[N_Fiddledog]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

This guy is hilarious. Long video but worth a watch.

Not just hilarious.

He's dead-on correct about every truth behind every joke.

[N_Fiddledog]

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's one from Professor Roger Pielke at Forbes Magazine:

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

[N_Fiddledog]

I kind of suspected this was going to turn out to be the case after I heard it was an actual incident:

LaRouche PAC Claims Credit for ‘Eat the Babies’ Prank That Fooled Ocasio-Cortez

$1:

The extremist, antisemitic LaRouche PAC claimed responsibility for the “troll” at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) town hall on Thursday, who said we must “eat the babies” in order to save the planet from climate change.
The bizarre moment unfolded at Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall at the Queens Public Library on Thursday after a woman stood up and proclaimed that we must “eat the babies” to save the planet from climate change, leaving the New York lawmaker dumbfounded.



“A Swedish professor [said] we can eat dead people, but that’s not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: ‘We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! There is too much CO2,” the woman said.

“I’m so happy that you really are supporting New Green Deal, but it’s not enough, you know. Even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people,” she continued.

“Too much pollution, so we have to get rid of the babies! That’s a big problem. We need to eat the babies!” she declared.

Ocasio-Cortez did not address the woman’s plea to “eat the babies” specifically, telling her that “we need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it does present.”

“Luckily we have more than a few months. We do need to hit net zero in several years,” the far-left “Squad” member said.



Upon the initial report, Breitbart News noted that it was unclear if the woman was a genuine supporter or someone spoofing the socialist lawmaker.

The extremist, antisemitic LaRouche PAC– the same group that was responsible for Obama-Hitler posters, which the Tea Party was wrongly blamed for – claimed responsibility for the woman’s bizarre performance.

https://twitter.com/larouchepac/status/ ... -cortez%2F

Its founder, Lyndon LaRouche Jr. – who ran for president eight times between 1976 and 2004 (often as a Democrat) – touted a swath of bizarre conspiracy theories and created a cult-like following.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... io-cortez/

[Sunnyways]

Even by denialist standards, those 500+ ‘scientists’ are a motley crew:

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ieNWA4.pdf

Some analysis:

$1:

While reviewing the claims related to agriculture, I noted that only 26 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science. I suspect that the vast majority of signatories had little direct knowledge or understanding of this part of the petition that they signed. This made me curious to delve more deeply into the makeup of the signatory list.

I usually try to steer clear of any ad hominem tactics, and instead evaluate claims solely on their own merits. However, the fact that this group is vocally promoting themselves as “knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields” made me wonder if that claim is actually supported by the signatories’ credentials. In a word, the answer is no.

I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.

The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%).

I also noticed a peculiar omission in the list of signatories: women. Among the 506 names, only 24 were female names (with another 15 that were initials-only or unisex). That means that about 95% of the signers were men. Even for male-heavy fields such as geology and engineering, this is a staggering imbalance. I suspect that the imbalance may have been heightened by the fact that the signers skewed heavily toward the older generation – for example, there were 79 emeritus professors on the list (16% of the total).

Again, I’d prefer to evaluate claims on their own merits. But if the ECD group is going to tout their own credentials, then it needs to be pointed out that a large fraction of their 506 signatories have credentials like “Peter Champness, Radiologist, Australia”; “Patrick Mellett, architect and CEO”; and “Fintan Ryan, Retired Senior Airline Captain” (to say nothing of the dozens and dozens of fossil fuel employees).

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... e-science/

Why do so many non-experts think they have something useful to say to us on this subject?

[Martin15]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Why do so many non-experts think they have something useful to say to us on this subject?

[Thanos]

All roads need basic yearly maintenance to stay usable. That applies to cobblestones and brick as much as it does to asphalt and gravel. Go cheap in order to play Austerity Hero with streets and roads and no amount of engineering is going to keep them passable for more than a few years.

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Why do so many non-experts think they have something useful to say to us on this subject?

Because they're being paid to push a political agenda.

[fifeboy]

Thanos Thanos:

Because they're being paid to push a political agenda.

I see we have a BINGO.

[Thanos]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Thanos Thanos:

Because they're being paid to push a political agenda.

I see we have a BINGO.

S'up, bro.

[N_Fiddledog]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

Even by denialist standards, those 500+ ‘scientists’ are a motley crew:

"Denialist standards?"

I doubt you even know much about the chicken little, climate alarmist standards you'd prefer to follow.

The perfect storm of climate nonsense came to a peak with the 2007 IPCC report where the claim was the report was created by over 2000 climate scientists.

This report was the one that finally set off all the climate hysteria that followed.

You might want to check out who these "climate scientists' were who supposedly created the report. You're going to find administrators, environmental activists, grad students, experts from fields like traffic safety, and a small group of actual scientists from varying fields (a not insignificant portion of them what you're now calling "denialists," except nobody listened to them.)

Before you start name-calling and judging "standards" you might want to step off your high horse and judge your own. Or at least be aware of what they are.

BTW all kinds of Physicists can work with computer models just like Climate Alarmist extraordinaire, and astrophysicist, James Hansen did . An engineer like Steve MacIntyre can understand the math and expose hoaxes like the hockey stick graph. A meteorologist like Anthony Watts can expose the flaws in the land surface temperature data. A geologist can tell you about previous climates. Climate is a multi-discipline field of study. This idea that there has always been some sort of mythical consensus of what you'd like to think are "climate scientists" who know when the world will end is crap. And what there is has no claim to any sort of superior "standards."

[Sunnyways]

That letter was signed in the main by people with absolutely no particular knowledge of the subject. Their opinions carry no more weight than mine, i.e. in the region of none.

[N_Fiddledog]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

That letter was signed in the main by people with absolutely no particular knowledge of the subject.

Really? And you know that because you talked to them personally? Somebody told you that, right?

I saw the demographics of the fields of study your source laid claim to. Even if we accept the claims, those representatives of the fields seem capable of reading the literature and understanding it.

Myself I'd be most impressed with engineers because they deal in the real world. Steve McIntyre for example investigated frauds in the mining industry. He seemed imminently qualified to investigate Mann's Hockey Stick. Burt Ruttan builds aircraft. He can understand the science and he's a skeptic.

Bjorn Lomborg's education is in Political Science but he is the guy one goes to on the Mitigation versus adaptation question as it relates to what to do about what you would call "climate change."

Roger Pielke jr has degrees in math and political science. He has done scholarly critiques of things like IPCC graphs.

Here's a social scientist who will tell you what his views are on the subject and how experience in his field led him to his conclusions:




And if you still want to think you have a point explain to me why I'm supposed to take economist Nicholas Stern and his MSM lauded review of the economic effects of climate change, or Library Science's Naomi Oreskes' claim of Scientific consensus seriously from your side.

[fifeboy]

Reminds me of:
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

[N_Fiddledog]

Come to think of it can one of you guys who believes there's all these, what you want to call, "climate scientists" around and only they are capable of producing anything credible in the field explain to me where your claim of 93% consensus comes from. Give me the fields of the guys producing what you'd like to call "the science" on that one.

And no, Fifer questions about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have nothing to do with doubters of evolution, much as some would like to conflate the two for deflection when they start to realize they're trapped in their bad arguments on the climate question.

[PluggyRug]

The only real deniers are those claiming that climate change is a recent phenomena. I would be more concerned if the climate stopped changing.