Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Another pathetic attempt to dodge scientific reality by quoting a scientist as opposed to the majority of scientists; who:
1. Had no meaningful way of making the calculations necessary to come even close to an accurate description of what Global Warming would actually do and when.
2. Was, unlike most scientists of the time, a fool.
Now here is the superb logic of (choke, gag) skeptics:
a. The exception is the rule.
And its corollary:
a1. A fool (or a few fools) in one group represents the entire group.
b. You can pooh pooh reality away
c. True science (i.e. understanding reality) requires no quantification; just anecdotes and complaints about people’s faults, gaffes, etc.
d. Never make a committal to any meaningful prediction. Leave yourself open to anything that happens in the future an then claim that you predicted it. Example; predicting that the Arctic ice cap will either grow shrink or stay the same (remember who said that?) In other words, cover all bases.
And its corollary:
d1. So you can afford to throw rotten tomatoes at anything scientists say. That’s because when they’re vindicated by reality you can always point to another of your predictions that happens to coincide with what real thinkers predicted.
No effort, no sweat.
By the way, skeptics would make excellent weather men:
“And tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.”
I don’t have direct communication with the borg, so I quote Locutus.
“And tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.”
Sounds more like what alarmists say, in respect to what AGW causes.
@IWB: Something I see in common with you and just about every other warmist I have encountered … you are all so negative. Have you all forgotten how to enjoy and appreciate life and what a gift it truly is? Or are you capable of nothing but doom and gloom, and making others feel guilty for simply being on this Earth? What a sad existence … predicting floods, droughts, sea level rise, etc. and secretly (or not) hoping they happen just so you can say “I told you so”.
Ill wind blowing, I says, AGW Believers have another pathetic attempt to dodge scientific reality by quoting a concensus as opposed to the majority of facts; where:
1. They Have no meaningful way of making the calculations necessary to come even close to an accurate description of what Global Warming would actually do and when.
2. Most likely the gravy train scientists of the time, are all fools.
Now here is the superb logic of (choke, gag) Believers:
a. The exception is the rule.
And its corollary:
a1. A fool (or a few fools) in one group represents the entire group. Drink the Kool Aid you fools! Did I think that out loud?
b. You can pooh pooh reality away
c. True science (i.e. understanding reality) requires no quantification; Just faith and believe, just make anecdotes and complaints about people’s faults, gaffes, etc. to keep the faith.
d. Never make a committal to any meaningful prediction. Always use words like maybe, might, could, possibly, and very likely to leave yourself open to anything that happens in the future an then claim that you predicted it. Typicle alarmist behavior. Example; predicting that AGW wil cause warmcold, wetdry, and it will snow or not ever again or stay the same (remember Alarmist said that?) In other words, cover all bases to get a Cap and Tax.
And its corollary:
d1. So you can afford to throw rotten tomatoes at anything skeptic may say. That’s because when they’re vindicated by reality you can always point to another of your predictions that happens to coincide with what computer modles say.
No effort, no sweat.
By the way, Believers would make excellent weather men as it seems they are already predicting:
“tomorrow we’ll have the possibility of light, medium, or heavy rains or no rain at all. Temperatures will be on the cold side with a possibility of their being on the hot side. No winds to heavy winds.” Just to cover all bases.
ME:
Your version fits the current reality! IWB was projecting its own conditions on what it considers the opposing tribe.
But wait….I thought all climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age by the year 2000? What happened?
I thought all alarmists were wired in to the same collective.
I must return to Unimatrix 001.
Pingback: 24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 10 | Watts Up With That?
The original article was written by an “Arctic Specialist.” If you would have confronted him about the facts, methods, and calculations behind his “prediction” back in the day he wrote this, I’m 100% sure he would have used the same arguments the AGW crowd uses. “Our analysis is light-years ahead of the crude techniques and equipment that scientists had just a few decades ago. Our conclusions are far, far superior to the well-intentioned, but uninformed scientists from the past.” This guy was an “arctic specialist”, who certainly would have bristled at the suggestion that he wasn’t smart enough to get it right. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, the AGW beilevers are ignorant of their own ignorance when it comes to measuring and modelling the earth’s energy balance. Just because our metrics have “improved” (which is debatable), doesn’t mean they are yet sufficient to understand or model the earth.