Posted by: graemebird | April 20, 2007

A Message To Leftist Climatologists: I’m Right And You Are Wrong.

My attitude is the correct one as most typically expressed in that very last post of mine.

I’m right and you are wrong. And what’s pissing off about it is you guys will just blithely rewrite history like your crowd is trying to do with the DDT-Bureaucratisation-Holocaust.

But what’s fucking more annoying about it is that when everyone finally realises the truth of the situation you bastards won’t be sending me notes of apology and cheques-in-the-mail to compensate me for having to put up with your bullshit.

Time is running out for those climate scientists who have compromised-with (or yet even PUSHED) this trace-gas-hysteria to change sides. The only socially-responsible way to change sides is a TOTAL TURNAROUND DELIVERED IN A BLAZE OF MEDIA HYPE.

A TOTAL TURNAROUND DELIVERED IN A BLAZE OF MEDIA HYPE wherein dire warnings are issued as to the cost on mankind and the natural world if the leftist energy-deprivation crusade is not turned around quick-smart.

Many years from now you errant climate ‘scientists’ may not remember that I was right and you were wrong. But believe me I will never forget. And if you don’t make your move soon I’ll never forgive either.

And please don’t take the middle-of-the-road piss-weak approach that Kevin Vranes did. None of this OVERSELLING-OF-THE-CASE bullshit. There is no fucking case Kevin you weak shit.

I suppose I can’t be too hard on li’l-Kevvy because he did respond in something like good faith in the face of this gargantuan fraud. Perhaps he did his best. But his best wasn’t good enough. What we wanted was a total, unambiguous repudiation of the fraud.

In the end I guess Vranes couldn’t summon the moxie to do it right.

Its also important… 50 years after this fraud has been exposed.. to remember those scientists who stepped forward unambiguously, and took all that flack.

We should always remember these people because they will, in the final analysis, have saved many millions of lives from the depredations of leftist taxeaters gone wild.

Not that they will save ALL!!!! those many millions of lives. Its thirty years too late for that. But to the extent that they’ve retarded this leftist campaign they will yet have saved many of our brothers and sisters around the world.

And Lambert. Don’t fucking forget to send me the money in compensation for your constant bullshit. You too Quiggin.

Later on I will update this thread, listing many RIGHTEOUS scientists who stepped forward and did the right thing in response to this evil fraud. They are not skeptics. They are heroes. But even better then heros they are SCIENTISTS! in stark contrast to the leftist science-workers who oppossed them.

They are real SCIENTISTS. And thats a breed that appears to be pretty thin on the ground.

I shall make a list. But if you guys can bring a name to my attention then I’ll consider putting it down on the list of the people whose brave efforts we must never forget.

They will not grow old, as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them or the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we shall remember them.




  1. i think the AGW debate can be summed up in three points

    a) The AGWers overstate the magnitude of human warming (GMB might say there is no human warming but I disagree on this). When talking to the media they say that CO2 warming the Earth is scientifically undeniable but they leave out the fact that most of the predicted warming is attributed to feedback mechanisms. Their models overstated past warming so they had to invent fudge factors like aerosols to explain why past warming has been so small and why future warming might be so large.

    b) AGWers overstate the effects of warming. Specialists who disagree with the hysteria like Chris Landersea who resigned from the IPCC are ignored.

    c) AGWers ignore opportunity costs of anti-global warming investments. We have economists who support the notion that fossil fuels are subsidised because governments aren’t getting 8% real return on their road investments who then excuse the stern and his 1.x% discount rate.

  2. “GMB might say there is no human warming but I disagree on this…”

    No what I say is that no-one has the evidence for it. So that therefore it must be either slight or very slow-acting if it exists at all.

    And though it seems unlikely its not to be assumed that its not a negative effect given that we don’t have the evidence one way or the other.

    You are way understating the idiocy here Scrooge. Why did you assume that greenhouse-warming entails net costs in the first place?

    Thats totally implausible. Whereas A BRIGHTER SUN-based warming might involve costs and difficulties its not plausible to think that a bit of extra greenhouse warming would do so.

    So the working assumption has to be that more greenhouse effect would be a gain.

    Why would you think otherwise. Its a bizzare assumption. No plausibility to it even in the slightest.

  3. I see you delete the comments of your supporters too. You, sir, are a strange Bird.

  4. not really parkos 2.47
    delete all meaasages on this blog by “parkos”
    no further parkos will be entered into

  5. They often make not much sense without the other comments there. Its a general culling.

  6. parkos is an impostor. I am the real Parkos and descendant of Macquarie.


  7. zoocytium predestitute strelitz serological discodactyl ungenerousness unpercussed volery
    Allentown Municipal Employees’ Federal Credit Union

  8. NEW YORK – Dirk Nowitzki scored seven of his season-high 39 points in overtime and grabbed 15 rebounds, and the Dallas Mavericks snapped a five-game losing streak with a 124-114 victory over the New York Knicks last night. Josh Howard added

  9. The tide must certainly be turning in favor of rationality and away from the religion of global warming. It’s starting to become fashionable to question its tenets. Harry McGee writes in ther Irish Times: A new Irish film claims that

  10. Thanks for that. But I reckon the movement is fundamentally evil as well as wrong. You can tell that by contrasting the attitudes which come about when you find one of them that ISN’T evil. His ideas will make sense. So that therefore Lovelock is keen on nuclear energy with a vengeance. And his ideas make sense given his wrong point of view. You can see the inherent benevolence of his motivation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: