The Definition Of Insanity

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • Albert Einstein

Climate skeptics tend to be like a broken record. Many think they can win the climate debate through “science.” The debate hasn’t been about science for a decade. Alarmists lost the debate ten years ago, and no longer have any interest in either debate or science.

Climate alarmism is kept alive by propaganda, censorship, intimidation, scientific fraud, data manipulation, fake statistics and enlisting useful idiots. The people behind it are not legitimate scientists, they are criminals.

Skeptics repeatedly send well meaning academics up against propagandists like Michael Mann and Bill Nye. These skeptics are great people and very knowledgable about science. But they are fighting the wrong war. This war is not about science. This is a propaganda war, and Republicans need to enlist people who understand counter propaganda – not academics. President Trump will never be able to bring down the global warming scam, until he can explain why it is a scam.

I don’t see any progress being made towards that end. None at all. This should be an easy debate to win, but skeptics need to understand who the alarmists are, who they are working for, and what the debate is really about.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to The Definition Of Insanity

  1. Harrison Bergeron says:

    Did you see that Al Gore is asking for FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS now?

    https://archive.is/H8o1D

  2. Ivan says:

    Spot on.
    Maybe you could do a video (or two) that focuses on the size of the scam, and just where the money comes from and where it goes to?

  3. McLovin' says:

    I’m afraid I agree.

  4. kyle_fouro says:

    I just want to know why none of the high- profile skeptics are willing to touch the temperature record.

    • arn says:

      Do you mean the hiatus record shown by satellites that there is no warming for 17 years?
      And all the fake… adjusted data
      and all the cheap excuses(satellites are not reliable,oceans absorbed warming and all other stuff they always discover AFTER their prediction failed)

    • oeman50 says:

      Did you understand the point Tony is making? This is not about data, this is propaganda that includes calling people who do not agree with you names.

  5. -B- says:

    “Climate Change” or whatever they call it this week can be attacked for what it is, a religion. A religion complete with priests, rulers, authorities, rites, rituals, indulgences, sins, and of course heretics and non-believers.

    Peer review and “science” as it used can be attacked as a club that protects the interests of its members against disruptive thought. Where real scientists are shunned and their careers ruined when the data, evidence, and observations take their work in a direction that does not go along with the predominate view. Again this is because that’s how it actually works.

    We are dealing with a system of control at least 6000 years old. A priest class funded by the ruling class gives us reasons why we need to obey and sacrifice. Why we need to allow the ruling class to run our lives, manage the collective, and basically exploit us as if we are livestock.

  6. GW says:

    Thanks Tony, for succinctly making that explicitly clear. It is the point I’ve been trying to make with people since at least climateGate. How do we reach the people in a position to do something about it ?

  7. GW Smith says:

    Absolutely right, Tony!

  8. R. Shearer says:

    97% of climate scientists have earned millions over the years, paid for by you and me. But it’s worse, Al Gore by himself has made hundreds of millions and he’s still not satisfied.

  9. GeologyJim says:

    I have to agree that this issue will not be swayed with strictly fact-based arguments a la Christie, Pielke, and Curry, or even Tim Ball (who I immensely respect). They’re all really good, they know the science, and they are pretty unflappable. But they can’t move the public discussion with academic arguments against demagogues (Mann, Trenberth, Gore, Phil Jones, Karl, Serreze, Emanuel, etc.) and the IPCC clowns.

    I think the most effective approach is to appeal to everyone in the context of the last 20 years. We have all lived it, and we can all see (if guided) that factual history has completely repudiated the CO2-Temp connection.

    Fully 30 percent of all-time human-generated CO2 has been emitted in the last 20 years, and yet the satellite-measured temperatures have not budged one bit

    Once that point is pummeled home by relentless effort, all the other BS scare-stories just fade away as irrational chatter from the doom-sayers (floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea-level rise, poley bears, forest fires, etc, etc)

    The Trump admin needs to pound this point endlessly, and simply refuse to accept the premise of all questions based on bogus computer-model projections and irrelevant minutia.

    • -B- says:

      People have short memories. They don’t remember what these people predicted last week let alone decades ago. It’s a very successful doomsday cult on this level. They have actually taken control of people’s perception of the weather.

      • Steve Case says:

        BINGO!

        If it weren’t for the left-wing press telling how hot it is, people would never notice the one degree of warming since 1850.

      • arn says:

        The problem is not just the memory.
        In fact people are perpetually bombed with one doom scenario after the other day after day after day.
        Therefore they even cannot remember what was said yesterday.

        They always use the “flooding with informations” trick when their lies are about to be discovered because people get so owerwhelmed by too much information that they turn away from the subject.

    • R2Dtoo says:

      I’m not in a good mood this morning. Just read JoNova thread and got totally pissed off. The energy conference in NYC provides little hope that Trump and his team will be changing the dynamics of the non-debate. Between Tillerson, Perry, Ivanka and Jarod, Trump will bend. The dangerous folks are not the Trenberths etal, but rather the IMF, World Bank, Buffet, Soros, GE, BP, Exxon and friends. Think Bilderberg-Davos-Bloomberg-Rockefeller-Rothchild. The major players are now developing financial mechanisms that call for investment of major pension funds in the scam. If that happens all the folks will be at risk and at the mercy of the elite. Crony capitalism controls virtually all politicians and is rampant. I’m usually not a pessimist, but it would be so easy for Trump to get out – and he won’t pull the plug. Too much at stake amongst the wealthy to let this prize movement go. We lost in Canada when Tweedle-Trudeau was elected – Trump is NA’s last hope.

    • David A says:

      The discussion could move the general public. The best way to reach them, IMV, would be through Presedential Sponsored Public Debates. (P.S.P.D.)

      There the clear and glaring of laws in CAGW would be revealed. Trump has the power to force debate.

  10. LexingtonGreen says:

    Which is why I really wish Tony could be given the task of annotating NASA’s evidence of climate change page. It would be hilarious to see Tony demolish the specious crap with facts. Keep the bs on that cite and just add in facts and commentary.

  11. Steve Case says:

    I don’t see any progress being made towards that end. None at all. This should be an easy debate to win …

    I agree. The left is getting away with setting the agenda. They need to be called out on the bullshit. That’s not happening.

  12. Robertv says:

    The real damage is done in the school system where they brainwash our kids into the new Hitler Jugend.

  13. The technical term for the marketing strategy that will defeat alarmism is “creating an alternative narrative”. What that means is creating an explanation that fits the facts and which is attractive to people which does not present CO2 as the “enemy”.

    Hence “CO2 plant food” – also the very effective campaign for “the pause”. Your own extremely good work showing the fiddling of data. The result is much of the public no longer believe CO2 is a “pollutant” or that we’re actually seeing warming.

    Unfortunately, we still have this link in the public’s mind between CO2 and historic warming. And unless or until we can give an alternative “narrative” for that warming, that link will continue – even if it’s totally absurd to attribute anything but a fraction of the warming to CO2.

    To put it simply we’ve got to supply the public with an answer to the question: “what did cause the warming after the global cooling scare”. The easiest thing to do, would be like the greenblob and just make up a reason – say it loud enough and often enough and (some) people will eventually believe it. The alternative is to go back to the science and try to work it out (as I have been). And there are a few strong contenders … but … to put it bluntly sceptics do not seem to want to know the answer.

    So, the only viable strategy I can see is the one adopted by Curry: which is to sit in congress and say with a straight face: “we are totally ignorant and haven’t a clue what caused the 1970-2000 warming). It may work!

  14. Robertv says:

    It doesn’t matter who you vote for in the Netherlands.

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/04/coalition-parties-green-wings-draw-up-own-environmental-plan/

    “That plan, which will be handed over the negotiators, includes a number of measures which all four parties’ environmental committees support, the paper says.
    These include the closure of all coal-fired power stations, a further reduction in the amount of natural gas pumped from under Groningen, and the introduction of a road tax system based on emissions.
    In addition, the committees are calling for the establishment of a fund to stimulate energy saving and for more money to go on wind turbines on land and at sea.
    The two Liberal parties D66 and VVD, the Christian Democrats and the left-wing greens GroenLinks are currently in talks on forming a new cabinet, which has already been dubbed GreenRight by some commentators.”

