Sad Climate Scientists: “I see a group of people sitting in a boat … floating right into a … waterfall”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

These poor climate scientists are sacrificing everything in their passion to save the world, but nobody cares.

‘I’m profoundly sad, I feel guilty’: scientists reveal personal fears about the climate crisis

Feelings of powerlessness and despair for the future are evident in letters written for a six-year ‘passion project’ 

Graham Readfearn @readfearn Email

Sun 8 Mar 2020 06.00 AEDTLast modified on Sun 8 Mar 2020 08.19 AEDT

In 2014, Joe Duggan started reaching out to climate scientists to ask them a question: how did climate change make them feel?

“I was just blown away when I started getting the letters back,” he says.

Duggan, a science communicator at Australian National University, set up a website and starting publishing the mostly handwritten responses.

“[Professor] Katrin Meissner was one of the first, and her letter really hit me. It was so … unscience-y. Almost poetic.”

“It makes me feel sad. And it scares me,” Meissner wrote.

“It scares me more than anything else. I see a group of people sitting in a boat, happily waving, taking pictures on the way, not knowing that this boat is floating right into a powerful and deadly waterfall.”

Read more:

Gee, if only the climate scientists had tried a little harder, we might have listened to them.

Having said that, if you suspend disbelief and just look at the words, some of the descriptive imagery is actually pretty good. Obviously “floating into a waterfall” should have been “floating towards a waterfall”, so they need a bit of help with their writing technique, but when I closed my eyes I could really see that boat, kind of like one of the depressing scenes from the apocalyptic nuclear war story “On the beach”.

When the climate bubble finally collapses, with a bit of training some of the most emotionally expressive climate scientists might be able to make a decent living writing fiction.

103 thoughts on “Sad Climate Scientists: “I see a group of people sitting in a boat … floating right into a … waterfall”

  1. Won’t they feel stupid when the world is still here, and NOT overly warm, in twenty years?

        • The climate, so-called scientists, are mentally ill. Let them stew in their own juices. The rest of us will get on with our own lives.

      • When AI can understand irony or sarcasm then we are in trouble. Who knows, we might see AI doing stand up and doing it really accurately and for a lot less money.

      • If AI is no more intelligent than most of the people who design it, we don’t have much to fear from AI. Which of course makes it an ideal scary monster.

        If not AI, it might be plastic, which hasn’t seen a lot of ink in the last few months, and is due for a replay.

        They might want to resurrect overpopulation too. Not many older folk who remember Paul Ehrlich (“England will cease to exist by 2000”), so it’s a golden oldie waiting for a return to the charts.

        Global cooling, nuclear winter, GMOs, the list goes on; there will never be a shortage of topics to scare the children.

        But I have to say that Climate Change has been very well orchestrated. If only these people targeted their efforts to something useful, it would be a better world for all.

        • “… Paul Ehrlich (“England will cease to exist by 2000”)…”

          I am going to go out on a limb and guess Paul was VERY pro EU.

      • If Alexa and Siri are any example of the intelligence of AI, I’m not too worried. When either of them can understand what I’m asking with some degree of reliability, then, I’ll worry.

        • The lady who is currently the voice of Siri (the English one, I assume) informs us that neither Siri nor Alexa recognise her voice.

          AI knows irony, apparently.

      • Some of the clowns that I know, and educated clowns too in some cases, will be preaching that climate change causes NOT overly warm.

    • Nope they will not feel funny at all since they know no shame. They will still wake up each morning searching for grant monies and their only question will be how best to prove the theories that produce the most money.

      • …their only question will be how best to invent the theories that produce the most money.


    • You would have thought so. But I thought that would be the case maybe fifteen years ago and, despite nothing significant having happened, and numerous failed doomsday predictions, I’m not seeing many signs of contrition from these people. They just keep pointing to perfectly normal weather events and shouting ‘see, see, it’s climate change, torrential rain, just what we warned you about when we predicted prolonged draughts’.

    • They’ll just deny it ever happened, like the deny the Global Cooling scare from back in the 1970’s.

      • And just as they have not admitted they were wrong about “the population bomb”. They either ignore it or still think overpopulation will kill us all very soon (they are able to conflate/entangle it with CAGW in their minds) or if questioned, they think that holdren and ehrlich’s warnings are what saved us.

      • HERE’s irony – they’ll point to how few “climate scientists” actually agreed that there was a human-induced warming “crisis” and then say, wait for it…

        “There was no consensus!”


    • Here in Michigan USA:
      Two years ago lots of snow in the winter, but normal temperature
      One year ago was very cold, but not much snow
      This winter has been warmer than usual, and not much snow.

      We LOVE warmer winters here in Michigan.
      And those so called climate scientists can kiss my $#@%

      I’d enjoy a warmer planet a lot more without leftist climate blowhards making scary, always wrong, predictions !

      Let’s deport all the US Democrats, climate scaremongers and other leftists, to France, where they can finally be happy, because people there will take them seriously.

    • No, they won’t feel stupid.
      So far all of their “projections”, whether 20, 12, 50 (or whatever) years, have been like the sign I saw on a seafood restaurant, “Free Crabs Tomorrow!”.
      “Tomorrow” never comes.
      We’ll always have 20, 12, 50 (or whatever) years left to act before our Doom arrives.

  2. You can float ‘into’ a waterfall. eg Maid of the Mist at Niagara. If you are caught in a gyre at the base of the fall you can be swept in and dumped on from a great height. 🙂

      • That does actually work and can be lethal but clearly the metaphor she was seeking was the unseen danger, not the very visible one.

        What she failed to explain is that there is only a waterfall in her computer model. In the real world there is just a river.

        Trenberth has moved back to NZ. That’s a travesty. I wonder whether he bought a nice coastal property or a prepper’s shelter on a high mountain.

        • What she failed to explain is that there is only a waterfall in her computer model. In the real world there is just a river.

          To perfect that analogy, I’d say in the real world there is just a wide, calm river with a slow current.

  3. I suspect they have different fears tonight.

    OPEC just launched an economic war on Russia, driving oil prices down 20+%. Russia’s economy is highly dependent on how much they get selling their oil. If something doesn’t change, soon, Russia will be a Venezuelz – but with nukes. Lovely.

    The there’s the pandemic. Climate change? That’s small potatoes regardless of how warm it gets.

    • Russia has always been a 2nd world, borderline 3rd world country, with nukes. (at least since they built some nukes)

      • Since the 2nd world is defined as the Axis powers, Russia is a 2nd world country by definition, and always will be 🙂

    • Russia has a population of 146M people up only 3M since 1985. Median age is almost 40. Spread that out over a vast land area and there are plenty of wide open spaces.

      Not a great setup for an economic powerhouse.

    • Oil prices have only collapsed because of the Covid-19, which will end at some point, and economic activity will return to normal.

      • Not true. Oil prices collapsed because Saudi Arabia dramatically increased production after what is left of OPEC and Russia failed to agree to production cuts.

    • Ironically global warming helps the fight against viruses. I believe that’s because viruses die off quicker if it’s warmer. Part of the UK’s strategy is to delay the spread until the summer, when warmer weather will help to reduce the spread of the virus.

      In general, far more people die when it’s cold. History tells us a very obvious truth: warm is good, cold is bad. But will we hear this from the likes of the BBC and Guardian? Of course not.

  4. Their previous ludicrous claims haven’t seemed to stop these morons yet, but we live in hope and thanks to Trump, there are leaders willing to stand up to these crooks and say no, we’re not going to in incapacitate our western economies because a bunch of slimy creeps want to make a fortune from destablising our world to use their rubbish technologies.

  5. Well, National Geographic told me that pretty much all the polar bears already died from the runaway climate change that we filthy humans caused. So there really is good reason to be sad.

  6. Even if you are a true believer the metaphor is all wrong because that implies it will happen to us, we are talking about 100 years away.

    So it should be more like my family is camped on a glacier and they are going to go over the edge sometime in the future.

  7. Even before the climate bubble collapses, with no training whatsoever most of the ‘Climate Scientists’ are earning a fair old whack by writing Science Fiction.

  8. mostly handwritten responses

    I call BS. Mostly handwritten? Come on! I haven’t had a hand written response to ANYTHING for longer than I can remember. He set up a web site and people responded to it handwritten? Seriously?

    My bet is mostly handwritten = forged.

    • It’s the Guardian, they are, how shall we say, “economical with the truth”.
      My advice to everyone is, never endorse the Guardian by visiting its website. Until it has a sufficiently balanced attitude that allows it to report dispassionately both sides of the story just ignore its desire for on line traffic. It will eventually get the message, it is on the wrong side of the debate or it will cease to exist.

  9. Long after they go over the waterfall the rest of us will all still be here; bon voyage. They just got who was in the boat wrong. I’m always stunned at the ability of people to accept that once the 6 o’clock news comes on, nothing every happened before, despite that the planet–and its climate–is 4.5 billion years old.

    Do you enjoy cartoons?–try watching this one from 1943 with ‘climate change’ in mind; note the parallels in the techniques used to stampede people to their demise. If Disney understood it so well in 1943–how come it is still so easy today?–(that’s a rhetorical question, despite me not having had journalism training in rhetoric). Try to find a better parallel to Greta than Chicken Little–she’s perfect, as are all the cackling classes. Only about 9 minutes, but you’ll love the parallels in personalities and techniques.

    • Waaaah! “Video unavailable” here. Thanks anyway, Len. I was looking forward to seeing it again when I saw your comment. I hadn’t seen that cartoon in more than 6 decades. Waaaah!!! Flippin’ Disney copyrights.


      • We are very pure down here in Australia.
        We are also very dumb. Has any other country had the mad panic-buying of toilet paper we are experiencing – for no known reason?
        We are also extraordinarily dumb when it comes to warming. In recent years we have been more per capita on useless, unreliable green energy than even Germany!!!
        However, Australia’s BoM and CSIRO are world champions at homogenization.
        We used to be the Lucky Country.

        • TRM, yes panic buying loo roll is happening in the uk as well, also rather curiously fresh milk! It take a special kind of stupidity to stockpile a perishable.

          • In the US, we usually stockpile what are known as “the three whites” : bread, milk, and toilet paper. Normally, though, we do that for major snowstorms, when the power might be out or the roads not cleared for a while. I don’t understand why it’s happening for a flu.

        • Something to keep in mind as the ‘corona-virus pandemic’ evolves to toilet-paper-hoarding–“Control health care and you control the people”–Saul Alinsky.

          For the poor folks in Australia prevented from seeing the cartoon–the final line is Foxy Loxy stating, as he places yet another wish-bone in the sand of the cave that the chickens were stampeded into led by Chicken Little–‘Don’t believe ever’ting’ ya read, brudda’.

  10. “…some of the most emotionally expressive climate scientists might be able to make a decent living writing fiction.”

    Okay, I’ll say it … many of them already do.

  11. I think global warming will save us all from the Corona Virus, sounds like a happy ending for some…

  12. And the GreenBlob wants the World to take these sad panty-waists seriously.
    Just file this post in the Ninny Beta-male folder with all the weepy Bill McKibben and crying Eric Holthaus articles.

  13. From the article: “‘I’m profoundly sad, I feel guilty’: scientists reveal personal fears about the climate crisis”

    You all *should* feel guilty: Telling people CO2 is dangerous when you have no evidence this is the case should make you feel guilty. It’s harmful to lie and cause people to panic over nothing.

    I suppose these people who are worrying over CO2 are not the liars, they are the dupes. The alarmist liars wouldn’t be worrying about CO2, they would just be worried about their CAGW lies being found out.


    Ross McKitrick: It’s never enough with climate activists — even a staggering $10 billion from Jeff Bezos

    Observers might conclude activists don’t care about the climate per se but instead want to impose a big-government central planning regime
    Climate activists give the impression their real motivation is not concern about the climate but rather a strange abhorrence of the modern world. Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

