Why Climate Alarmists Are The Stupidest People On Earth – Literally

Fourteen years ago, the UK’s chief scientist said we would all have to pack our bags and move to Antarctica – literally.

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live – literally

It is the hottest week of the year in Antarctica, and temperatures have reached a scorching -30C.

Climate Reanalyzer

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Why Climate Alarmists Are The Stupidest People On Earth – Literally

  1. Kris Johanson says:

    I haven’t seen any Antarctica Real Estate Investment Trusts pop up lately, so apparently nobody’s believing it

  2. RAH says:

    Yea. That’s why I could never be a reporter. I would be the one yelling at Al Gore as he hustled to his SUV “Why haven’t you invested in ocean front property in Antarctica yet?”

  3. Ed Bo says:

    I’ll bet the “snowbirds” from Siberia want to move there!

  4. Top 10 contender for the “Fake Climate Awards”

  5. oldbrew says:

    UK’s chief scientist said we would all have to pack our bags and move to Antarctica – literally

    Message to Sir David King: You first.

  6. Richard Greene says:

    This website is probably the
    best in the entire world
    for exposing the lack of
    real science behind the
    decades of climate predictions,
    by using the simple strategy
    of publishing what they predicted
    … many years later.

    Thirty years of wrong predictions,
    and we have a lot of evidence
    the wild guesses of the future
    climate were mainly intended to scare
    people, and have no predictive

    My only question is why all
    climate skeptics don’t focus on
    wrong predictions, since
    the entire globaloney scare
    is based on scary (wrong) predictions,
    and almost no science.

    Sure, there are scientists and
    supercomputers and so-called
    computer games, er, I mean
    climate models … but they are
    only props to make the
    predictions seem more believable.

    Now that Mr. Heller has a swelled up ego,
    from my complements …
    … his politics posts should be a separate blog,
    or separate section of this website,
    NOT included with nature photos and
    climate posts.

    Although I generally agree with
    Mr Heller’s conservative politics,
    there are a lot of people who don’t,
    and those people need
    to read about the failed
    climate predictions
    more than anyone else!

    Move the politics post elsewhere
    and this would become the best
    website in the world for
    climate change believers
    to review the silly past predictions,
    and possibly start to wonder
    why today’s predictions should
    be believed.

    With the politics presented here,
    I suspect at least half the population
    would not stay here more than
    five or ten minutes … missing an
    opportunity to learn something
    about the false demonization
    of CO2.

    The extremely clear nature photos
    are a great addition to a climate
    website … but not Mr. Heller’s notorious
    temper when someone disagrees with
    him in the comments — that’s entertaining
    to me, but counterproductive
    for promoting debate — a primary goal
    of having comments, I would think.

    Just my two cents.

    You can ban me from the website
    if you don’t like it!

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I think I know what you mean but here is the thing:

      The global warming propaganda project is a major plank in the worldwide “Progressive” campaign to abridge individual liberties and property rights, and to broaden the power of centralized governments and multinational organizations over the people. It is the “Progressives” who politicized climate science and launched political attacks against those who oppose them.

      If you then engage in any effort focusing on something that is political at its very core, how do you take politics out of it? I know, it’s “the other politics”. Some do it to a degree, though WUWT, for example, became more political over the years, not less. You may be able to reach a few who developed doubts about the most stupid and outrageous global warming claims but whose sympathies and leanings will remain “Progressive”.

      I am fine with practical politics an I’m more than willing to enter tactical alliances with people who are my strategic political adversaries but how big do you think this group of potential “Progressive climate dissenters” really is? How powerful is this temporary ally? Not very much in my experience and I base it on my observations of some very “Progressive” and academically credentialed individuals in the Peoples’s Republic of Boulder.

      I don’t know how large is the segment of “Progressives” for whom the understanding of the totalitarian nature of the global warming campaign would lead to a complete abandonment of their “Progressive” ideology and politics but I’m similarly skeptical. Such political epiphanies are rare. I know too many Democrats—old hippies and sixties activists—who fashion themselves as libertarians but support and vote for the most illiberal policies imaginable. They are a lost cause in my opinion. They will continue living in cognitive dissonance rather than fundamentally change. Not much different, really, than Communist sympathizers who know about the past horrors of Communism but say they will do it right this time.

      Tony should tell the truth as he sees it.

      • Richard Greene says:

        Thanks for the long thoughtful supply Colorado.

        Of course Mr. Heller can do as he pleases.

        But what he does best is dig up historical (hysterical)
        predictions and point out they were wild guesses,
        just like today’s predictions are.

        I don’t think it is necessary to call climate alarmists “stupid” (they may be, but everyone is stupid on some subjects — Einstein couldn’t balance his checkbook!) directly,
        when you can imply that
        simply by showing them how wrong
        prior predictions were.

        The goal should be to convince people humans can’t predict the future climate — the hoax collapses if people realize that.

        I’m a libertarian and like some of the things Trump has done, and dislike others, based on my understanding of economics — my opinions on the tax cut, or the “government shutdown”, have nothing to do my analysis of the climate change myth.

        I believe it is possible to be a liberal, or even a progressive, and not believe a climate change catastrophe is coming … just like I can be a libertarian and not favor Trump’s tax cuts, and not want pot to be legal.

        I can be against abortion in the last trimester, and for abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy — not everyone is “all blue” or “all red” all the time.

  7. Extreme Hiatus says:

    Come on Tony! Didn’t you see that was PROFESSOR SIR David King. How dare you question his authority.

    He was obviously talking about penguins, at least the kinds that only live there now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.