    Soon only the rich can afford to live in the Netherlands. (and the refugees).

  15. Griff says:

    climate science continues because the observations of temperature, sea ice, glaciers, etc, etc continue to demonstrate the climate is changing and that human CO2 is driving the temp changes causing climate change.

    No amount of cherry picking data can hide that continued, real, observed data.

    for example, the arctic sea ice is heading, sadly, for another record low season. There’s no escaping that, or its cause.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “No amount of cherry picking data can hide that continued, real, observed data.”

      Yet still, in your INSANITY, you keep denying real data and real science.

      The ONLY thing linking humans to climate are a pack of USELESS, UNVALIDIATED, ASSUMPTION DRIVEN, manically WRONG political models.

      Arctic Sea ice extent has been LOWER than current for around 90-95% of the Holocene, griff. The cause is well know, a natural and highly beneficial slight warming out of the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.

      You just keep on DENYING the data and the real science.

      INSANE, and DISHONEST, and stunned into STUPIDITY, are about the only descriptions for your comments !!

      • arn says:

        There is no need to answer Griff.

        Griff is ignoring
        3 decades of prediction failures by the warming priests
        2 climate gates
        hundreds attempts of data tampering
        and rewriting climate history
        hundreds of global cooling articles from the past(many written by the very same guys who now sell global warming)

        Not a single of these things has made Griff “doubt” for a second the AGW stuff-
        why should Griff start now?

        Griff CAN’T.

        1)Group think.
        Griff don’t even dare to think how her friends would react if she
        changes her world view-
        she’d loose all her ‘friends’.
        Therefore she bows down to groupthink=Eat shit.100 billions flies cant be wrong.

        2)Pride
        You will feel like the ultimate idiot when you have to admitt to yourself that you have been fooled for years and decades like a little child.
        So you have to chose between:
        Feeling like an idiot,loosing friends
        or keep it like it is.
        The second option is much more comfortable.

        3)Brainwash.

        We will create people who will believe everything they are told by authorities.
        Even that snow is black.(bertrand russel)

        Is there still Hope for Griff?

        YES-

        As Griff has nothing of relevance to add in her posts and is obviously not obsessed with being mocked several times day by other poster,
        there had to be a reason why Griff is coming back here again and again and again.
        Something inside Griff is very well aware that something in this world is going wrong and Griff is searching for answers.
        Thats why Griff is coming back again and again.
        But Griff gets answers Griffs dosnt like and cant cope with and which are a threat to her world view.

    • gator69 says:

      … continue to demonstrate the climate is changing and that human CO2 is driving the temp changes causing climate change.

      God what a moron!

      Ms Griff, until you can do this…

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      … you cannot claim that man is resposnible for any global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Nobody cares what you believe.

  16. Anonymous Commentator says:

    (After writing the below it occurred to me that perhaps this is an example of fighting a propaganda war instead of an information war. That said I’d like to add the following Einstein quote, “Man’s belief in his power to change the planet is orders of magnitude greater than his ability.”)

    Your Einstein quote is mis-attributed. A more likely source is some writer producing AA documents.

    http://www.news.hypercrit.net/2012/11/13/einstein-on-misattribution-i-probably-didnt-say-that/

  17. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    So, how do we fight this at the one-on-one level? How to foster a healthy skepticism of ALL authority (not just religious, but also scientific) among people who view Scientists as disinterested, unbiased seekers of Truth?

    One key *might* be to stress the point that scientists are people too, and so they have the same flaws and are subject to making the same mistakes as everybody else. They can fall for fashions and jump on bandwagons like the rest of us. I’d be curious to know if there’s any research out there on the occurrence of these kinds of phenomena (fashions, bandwagons) among professional scientists.

    • David A says:

      Of course. One peer reviewed report, states that the majority of peer review reports are wrong.

      However a great deal of CAGW skeptical views are strongly scientific.

  18. richard says:

    With most of the MSM against Trump it will a hard battle to win.

    This needs to be an ugly battle as the alarmists use ugly lying tactics to win-

  19. Most insightful post I’ve seen in a while. Nailed it.

  20. AndyOz says:

    100% agree.

    The only way I know how to fight a propaganda war is to show how ridiculous their propaganda is. It’s a religion. Alarmists keep saying, “You must have faith in our prophecies” and “Believe what the climate high priests tell you. They too are honourable men”

    Eventually, free thinking people question the legitimacy of the prophecies as they fail year after year, then they question the religion itself, then they ignore it when they don’t get factual answers, then the religion dies. It’s a process.

    Like all religions, alarmists have got into the schools to brainwash the kids with their progressive creed. The good thing is the epiphany to the wider population comes eventually and then the tables turn and the charlatans are ostracised.

  21. KTM says:

    Trump has been a monumental failure thus far in every respect. I wonder how much of this stems from his embrace of the squishy GOP establishment types who have no real objections to Obama’s actions in the name of climate. Too bad Trump chose to toss in with the GOPe and attack the Conservatives who would have helped him fight against the climate scam.

    Instead of attacking conservatives on non-climate stuff, you should start telling Trump to get back in line and stop embracing the GOPe.

  22. TA says:

    “Trump has been a monumental failure thus far in every respect.”

    Really? You are looking at a completely different world than the one I see. Trump is moving right along despite the unprecedented resistance of the Democrats and some Republican swamp creatures. Trump is in the process of doing everything he said he would do.

    Trump can put the icing on the cake by declaring the Paris Agreement a treaty and sending it to the U.S. Senate for a formal killing. And by dropping a MOAB on the only fat man in North Korea.

  23. TA says:

    I think skeptics should describe the alarmism demonstrated by climate scientists during the Global Cooling scare of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and compare that to the Global Warming alarmism demonstrated by current day climate scientists.

    Both sets of scientists were absolutely sure they were on the right course. One set thought humans were causing Global Cooling and one later-day set think humans are causing Global Warming now. Some current day climate scientists were alarmists during both eras. They screamed bloody murder about human-caused Global Cooling, until the temperatures started rising in the late 1970’s and now they are screaming bloody murder about human-caused Global Warming. They scream bloody murder whichever way the temperatures trend, because that’s where the money is at.

    This is one reason I was always very skeptical of human-caused Global Warming, because I followed the human-caused Global Cooling argument when they were current, and the climate scientists were just as sure human-caused Global Cooling was happening then as they are that human-caused Global warming is happening now. They were proven wrong about human-caused Global Cooling, so why should we assume they are correct about human-caused Global Warming now? Being very sure of oneself did not make the human-caused Global Cooling speculation come true.

    Publish a bunch of Global Cooling articles/scare stories and a bunch of Global Warming articles/scare stories and compare them. You will be amazed at how similar they are. The only difference is the temperture is going one way during one set of arguments and going the other way during the other set of arguments. The things they have in common are: humans are the cause of the problem, the problem could be catastrophic, and we need lots of money and government to fix the problem. Same tune, second verse.

  24. Konrad says:

    “Climate skeptics tend to be like a broken record. Many think they can win the climate debate through “science.”
    The debate can be won through science, but most sceptics can’t do this because they are “Lukewarmers”. Therefore all they can achieve is a endless squabble about determining imaginary figures for “climate sensitivity” to increasing CO2 concentrations. When the debate is reduced to the pseudo-science of “how much warming”, the propagandists win.

    Lukewarmer’s belief that the surface of our planet would be cooler without radiative gases is exactly the same as the AGW propagandist’s belief, and it is based on the same total lack of empirical evidence. AGW propagandists cheer when they hear a Lukewarmer mumble “well I accept CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, but …”, because that right there is where the argument was lost.

    Empirical experiment shows that 71% of the surface of our planet is an extreme SW selective surface not a near blackbody. Empirical experiment shows that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation cannot be used to determine how the sun heats the oceans. Empirical experiment shows that the 255K figure for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” is out by 80K for 71% of this planets surface, yet both Lukewarmers and AGW Believers alike accept that figure without question.

    Until sceptics accept that the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling not warming (not even “warming, but less than we thought”), the AGW propagandists will continue to win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *