Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on Climate Alarmism Kills
- Andre Rohde Garder on Printing Rolls Of Money
- Robert Gipson on Climate Alarmism Kills
- Robert Gipson on Climate Alarmism Kills
- Colorado Wellington on Massive Carbon Reduction Success!
Archives
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Scott Adams’ tweet:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1079064694428598272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3Atan123%7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftomnelson.blogspot.com%2F
Based on a quick skim of the comments, Tony Heller wins. It wasn’t 97%, but a clear plurality nonetheless.
This is how the left “wins” their arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK-mnbH4s74
Unbelievable stupidity! (And I don’t mean the Trump supporter!) It’s no wonder that Hitler had such success in the 1930s with idiots just like the shop (supposed) assistant.
So many people get confused when they think that the Nazis were “Right Wing” when they were National SOCIALISTS.
The Nazi platform of 1920 had Socialist and Christian all over it–much like the Enabling Act speech 13 years later. But every socialist since 1945 swears that party “wasn’t really” socialist and every televangelist, preacher and pope swears it “wasn’t really” christian. So what does this have to do with the successful cartoonist suggesting that Tony Heller might profitably be consulted for comparison?
The common pattern is there. Alarmists who say it’s a waste of time to listen to skeptical arguments but don’t mind spending time arguing passionately that they are right.
They also leave no doubt that they think they are smart.
The media no longer even pretends to believe in free speech:
1. At the beginning of “Meet the Press” Chuck Todd said that his show is “not going to give time to climate deniers” just before hosting an hourlong panel discussion with lawmakers and experts about the consequences of climate change:
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/423264-chuck-todd-says-his-show-is-not-going-to-give-time-to-climate
2. Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has generated controversy with her use of of social media to spread far-right rhetoric.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/423254-justice-thomass-wife-under-scrutiny-for-partisan-posts
‘Chuck Todd said that his show is “not going to give time to climate deniers”…’
Ahhh, another open-minded liberal there.
Calling communo-fascist totalitarians “liberal” helps their image, and makes the caller seem uneducated to the entire rest of the planet. In every country not presided by Herbert Hoover liberal means something like libertarian or fiscal conservative. Libertarians are pro-energy and against carbon taxes.
Who might be the guy in the white coat with the goatee?
Too much hair and is relatively fit, but I see him in many other climate activist (s0-called scientists).
I just found this today… I did not realize a group at Yale responded with a video to the cartoon above:
Dilbert 1, Scientists 0.
The most amazing thing, however, is that it actually proves the points being made in the Dilbert cartoon. Rather than debunking the cartoon, the scientists acted it out in slow motion.
https://www.cato.org/blog/dilbert-1-scientists-0
I don’t know how they can do that rebuttal with a straight face, just one fallacy after another with false attribution.
I can’t figure that out either. It baffles me. It sort of reminds me of people who want to have a non-political debate about Marxism. And when you listen to them, every sentence they utter is political. The only way you can keep it non-political is if you agree with every point they make. Then where is the debate? (facepalm)
For the life of me, I have no clue how they manage it???
“… reminds me of people who want to have a non-political debate about Marxism.”
The theses of Marxism and CAGW have much in common. Just like the global warming hypothesis, Marxism provides its followers a universal method that can post-fact reconcile every possible outcome with its starting assumptions and declare the effect scientifically predictable. It is never wrong.
It’s not by accident that Marxists love the global warming scheme. Besides being a useful path to power it offers the same trusted universality of world view.
There is no escape from either once we accept their game.
The Yale video cites: 1. Andrew Dessler, 2. Sarah Myhre, 3. the IPCC, 4. Michael Mann, 5. Carl Mears, and 6. Ben Santer. To refresh memories:
Andrew Dessler: The king of Pal Review.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/hot-off-the-press-desslers-record-turnaround-time-grl-rebuttal-paper-to-spencer-and-braswell/
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/six-years-since-andrew-dessler-said-texas-would-be-hot-and-dry-for-the-rest-of-the-century/
Sarah Myhre: Just plain sad.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/07/the-sad-case-of-dr-sarah-myhre/
IPCC: GIGO.
Michael Mann: ditto.
Carl Mears: Buggered the satellite temperature records like Gavin Schmidt buggered the land temperature records to make the data match the models:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/03/tamper-tamper-how-they-failed-to-hide-the-gulf-between-predicted-and-observed-warming/
Ben Santer: crybaby/bully who fantasizes about beating up people who disagree with him professionally:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/how-climate-blogging-profoundly-affected-ben-santer/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/ben-santer-climate-change-responsible-for-hotter-and-colder-weather/
Yale is clearly not the school it used to be.
Fantastic! Yes, Tony is 100% the best, most persuasive skeptic around for all the reasons Scott Adams mentions. Thank you Tony and never stop. We need 10,000 Tony Heller’s to stop Borg!
Agreed! Just keep it basic and keep pounding it home! The graphs (and discussion) on this blog are the best…. I have learned so much from this forum:)
Ditto.
Here is an interesting article about what happened to Judith Curry when she began to look at both sides of the argument:
Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board.
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html
It will be interesting to see what happens as others are exposed to the actual data vs the narrative.
Dr. Curry is a hero.
Adams will be demonized even more from the left simply for asking a legitimate question, but unlike the many scientists that disagree with the “97%” he is financially secure.
An absolute classic Curry smack down of liar Mann during Congressional testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUMztYMuis
Whoops.
You can add this one as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3f42t4C7XU
Ummm…he’s a heroine….unless she’s doing “non-specific gendering”. /sarc
97% of all “experts” and journalists agreed that Hitlery would win by a landmile.
97% of hollywood stars(all of the hardcore feminists,of course) did not knew what Weinstein was doing,while singer Courtney Love was talking about it 14 years ago though she was just a part time actor.
Her acting carreer hit the wall about the same time she started talking about it.
(similar “carreers” can be found among climate scientists)
97% of climate scientists agree that Hansens predictions were 97% right though his predicted sea level rise is 99%+ wrong(as everything is that can be measured eg. polar bears)
97% of hollywood stars,journalists,”experts”,CEO’s and politicians agree
that islam is the religion of peace though 1400 years and the prophets behaviour and even the meaning of the word islam prooves them wrong and
though non muslims in indonesia,nigeria,ethiopia,greek turks,armenians , coptic people and the slaves in mauretania,lybia and sudan absolutely disagree .
But hundreds of years of experience means nothing compared to educated theoretical prostitutes in the west who never suffer the consequences of their preachings .
It is actually a deft sleight of hand.
Q: Did John commit the crime?
A: The Jury said he did.
You can answer that way almost instantaneously, with very little effort or thinking. While it might “appear” to answer the original question, it actually answers a question that was not asked.
This was the John Cook (97% Consensus Paper) stratagem. It is actually pretty brilliant in a way, as it shifts the discussion from the actual science, to the statistics, where it is far easier to muddy the waters.
I point this out when I get hit with the 97% consensus argument. Opinion is not proof, or science.
John Cook, the ex-cartoonist exposed.
http://www.populartechnology.net/search?q=john+cook
I have noticed ignorant believers that are new to CAGW Apologetics will link to Cook’s propaganda site. But, the veteran cultists still stuck on CAGW voodoo science usually avoid that mistake and now simply link to NOAA and NASA. (They have yet to accept the possibility of severe credibility issues including tampering with the climate record.)
I just noticed you can go on for hours arguing about the statistical studies of Cook and Oreskes and whether they are legitimate or not. With the illusion that you are getting closer to some resolution about AGW; but in reality you are really debating another topic entirely. In the simple example above, that would be: “Did the jury find him guilty?” which has nothing to do with whether John committed the crime. So, the whole discussion is a diversion or clever sleight of hand.
Anon,
I didn’t mean to dilute your point, re: your sleight of hand example. I agree. That question was avoided, and opinion is not science.
I read the articles in the past and came away with the clear understanding Cook’s ‘study’ is utter trash. The articles from WUWT alone tore him up.
The appropriate scientific reaction to Cook is:
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”.
Dis,
No, I did not think that… just that I was not clear with the example. And until I did start thinking about it, I would sometimes get taken off course by that line of (faulty) reasoning.
Thanks Anon. You were clear.
I see that argument as a form of manipulation that facilitates faulty reasoning. I suspect we have all fallen for that type of manipulation a time or two… or many times – my Introduction to Logic class was a long time ago. One side effect since my disillusionment is that my critical thinking skills have gotten much keener. I re-familiarized myself with illogical syllogisms and the common logical fallacies.
97% chance this person supported Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2chaabFmg
I would have said: “I’m sorry, man.”
:)
Toxic femulinity?
I don’t need NASA to tell me whats going on. I have a thermometer. I live in St. Cloud MN, the hub of North America and our temp records go back 130 some years. The record shows that the most recent 35 years had the exact same average temp as the years 1900 to 1934. In the meantime CO2 went up about 50%. No correlation. No warming. The alarmists are simply measuring the urban heat island effect. I have alerted the Minneapolis Star and Tribune newspaper a few times that they should do a story on the missing warming and they have no interest in doing so. Global Warming is simply Global politics.
In one response to Scott Adams there was “NASA v some guy named Tony”. It reminds me of an historical analogy, ie “The whole scientific world v some guy named Galileo”.
The comment shows the poor “argument” of the warmists, that is both an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack in the same breath. Gotta hand it to him for his closed mind.
Only a few days now ’til Manhattan disappears under water. That was a NASA prediction was it not?
Yeah. Manhattan under water. Sad. If only we’d listened.
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/united-states/new-york/new-york/new-york-manhattan.html
And here’s another scene of sea-level rise horror:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/united-states/florida/fort-myers-beach/fort-myers-beach.html
People…Run for high ground!