    February 21, 2020
    Jeff Bezos, the mega-billionaire founder/owner of Amazon, just announced he will give US$10 billion to “fight climate change.” According to CNN, this followed immense pressure from his employees to take action. And, as is inevitable with this issue, as soon as he made the announcement his activist employees declared it wasn’t enough.
    “We applaud Jeff Bezos’s philanthropy, but one hand cannot give what the other is taking away,” their group sniffed. “Will Jeff Bezos show us true leadership or will he continue to be complicit in the acceleration of the climate crisis, while supposedly trying to help?”
    It is never enough with climate activists. Bezos’s US$10 billion is a staggering sum. But it’s also a drop in the bucket compared to what governments have spent over the past two decades on the climate issue. Yet activists keep complaining governments aren’t doing anything, either.
    One begins to suspect they are not being up front about what they really want. Politically minded observers might conclude activists do not care about the climate per se but instead want to impose a big-government central planning regime — for which the supposed climate emergency is merely a pretext. Any response to their demands that leaves the market system intact is therefore inadequate.
    • Ted Morton: Trudeau’s nightmare comes true as he’s forced to choose between climate activists and national unity
    • Patrick Moore: I was banned from speaking in Regina over this alternative CO2 point of view
    • Terence Corcoran: Here are the signs of hope Greta’s so ‘desperate’ for that show there’ll be no climate apocalypse
    So where should Bezos direct his money? If he really wants to make the world a better place, he should fund the invention of a low-cost carbon scrubber. If ever someone could invent a device that filters carbon dioxide out of a smokestack or tailpipe and turns it into a stable solid that can be cheaply disposed of or even used for another purpose, all for under $5 or $10 per tonne, the entire climate change issue would vanish.
    Such a scrubber would mean we could carry on using fossil fuels while decoupling them from greenhouse gas emissions. We would continue getting all the benefits of cheap fossil energy without any climate side-effects. This is what we did with sulphur dioxide. The invention of sulphur scrubbers meant we could keep enjoying the benefits of fossil energy without the harm of acid rain. Now let’s do the same with carbon dioxide.
    The only reason climate change is such a big, intractable worldwide issue is precisely that we cannot currently decouple fossil fuel use from carbon dioxide emissions, so trying to achieve deep emission reductions means imposing harsh costs on the world economy. But if carbon dioxide could be cheaply reduced while we continued to burn fossil fuels, that problem would be resolved.
    Once you realize this, you can then complete the thought-experiment by posing the question: Who would be the saddest people in the world if a cheap carbon-scrubber were invented? Answer: climate activists. They would almost certainly be bitterly crestfallen if ever an inexpensive technological fix resolved the climate issue. I say this because they so often give the impression their real motivation is not concern about the climate but rather a strange abhorrence of the modern world. The giveaway is their angry reaction to any information showing climate change isn’t a crisis — even though they of all people should be most cheered when such research appears.
    Here is a useful litmus test for whether you or someone you know is an environmentally conscious person who wants to take a responsible stance on the climate issue. Suppose Bezos funds a project that does invent a cheap carbon-scrubber and he gives away the technology so that overnight the need for climate policy vanishes (other than a requirement to use the scrubber). Our entire apparatus of climate policy would then become unnecessary. Ethanol mandates, electric vehicle subsidies, energy efficiency regulations, pipeline bans, the coal phaseout, natural gas bans for new homes, the oilsands emissions cap, et cetera — all of it could be eliminated and carbon dioxide emissions would plummet nonetheless. The Paris treaty would be redundant. There would be no more “conferences of the parties,” no more UN summits, and an end to the vast climate bureaucracies around the world — all of it replaced by quick, cheap and easy emission reductions. The litmus question: Would that strike you as wonderful news or leave you bereft, your purpose in life lost?
    “Wonderful news” is the correct answer. If you got it wrong, please stop blocking roads and railways and get some psychological help.
    Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph.

    • Ross’s solution is a goodie but for one thing. C02 is not harmful, its vital and pretending to these morons trying to destroy western civilisation that were answering their C02 problem plays right into their hands and the next cold, hot, too much too little panic will arise. We must educate the masses that more C02 is a grood thing for plant-life which is essential to sustain us all and all life.

      • I see it differently – I think Ross is finally on board with the big picture – that the climate scam is a false front for a covert (now not-so-covert) agenda.

        Climate was always a smokescreen for totalitarian control of society and everyone in it by extreme-left elitists.

        I called it in 2012 here:

        Instead of arguing about the science of global warming, we should just listen to what these enviro radicals are actually SAYING and DOING.

        Maybe they know their global warming science is bogus, but it suits their purpose to use global warming hysteria as a smokescreen to mask their true intentions.

        The radical warmists have done everything in their power to starve the world of fossil fuel energy that is required for continued global prosperity.

        They have squandered a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) nonsense.

        Investing these squandered resources in clean drinking water and sanitation alone would have saved the ~50 million kids who died from drinking contaminated water in the past 25+ years of CAGW hysteria.

        Intelligent use of these scarce global resources could have easily saved as many people as were killed in the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

        50 million people died in Hitler’s WW2. Josef Stalin killed another 50 million of his own people in internal purges. Leftist hero Mao gets the prize, killing as many as 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.

        The radical environmental movement has done equally well, rivaling Mao for fatalities caused by the banning of DDT and the misallocation of scarce global resources on the fraud of catastrophic humanmade global warming.

        Since many of these enviro radicals are latter-day Malthusians, Club of Rome types, etc., it is reasonable to assume that THIS WAS THEIR INTENTION.

        Is this too radical a proposal? Well, NO it is not: In addition to what the radical enviros DO, let’s EXAMINE what they SAY:

        Patrick Moore called it much earlier, in 1994:

        Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and Past-President of Greenpeace, provided the answer decades ago. Moore observed that Eco-Extremism is the new “false-front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. This is described in Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” written in 1994 – note especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, at

        It’s long past time for everyone to wake up and see the climate scam for what it really is – and it was never about the climate – it was all about total control – of you and your family.

        • Allan, I think that there are many who would agree that the whole CC agenda has been brought about to keep us busy, distracted from the true agenda of ‘global government’. The leftists push in the education system is happening now. The scientists and journalists coming through the system are educated in the leftist agenda and they actually believe the propaganda that they’ve been fed.

          The likes of Greta as a marketing tool perpetuating the lie is damaging to children in the extreme, though her limited actual knowledge is starting to become evident to many. Extreme weather events and extensive fires, though not at all unprecedented are fortuitous events for the alarmists to push their agenda.

          We need to continue to speak out against the hysteria and expose the lies, which is what the scientists on this site do here.

          We need to get back to enjoying our world and all it has to offer in a responsible way, we need to share a positive outlook with our children and grandchildren. Enough with the fear of what is not going to happen.

          WUWT is a brilliant platform to help debunk all these lies! You are all making a difference.

        • Allan I am 100% in agreement with you that this scam is much more than global warming and this whole fraud is about forming a socialist world government and taking control.
          We will all do as we are told except the ruling elite ,just as it was back 150 years ago.
          The majority of these scientists fly around the world and have very good lifestyles .
          If they really cared surely they could conduct their climate conferences by video link .
          There are far to many activist scientists pushing the catastrophic global warming meme when the theory of CAGW can only occur if the increase of CO2 triggers a positive water vapour feed back and a tropical hotspot .
          Despite frantic searching neither have been proven to exist.
          What first alerted me over 20 years ago that this global warming scare was at least partly bogus was the inclusion of biogenic methane as an emission at the Kyoto Climate Accord.
          For any climate scientist to turn a blind eye to this shows that they have a greater goal and the truth does not matter.
          Biogenic methane from farmed livestock is a cycle and not one additional atom or molecule containing carbon is emitted over any time frame .
          This is an indisputable fact as all fodder consumed by livestock has absorbed CO2 and the methane that is released during digestion is soon broken down in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and water vapour .
          The other fact that convinces me that Climate Change as it is now known is a sham is that very few of these climate scientists call for nuclear energy to replace fossil fuel based electricity and activists around the world are against more dams for hydro power and irrigation.
          Why is this?
          Graham Anderson
          Proudly farming to feed the world.

      • Jamie, Whilst I agree with your view re carbon dioxide is not an issue so we should not fall into the trap of discussing it in those terms. I think what Ross is presenting a mind game, for us to consider. What is the impact of resolving the climate alarmists chief anxiety (apparently) if it is rendered no longer an issue.
        The answer is they are left rebels without a cause. The sad reality is, they would still band together as contrarians to find something else to ban or act as a disrupt-er of normal everyday living.
        Think plastic. Then think pharma products, then think AI…etc etc. the options available to anarchists is endless. Bezos is finding that out.

        • I think we’re all in agreement. They’ll change course the minute they’re exposed (climate warming to climate change) the content has no relevance, it’s the context, methane is possibly next, however I think we take nothing they say and use seriously (unless of course if it’s true) and challenge their legitimacy, outcomes and hypocrisy not their vehicle.

    • A ‘litmus test’ of climate alarmists’ sincerity is already available viz. safe nuclear power and, with a few exceptions, they fail.

  15. Not just any fiction, but fantasy. It certainly isn’t plausible enough to be science fiction. Wait, how about a murder mystery: who murdered science?

  16. What are they supposed to do? Tell the truth? Say that they (like everybody else on the planet Earth) have got so much to worry about in their personal lives that they hardly ever even think about the weather, let alone the climate.

    Well come on. These people are professional climate doomsters. If nobody is really worried about climate change, then the climate catastrophe crowd will have to take a pay cut. It’s as if a manufacturer of the flu vaccine had said that most people don’t have to worry about getting the flu.

    I speak to lots of people on a daily basis, and I have yet to meet one human being who has spontaneously, without prompting, spoken about the danger of climate change. Not one. I have met people who are upset about the obesity epidemic, or bike lanes. Oddball personal stuff like that. But nobody I have met so far is worried enough about the climate to even mention it in casual conversation.

