mine on that coin toss.

        Besides, who would want to live life without adventure?

        I would rather have the uncertainty of climate change than a regimented existence. And thankfully my desire is fulfilled.

        • Talking about picking nits! 🙂 – finger dyslexia is my excuse.
          You know what I meant.

          And HS, at my age, all insults roll off my back (including Jeff’s) but I am VERY concerned about the propaganda devices used to convince impressionable youngsters.

          • We have lost one generation already.

            School is one big propaganda factory too. My daughter saw Al Gores “movie” in school. After the movie she wanted to ask somethings about that masterpiece, but teacher said that questions are not allowed. She´s now 30, and she´s not a science denier. Schoolsystem starts brainwashing from first grade. I see it as an abuse, but what can I do.

          • I agree that our school systems have brainwashed the younger generation and is probably the main reason for many of our problems in the US. You ask what can you do? The answer is simple. You don’t vote for the party promoting brainwashing of of children (Teachers Union), Global Warming (climate change, again brainwashing) and Socialism. And also the answer is less government control, not more.

        • What is AWG and CAWG?

          I don’t know, …. but I do know what AGW and CAGW is, … or refers to.

      • George Daddis, …. iffen a Prosecutor claims that the defendant is a “denier” of the crime he/she is being charged with, …. is said Prosecutor being intentionally pejorative, with the intent to conjure thoughts of racism and totalitarianism in the minds of the jurors?

  3. The efforts of the CAGW crowd are not affecting the weather or climate but they will certainly and are now affecting the economies. Like all socialist programmes, the mitigation effort produces more damage to society than it alleviates. Venezuela is a brilliant example, with Cuba close behind.

  4. “meteorologist Eric Holthaus”

    Does having a degree in meteorology qualify someone to call himself a meteorologist? I doubt this guy has any experience working in meteorology. He certainly isn’t working on that field now.

    • Well, I am not aware of Eric’s credentials, so I can’t really say one way or the other… However, he seems to lack an understanding of basic upper air patterns. Every time there is an area of high pressure situated over the north pole, he thinks it’s due to AGW. Rather, he should understand that it is basic laws of physics. For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction, thus for every ridge, there’s a trough, and for every trough, there’s a ridge.

      • He can rightly be called a meteorologist according to the credentials on his linkedin page. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericholthaus/

        Also noteworthy, he has ceased flying due to his beliefs. He even cries reading IPCC reports. If only he would treat real human beings with the same respect he treats fake science.

  5. Twitter is where people go to get butt-hurt by anonymous people?

    There is no education happening there. No real debate either. Why go there, for the sake of science? I have empathy for scientists who are prevented from practicing science. Mr. Martz was on Twitter baiting and hoping for people to hurt his feelings?

    “Numerous others who are using Twitter without their real name also stated that Michael Palmer is just a “denier,” among other things.”

    “Fear of the word is the beginning of reading.” – Hugh Kenner

    • Twitter strikes me as the Internet’s analogue of the graffiti-covered tiled walls in a dingy bathroom of a dive-bar.

      So include me in the group of people who don’t get why people spend time ‘debating’ in 140 character increments with total strangers.

    • Benjamin, I stated that because it was a fact that they weren’t using their real names. I could care less about whether they were using their real names or not, I was just making a general statement to shorten things. 🙂

      -Chris Martz Weather

      • Twitter has a 280 character limit nowadays?
        Our combined point with tarran about graffiti in the dive bar. In Pompeii. People need science to work. Climate changes.
        Twitter is a wall. Not a community.

        • I totally agree.

          Twitter spreads anarchy, chaos.

          Twitter is a place where people go to fight, start fights, and repeat rhetoric.

          How many problems have been ‘solved’ because of twitter?

          We have been fighting 30 years and have made negative progress.

  6. I am still waiting for the CAGW crowd to state what the optimum temperature of the world is and how they reached that conclusion. No one has ever answered that question to anyone’s satisfaction. The world has had many temperature excursions, both high and low, and survived, although how we survived a snowball earth is still amazing.

  7. Thank you very much Mr. Watts for re-publishing my story. I have always looked up to you as one of the best in climate science. It is an honor to have one of my article appear on your blog. I can’t tell you how grateful I am to have had this opportunity. Thanks again!

