Caught telling untruths several times in the last few years, and most notably twice in the last six months, left-leaning climate scientists supporting the theory of “anthropogenic global warming” are getting ready to counterattack. Among the tactics they plan to employ is organizing climate researchers into a non-profit organization, from which they’ll obtain donations to use to pay for back-page ads in the New York Times excoriating the critics and other climate anthropogenic change skeptics.
These “scientists” feel fully justified in using hard-ball tactics because, as Stanford University climate researcher Paul R. Ehrlich says, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate; we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules." You know what merciless enemies Professor Ehrlich is talking about. It’s those mean, nasty conservative Republicans like Senator James Inhofe, who’s actually had the nerve to say that we need to hold climate scientists who are trying to disrupt the economy and establish a “new world order” accountable for their actions.
You remember Paul Ehrlich, don't you? He wrote a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, one of the most spectacularly wrong books in the history of the world. In it, Ehrlich claimed that “in the 1970's the world will undergo famines [in which] hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” He pooh-poohed the idea that improved food production technology might alter this scenario, saying that it “will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control.” News flash, Paul: we survived the 70s – and 80s, and 90s, and 00s, and…well, you get the picture.
Undaunted by his failures, however, Ehrlich has found a new boogeyman to scare us – “anthropogenic global warming” – but his methodology is the same old same old. You see, Ehrlich’s error over 40 years ago was to take a snapshot of current trends and project it forward into the future, without regards for any changes in the extremely complex processes he was trying to model. In the case of the Population Bomb, he was trying to project population growth vs. technological change, which in the end he got completely wrong. Now, he and other leftist climate scientists are trying to project a snapshot of recent global average temperature trends into the future. Unfortunately for them, they understand the climate change process about as well as they understand the process of technological advancement.
On the other hand, does anyone believe they really care whether or not they’re correct? In the immortal words of Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Paul Ehrlich and his comrades don’t care about the facts. All they care about is jamming their socialist agenda down our throats, and doesn’t it figure they’d enlist the New York Times to help them do it?
Comments
You really are a prig of an SoB aren't you, happy to take the risk that climate change is happening as long as you can pout on about scary socialists under the bed. As if it's all entertainment for your mates.
Ha! Ha! Look who's calling someone a "prig SOB". Some smarmy little Eurosocialist. Here's how it really is Euroboy. Risk is all relative, you see, and stopping the world's economy on a dime on the off chance that people might, possibly, be causing the Earth's temperature to rise a fraction of a degree. Who cares if a few people who depended on that productivity to survive die in the name of "progress?" Think on that one, mate.
Does the NYT have any readers that don't already believe in AGW? On second thought, does the NYT have any readers?
I can't see that adding a new comic page written by a mad scientist to the NYT will amount to anything more than a bad joke.
Here's how you can spot a global warming alarmist. They always open with a personal insult. It's all they know.
Ehrlich and his friends are committing the "projected trends" or "uncontrolled extrapolation" fallacy discussed in How To Lie With Statistics by Darryl Huff.
Here's how you can spot a global warming alarmist. They always open with a personal insult. It's all they know.
Ooooh!!!,that's really playing hard ball Paul, taking a full page ad out in a newspaper (The same paper that wouldn't print the climate gate e-mails?)<<<Now that's hard mate<<<< If you climate guys were honest,displayed some old fashioned character and ethics, been transparent,shared your data, and not scared the crap out our children, out rite lied about the polar bears, and glaciers, defamed fellow climate scientists, etc. etc. etc. maybe you would have been taken more seriously. Integrity seems foreign to your ilk. The whole thing stank (and still stinketh). You should take out that page, to say your sorry, because you really did mess up, another character issue that is holding you back. Deal with it, have some tea with Lord Monckton, go on the weather channel for healing cameo, go on Alex Jones and make nice, take a deep breath and start getting along with the rest of the class..Oh yeah, and stop hanging around with those UN blokes at the IPCC people places and things can hurt you.
I'm sorry I just have to say it,
Idea for
>>>>>New TV show<<<<
"When climate scientists attack"
Would you care to substantiate your opening sentence?
Sure, Rob. Google, for example, climate gate, or see some of the other articles under the category "If you like this..."
Science works by adding observations on observation, building solid foundations that cant be wiped out. Changes or new data can tweak an undestanding but by enlarge the pyramid continues to rise. (The opposite of religion which is based on a single piece of faith - think upside down pyramid - easy to topple) Thousands and thousands of observations in disparate fields are all pointing to a common conclusion. There are no theories that hold out under examination to explain whats happening other than man's influence. Its in everyones interest to move on this. Please dont take your news from Fox. Take it from peer reviewed sources. Start with a clean sheet, be serious about it and see what conclusion you reach...
Wow, lefty. That's deep. Please read my latest post, where I took Phil Jones's own words from one of your peer review sites and demolished another liberal's thesis with it. Also, please read my "Mathematics not science" and "State of climate modeling" articles. In the former, I use my expertise as a professional mathematician to explain what's happening in climate modeling, and in the latter I quote another peer reviewed paper to make my points. Then, get back to me.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!