    How come nobody complains about obscene lyrics in popular music any more? Doesn’t anybody realize how serious that problem is? No? Okay, maybe it was never that serious.

  17. I’m impressed! I take it that alarmist scientists and science press types are the turkeys of this little story, while the boozy chickens and the gossipy hens in the story are our regular main stream media and the public consumers of such media?

    Sometimes I wonder though, who the fox really is, exactly. I mean, ‘Foxy Loxy’ could afford to wreck things for a bunch of chickens, and still stand a decent chance of moving on to the next bunch of victims. In the real world, doesn’t a big sky-is-falling hoax tend to make a worse society for everyone, including those who get attention and/or profit out of it?

  18. They seem to ignore the fact that plants produce food and oxygen, O2 molecule for CO2 molecule if I recall my chemistry. No big deal I suppose.

  19. “… make a decent living writing fiction …”

    But aren’t many of them already writing science fiction?

  20. Thanks Eric, I asked on a previous post today, what scientists on this site would make of this Guardian article.

    I was shocked that presumably highly educated people, scientists, did not seek to simply question whether or not the scenarios being promoted in the science community were accurate. I guess ‘follow the money’ applies here now.

    I am not a scientist, nor am I highly educated, but by simply taking the time to do some research, I came to the conclusion that non of this had been thought through. CO2 as a pollutant, wind and solar renewables as an answer, temperatures rising along with sea levels, polar bears on the brink of extinction (along with koalas apparently), coral reefs bleaching and the Arctic ice and glaciers disappearing. Have I left anything out?

    The numbers of Australian politicians speaking out against alarmism is on the rise. I hope that the numbers of ‘climate realist’ scientists speaking out will increase too, at least those who have retired.

    The scientists who spoke of their grief regarding CAGW, I just want to shake some sense into them! Open your eyes folks you’re being paid for your high level of education…oh that’s right, you’ve sold out.

  21. Aw diddums. All guilty progressives should stop breathing out polluting CO2, right now!

  22. Don’t believe that’s a representative sample at all. What about all the others? How many tossed the request in the garbage because they didn’t have any “feelings” about climate change? The vibes coming from some quarters is that there are a significant number of scientists who are skeptical, but are afraid to voice their concerns, for obvious reasons.

  23. I suggest that the ‘handwritten replies’ are a deliberate gimmick to give an impression of sincerity and authenticity to “an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative “. *
    The whole thing is just another propaganda exercise.

    * acknowledgement to WS Gilbert

  24. Very few people who claim to feel guilt are actually guilty of what they claim to be guilty. Very, very few people admit to feeling guilty about sins they have really committed, and in fact cite excuses for the sins.

    Justin Trudeau is not responsible for the past treatment of Canadian Natives. He is responsible for the shabby treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould. For which sin did he apologize? Not the one he committed, and still denies committing.

    • Hey I like that, good point. Trudeau never apologized for his ethics breaches, for his profligate government spending, for his stupid ‘the budget will balance itself’ statements, for his groping, for trying to slip a get-out-of-jail-free-card for SNC Lavalin in a budget bill–only for things done by others. I’m starting to see a possible similarity to the psychopath, as in ‘Dead man Walking’; his own misdeeds are simply not comprehended as real.

      Remember that Brian Mulroney, when his misdeeds resulted in his party going from majority to 2 seats in one election, still never changed his tone of superiority; it must be part of the political mind.

  25. I see a group of people sitting in a boat floating right into icy waters and suddenly everything around is frozen and they need rescuing…

    Oh wait, we saw that already a couple of times with these clowns…

  26. Waterfall analogy reminds me more of ‘A Handful of Dust’ as Tony Last’s expedition companion sets off in the wrong direction for the ultimate time leaving Tony to the mercy of Mr Todd and endless Dickens readings. We are all Tony Last, betrayed and then condemned to a hideous repetitious fate.

  27. Had we conducted science with feelings in the past we would all be sitting here in the dark and these idiots would be wringing their hands over some other imagined hobgoblin.

  28. When the climate bubble finally collapses, with a bit of training some of the most emotionally expressive climate scientists might be able to make a decent living writing fiction.

    That’s kind of what they are doing now. Making a good living writing poor fiction.

  29. As carbon dioxide is an invisible, odourless and tasteless gas, why not say that the scrubbers have been
    invented,tested and installed in all coal fired power plants. We need more CO2 not less.

Comments are closed.