    -Chris Martz Weather

    • Loved your essay. Maybe could also mention the 17% more greening due to CO2? I remember in the 60s/70s when desertification was a real concern.

  8. When you resort to cursing, you have lost the argument.

    Just one piece of evidence demonstrating CAGW is real would be enough to vanquish the skeptics. One wonders why Holthaus doesn’t provide that piece of evidence. Holthaus seems to think there is plenty of evidence available. Instead, he curses.

    Maybe he doesn’t really have any evidence and all he has left is to curse. That would be my assumption.

    • Eric Holthaus, bored and looking for sympathy, doesn’t get what he is looking for and lashes out.

      Doesn’t he have any friends left that he can depend on for emotional support?

        • Tom Abbott: When you resort to cursing, you have lost the argument.

          Jeff this is your response to a piece about bullying?

        • Jeff,

          A long time ago I had a raccoon that utilized emotional support slugs. Once found, the big spotted green slugs would reside in the raccoons mouth for about an hour or two before being eaten. It was the happiest he ever was; a couple of inches of slug hanging out each side of his mouth, flopping up & down as he ran around the yard, up and down the stairs, and in/out of the house.

          I didn’t know it then (and I still don’t know for sure), but by the way he was acting, I now think there was a little bit of self medication going on with the raccoon … he had a bit of an addictive personality, and as I understand it some slug slime can have a bit of a narcotic effect.

          So, your advice to holthaus, may be spot on. A slimy slug may just he needs to make him happy.

    • I think we should, when we argue, cite debunked polar bear alarmism as a microcosm of yet-to-be-debunked climate change alarmism.

      • Yup, we should call it the canary in the coal mine of flawed climate science.
        That would hit where it hurts!

  9. For those who feel that humans are headed for climate doom, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it, why stick around and suffer any further anxiety about the inevitable? — just end your lives, find eternal peace, and allow us “deniers” to live out our remaining living days in ignorant bliss.

    It’s the right thing to do — just end it.

    Why suffer anymore? Why live every day of your life in such a state of anxiety? Oh, I forgot — you value your comfortable lifestyles that enable the luxury of worrying about doom as a perverted form of entertainment.

    Okay, carry on, then, I guess. If that’s what you want to call “living”, then get on with it.

  10. knowing climate changes…
    …and knowing that almost all of the time..this planet has been a lot colder

    How did they sell this load of crap in the first place

    • This started in the 1960’s with the Club of Rome. It was elevated to world wide attention by Canadian millionaire and socialist Maurice Strong, and of course people like Al Gore and James Hansen popularized the narrative. The concern was human overpopulation, and in searching for a cause to frighten the populace, environmental degradation or collapse would be the threat. CAGW fits the bill perfectly. Any sane reasonably intelligent individual looking critically at this hoax must see that this C02 thing is a smoke screen and just doesn’t add up. Brainwashing a whole generation of kids is the path to essentially ending Industrial society as we know it. As Maurice Strong is quoted, and I paraphrase, “is it not our duty to bring about the de-industrialization of society in order to save the world ? “. Of course the multi millionaires like Gore, Obama, Strong (now deceased) and those at the top of society will be just fine.

    • By not teaching science or history. The other day I was talking to a young driver. A graduate of HS that didn’t know what the Alamo was. Hell he didn’t even know Texas had revolted and gained their independence from Mexico before they were a state. It made me think that probably the majority of people that go to a Six Flags amusement park have no idea about the six flags.

        • Implication Hitler/Nazism 1962 Community College was Right of the United States Constitution (chalk board and slides)making Marxism Left. Lecture Class-PolySci. That was my 1st witness to whoa- were did the purpose of teaching a person how to learn become This you must know is the truth. Surprisingly big eyed followers of this tenet sat in the front row. End result opinion polysci should only be available in off campus Adult Education options, 1 unit/ .5 credit if run of the mill.

  11. What needs more attention is that, despite the bickering, almost the entire western canon of the media, social and mainstream, is singing from the same song sheet, as if there were complete (97%) agreement. Every second article includes because of man-made climate change, and 97% of the statements are wrong, yet they continue to control the story.

    • I am willing to stand corrected, but I would contend (with one major exception) that they are controlling the telling of the story; but rational adults the world over put fear of anthropogenic warming at the bottom of their concerns.

      The obvious exception of course is children (and AOC has convinced me that childhood now continues to at least age 30). Students who have never actually experienced an increase in temperature are convinced that weather was much more stable earlier in their lifetime, and that weather disasters never occurred before__________ (fill in the blank – 1950, 1976, 1996, 2000, their birthday).

      Do they have to reach the age of 40 before they realize the world around them is not conforming to what they have been told to expect?

      • George Daddis

        Our parents and grandparents were fighting in global conflicts when they were teenagers. They grew up very quickly.

        My childish behaviour was knocked out of me rather early (although not early enough) by my early years in the police force.

        I now see 40 year old children who simply can’t leave their juvenile years behind them.

  12. We’ve all been bullied and the cure to that affliction hasn’t changed from what Dad told you “punch em in the nose” and I might add keep punching them in the nose. Those who advise ignoring the human POS making you miserable are wrong. A good beat down is in order. Give it to them and you will feel better about it.

    As to cowboys I met a some boys from my original hood (himat) at the airport and they ask why I immigrated to America. I said to be a cowboy. They said you don’t look like one. I pointed to my cranium. 1965 Texas. We are all cowboys.

  13. Problem is, for years propaganda has worked on the masses. They believed anything they were told. Then we gave them the internet, and lots of dissenting voices.

    So TPTB turned UP the propaganda. Some are partially immune, but to the ones that aren’t they are going literally crazy with emotional overload, fear and loathing and outright violent hatred are emotions not unusual in those who really believe the mainstream propaganda flow.

    It’s not going to end well.

    • “Problem is, for years propaganda has worked on the masses. They believed anything they were told. Then we gave them the internet, and lots of dissenting voices.”

      What would we do without those dissenting voices! 🙂

      The internet may be freedom’s salvation, if we can manage to keep it free from censorship.

  14. Scientists have proved that travel and temperatures, are more dangerous than smoking 60 cigarettes a day, for 50 years.

    It is safer to stay at home, and take up smoking, than to go travelling in warmer countries.

    Don’t worry. We understand that humans have an “urge” to travel. It comes from our early ancestry, when we had to find large herds of animals to eat.

    Here at the IPCC, we want what is best for YOU. And we have had our top scientists work out a “safe” way of travelling.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-travel-warning

  15. We are told by the Greens that as the world warms up that weather events,storms, cyclones , tornados etc will get worse. But why is that considered a possibility by the Greens ?

    As I understand it as the temperature difference between the equator and the poles becomes lees, as would happen in a warming Earth, so the present situation of less violent wether events could indicate that the world is indeed slowly warming up.

    So the Greenies should instead be saying, “We told you so, the lesser amounts of violent weather events prove that its getting warmer””

    But of course that is not scary, not newsworthy, so to gain the TV and media coverage they need, they have to in effect argue against themselves. What a crazy mob they really are.

    In regard to “Snowball Earth” one possible theory is that over millions of years the solar system moves around the centre of the vast Milky Way galaxy. As it does so its weather is influenced by the radiation from some of the massive and very hot stars.

    As with all of the weather come climate events on this planet its all about time, not the 30 years of Climate, and certainly not the crazy idea that in just 12 years time that the tiny trace gas CO2 will finish us off, but time, millions of years of time.

    MJE VK5ELL

  16. As long as everyone is bickering, no one is shooting.
    Enjoy the respite.
    Listen for silence.

  17. I saw what the bullies did to Murray Salby.

    It’s as though we’ve thrown out scientific method, along with the ability to have a discussion on real issues without taking up personal destruction.

  18. Eric does not want to be bothered by doing something, other than paying easy lip service to CC, and scold a few deniers, it at least makes him feel morally superior, but he is a big hypocrite, what driving cars, having kids, flying on jets, lights, electricity, heating the home FOSSIL FUELS

      • I saw a news item today on tv where a local apartment complex had installed battery chargers in their parking garage to recharge Electric Vehicles.

        The reporter said it would take about four hours to fully charge an EV, and the cost was 30 dollars per hour for the charger.

        I think the most I have ever spent to fill up a gas tank was 60 dollars (much less today), and I’ll bet that 60 dollars worth of gasoline would get me much farther than a fully-charged EV.

        Those EV’s look a little bit too expensive for me, if there is not a cheaper charging alternative than this. I’m a novice in the field of EV economics so maybe it can be done cheaper from your home.

        I do like the idea of hybrids. I think that is probably what we will be going to when the oil boom starts to tail off. If it ever does! 🙂

  19. I am far too old to worry about being called names. I heartily agree with those who say that if you resort to ad hominem attacks you have lost the argument. However, if you use a vile term such as ‘denier’ to describe your opponent, you are engaging in ‘hate’ speech.

  20. Climate Bullying is not confined to the media loudmouths of the Eric Holthaus model; it also extends to academics and members of the IPCC. On 1 March 2018 the University of New Mexico’s Dr David S. Gutzler conducted a lecture in Las Cruces, NM which I attended.
    According to the City of Las Cruces news release, Dr Gutzler, “was a lead author on the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published by the United Nations to assess climate change research.”
    After the lecture during the Question and Answer session, I attempted to ask him questions about data and climate history which brought doubt into his claims of climate catastrophe.
    In a flash he turned from academic professional into climate bully.
    You can read a full description from my contemporaneous notes posted at the Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum web site at: https://casf.me/qa-following-dr-david-gutzlers-water-conservation-workshop/
    ROBERT W. ENDLICH

  21. Once you become convinced that the other side is going to cause “an unlivable world in our lifetime”, it’s a pretty short step to killing those who disagree with you.

    • Yeah, it’s dangerous for Alarmists to lie to people.

      There are estimates that about 10 percent of the population are psychopaths of one degree or another. Alarmist scare tactics get these kinds of people very agitated.

      And then we have a large percentage of the population that are not crazy, they are just credulous, but they can get crazy if they think their lives are in danger.

      So the potential for violence is out there.

      Fortunately, the weather isn’t cooperating with the CAGW disaster predictions, so although the psychopaths may go overboard, the credulous will probably wait until they actually see some evidence of unusual weather damage and since there is a very good chance they will never see unusual, catastrophic weather, they probably won’t feel the need to take action, other than complaining.

      It’s not good to agitate psychopaths, for any reason. Yet the Democrats do this constantly on a variety of subjects. On purpose. They want to get people upset. I won’t say they are looking to get people killed, but what do you think happens when you agitate a psyho to the breaking point.

      The Democrats and their rhetoric are a poison to human society. The good news is, they look like they are starting to self-destruct, and Trump is as pure as the driven snow.

  22. Robert Jay Lifton

    SACRED SCIENCE (demands conformity to Dogma)

    Sacred Science
    The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic doctrine or ideology, holding it as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence
    Questioning or criticizing those basic assumptions is prohibited
    A reverence is demanded for the ideology/doctrine, the originators of the ideology/doctrine, the present bearers of the ideology/doctrine
    Offers considerable security to young people because it greatly simplifies the world and answers a contemporary need to combine a sacred set of dogmatic principles with a claim to a science embodying the truth about human behavior and human psychology
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/27/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/#comment-2666384

  23. Don’t know about the rest of you, but I go right at the warmers. Without fail I run out of platform, before I run out of argument.

    None of them ever win. The sea level rise people. The ocean acid people. The average temperature people. The endangered species people.

    Knock them over like ten pins. Because they’re wrong. You can take that to the bank.

    Don’t even have to look up science papers. I use the ones they post. You go back to the original sources, and they either don’t support what the warmers claim, or they’re shady, based on half baked computer output.

  24. “here is nobody on Earth who I have met or chatted with that “denies” that climate change exists”

    A couple of things. Climate change is merely short hand for anthropogenic climate change. It’s been that way from the start if the IPCC. We didn’t call it the IPACC.

    Clue bird time. When someone calls yo the D word, the mean…. you deny ACC or AGW.

    Pretending that they mean any old climate change is a brain dead 5th grade tactic.

    They mean anthropogenic climate change, you know that’s what they mean, so pretending to misunderstand what they mean by selectively engaging your inner sperg is just dumb.

    Finally, you will meet plenty of skeptics who deny the existence of global temperatures. Last I looked you cant claim to believe that the climate changes and simultaneously deny that the key metric of change is meaningless.

    • Steven, your comment: “Clue bird time. When someone calls yo the D word, the mean…. you deny ACC or AGW.” confirms the “lazy” and “imprecise language” descriptions. If you think that climate change means either ACC or AGW you have fallen into each misuse.

      You other failed attempt at explanation is: “Finally, you will meet plenty of skeptics who deny the existence of global temperatures. ” Nearly every time I see this denial it is talking about the average of global temperatures. Surely you understand it is a mathematical construct using horrible data to construct it.

      Why are you condoning these misuses? Please use standard terms and their definitions or define your unique use. In science it should be an imperative!

    • “Last I looked you cant claim to believe that the climate changes and simultaneously deny that the key metric of change is meaningless.”

      What is the key metric of change? You are going to claim it is CO2, aren’t you? Where’s your evidence that CO2 is doing anything to the Earth’s atmosphere or climate?

      Your “evidence” is the bogus Hockey Stick chart and the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Right? Got anything else besides that? How much does CO2 increase the warmth of the globe? You don’t know, do you. Yet you want us to believe that CO2 is a big factor, the key metric. Without any evidence whatsoever, just speculation, and fraudulent Hockey Stick charts.

      As for skeptics ignoring that climate change actually means human-caused climate change, we don’t ignore the fact, we dispute that climate change means human-caused, because there are other causes to the climate changing and assuming it is all about CO2 is ignoring those factors. Skeptics are not enamored of the IPCC and their nomenclature.

      I personally, usually try to have those using “climate change”, spell out exactly what they mean because there is more than one kind of climate change, there is the Mother Nature kind and there is the CO2 kind the Alarmists have dreamed up.

      The Alarmists are the ones who conflate Mother Nature-caused climate change with human-caused climate change. They do it to confuse people. And it has worked pretty well, witness this argument.

    • No, Mr. Mosher. Serious people point out that the minor warming we have had, whether officially measured from the Little Ice age or only from 1950, has not caused a deterioration in any climate metric. No increases in the occurrence or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, SLR, etc.

      The political panic is generated by exaggerations of the outputs of unvalidated UN IPCC climate models. It is the politics of the Third World-dominated UN, Social Justice Warriors, Socialists, Globalists and similar control freaks that most worry me in the AWG debates.

    • The average of a collection of various monthly averages of various daily min/max temperatures from around the globe is worse than meaningless. It is superstitious nonsense.
      Some folks call this sect of numerologists ‘climastrology’.
      It has supernatural significance among those suffering from the pathology known as ‘magical thinking’, whose intellectual corruption by acceptance of Disney’s First Law, ‘wishing makes it so’ have been rendered insane.
      This stupidity is a habit and habits are virtually impossible to break. Therefore it is, essentially, incurable.
      You can never explain to a stupid person that he is stupid or how he is stupid because: check the definition of stupid.

    • Mr Mosher,

      What then, is the optimum (absolute best for world as a whole) as a measure of climate???

      What should this “key metric” be, so as to facilitate the best condition of earth?

      Should it be what has historically & commonly been called the “optimum”? Or should it be a little colder?

      Or is it that you do you not care about the “key measure”, you only care about quibbling about insignificant changes, and being rewarded for such?

      (you don’t need to worry about answering all of the questions if you don’t have time … only the first one)

  25. Paper Tiger, yes but just as fast as you do knock them down, up they pop again .

    As previously mentioned its like the adverts on TV, its repeated again and again. I can only suggest that we use the same tactics, we must keep on telling the “Facts ” again and again .

    MJE VK5ELL

  26. “….. finds it hard to believe that a trace gas in our atmosphere is going to cause an “unlivable world.””

    You are right to “believe” that.
    As that is not what the consensus science as published by the IPCC in the ARs is saying.

    It is saying that there are potential very serious consequences in certain parts of the world.
    That will certainly cause social and economic disruption.
    That is not a synonym for an “unlivable world”.

    • “As that is not what the consensus science as published by the IPCC in the ARs is saying. It is saying that there are potential very serious consequences in certain parts of the world.”

      Based on what? The IPCC can’t even tell us how much heat CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere.

      The IPCC can’t tell us about any feedbacks which might offset any heat CO2 added to the Earth’s atmosphere.

      The IPCC is just guessing. The “consensus” is a guess. Real world experience disputes the dire predictions of the IPCC.

      The IPCC is a business. They are selling Human-Caused Climate Change. Don’t put your faith in the word of someone who needs to sell you something.

  27. Notice how the verbage has changed. Several years ago I was in a blog discussion and used the term “climate change” instead of “manmade climate change”. I was taken to the wood shed for my ignorance. This proved I knew nothing about the subjet. It was manmade climate change and anyone that did not use that term could not have an opinion on manmade climate change due to their ignorance.

    Fast forward several years and no one is using manmade climate change, we are all ignorant deniers. Everyone is using climate change to mean manmade climate change as well as natural cllimate change.

    • “Everyone is using climate change to mean manmade climate change as well as natural cllimate change.”

      That was the objective of the alarmists. They want everyone to assume that when they say climate change, they mean human-caused climate change. The alarmists don’t want to acknowledge that there might be something other than human-caused CO2, such as Mother Nature, that causes the climate to change.

      The alarmists are trying to manipulate the language and the conversation with their confusion of Mother Nature-caused climate change with human-caused climate change. It’s what propagandists do.

  28. We need to change this game. This is just name calling, with no solutions, nothing new.

    Our paradigms are incorrect, at the conceptual level.

    The ‘new’ nuclear is a civilization changing breakthrough which should be common ground for cult of CAGW followers and so called Skeptics. It is not new technology. It is old technology that was hidden and is still hidden.

    In reply to:
    Eric Holthaus
    @EricHolthaus
    “Nothing we have tried to do to it stop it is working”

    William: It is not we, it is you guys. We did not push the green scams that do not work. The responsibility for the green scam pathetic mess, is on you guys.

    There is a fission reactor design which was built and tested 50 years ago that is six times more efficient than fuel rod, water reactors, does not have catastrophic failure modes, 1/3 to 1/5 the cost, that is sealed, that operates at atmospheric pressure and that can be mass produced.

    It is possible to significantly reduce human CO2 emissions through the use of the ‘new’ nuclear reactor.

    “It’s not nihilism I feel — it’s the opposite. It’s an empathy overload.”

    There are multiple independent observations/analysis results that unequivocally prove that humans are responsible for no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

    There is no CAGW or AGW. We are fighting, destroying our economics, and installing green scams that do not work for no logic reason.

  29. The opposition by the Greens to all things which produce energy minus CO2, other of course their favourites such as windmills and solar panels is a indication that their mission in life is to destroy the Western countries economies.

    So what is wrong with say Hydro. Yes it usually means building a Dam. Not natural they say, but the formation of a lake is just natures way of containing a body of water, and that is “Natural”.

    True as it filled some small creature may have been drowned, that’s again “Natural” But that is their argument against our building Dams. Hydro must be the best example of truly Green energy.

    Then of course we have Nuclear, but wait, what about the Bomb. Well as I understand things a nuclear power station only needs about 12 % pure Uranium, whereas a Bomb needs 99 %.

    Still that is close enough for the Greens warped thinking.

    Its all just a big smokescreen, first destroy the economy of a country, then offer them a solution. True its called Communism and yes it did not work the first time around, but that was then. Today we have the perfect political solution to all of the problems of this Earth.

    MJE VK5ELL

  30. “Climate Change”, the current cop-out from “Global Warming”, is a moral panic.
    People make money off this moral panic through the Socialist-State-Mandated redistribution of taxation into the hands of charlatans promising to fix everything. And since there was no threat, it works! . Big big money maker = AGW.

    Oh, and they get totalitarian control over the citizens in the process of saving everyone which was the highest goal, right?

    But here is the key tell that this is about money and social policy and nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying claim of a catastrophic climate event/runaway feed back loop:

    These fanatics are programmed to NEVER discuss overpopulation and they are simultaneously taught to be in favour of open borders and mass migration even though that makes no sense from a carbon pollution stand point. And they want everyone to eat soy and not meat in order to feed the hungry world which also makes no sense in the long run. But more people = More Money. Did the light come on for you? This is a scam and it is about a global elite wanting society to grant them total control over your lives.
    That is the bottom line. It is about power over other people.

Comments are closed.