On the Ball on climate

Dealing with post-modernist global warmists is the kind of contradiction the left thrives on. There’s no truth but my truth so long as it’s their truth; at least that’s their mantra. Except on global warming, where they know the truth, although the truth cannot be known for at least thirty years (or perhaps it will now all be revealed within twelve years).

I am always meeting global warming cranks and they are always willing to discuss it. So I say, why do you believe such things? What’s your evidence? And they always have evidence that convinces them. The last three that I can recall:

The Solomon Islands are sinking beneath the waves – the oceans are therefore rising when in fact the islands are sinking
The glaciers in the Alps are receding – which they have been doing since the 1850s
Flying foxes are coming into Victoria where they never were before because it used to be too cold which turned out to be a completely garbled story of zero global warming significance.

People are determined to believe the most nonsensical things, and they find confirmation everywhere. Perhaps they should have a word with Tim Ball who can set them straight. A very brave man. I’m afraid you may have to wind the start of the video back to the beginning.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to On the Ball on climate

  1. Rafe Champion

    Michael Mann has become an embarrassment to his colleagues. When he took Mark Stein to court he invited other warmists to join him in the suite but not a single one stepped up. His once-famous hockey stick that was the feature of the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report has not been mentioned again after it was revealed as a mistake based on incompetent statistical analysis plus a bit of fraud.

  2. bespoke

    Click on through to youtube and you get a Wikipedia under the vid. Is Mann and others getting the same?

  3. bespoke

    Users may see information from third parties, including Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, alongside videos on a small number of well-established historical and scientific topics that have often been subject to misinformation online, like the moon landing.

    https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9004474?hl=en-GB

  4. Herodotus

    From Jo Nova’s site:
    A detailed report on BoM homogenisation, with particular reference to Port Hedland.
    Link

  5. Tom

    If there’s one word that describes the current era it’s gullible.

  6. billie

    Gullible or entitled?

    Most of the climate change believers I have met don’t care for facts, or at least, your facts. As they say, you can find anything on the internet for and against.

    But, having decided that climate change is happening, they feel entitled to have it corroborated by everyone and if you don’t well how dare you, that’s not fair

    This is a generation brought up to all be in everything together, no winners or losers and if you don’t like the way things are done around here, well you are in the wrong

  7. calli

    That was very informative, Hero.

    I didn’t know about the reduction of volume in the Stevenson screens. Another experiment in Spain.

  8. Iampeter

    Except on global warming, where they know the truth, although the truth cannot be known for at least thirty years (or perhaps it will now all be revealed within twelve years).

    Yet scientist buddies I speak with still accept it as gospel. Telling them otherwise just has their heads explode, even though the hockey stick is widely debunked.
    Similar to telling Trump supporters they may have made a bad decisions.
    It’s just anecdotal, but it seems just like with Trump supporters, those who believe in CAGW have invested so much in this belief that they’re now engaging in the sunk cost fallacy. They will keep doubling down instead of having to face how disastrously wrong and maybe even career-endingly ignorant they are.

  9. Iampeter

    Tim Ball is great and while I think the science behind CAGW is interesting to discuss, I also think it’s a red herring. It’s being used to create an emotional argument in order to support this particular brand of leftists ideas of government.
    But politics is not determined by science. Those of us who are actually right-wing believe in rights-protecting government. Until the facts of reality that lead to this conclusion change, the function of government will not change either.
    So these days I just argue that even if man-caused climate change is going to destroy the world tomorrow, it doesn’t justify destroying the world today via rights-violating government policies advocated by environmentalists.

  10. mh

    Yet scientist buddies I speak with still accept it as gospel.

    Iampeter, those men in white coats might not be scientists.

    Just sayin’.

  11. a happy little debunker

    The empirical evidence does not support 31 of the 32 IPCC global warming models.

    31/32 x 100 = 96.875%

    ERGO 97% of a climate emergency is disproved

  12. The Solomon Islands are not sinking. From Wiki
    “On 2 April 2007 at 07:39:56 local time (UTC+11) an earthquake with magnitude 8.1 occurred at hypocenter S8.453 E156.957, 349 kilometres (217 miles) northwest of the island’s capital, Honiara and south-east of the capital of Western Province, Gizo, at a depth of 10 km (6.2 miles).[29] More than 44 aftershocks with magnitude 5.0 or greater occurred up until 22:00:00 UTC, Wednesday, 4 April 2007. A tsunami followed killing at least 52 people, destroying more than 900 homes and leaving thousands of people homeless.[30] Land upthrust extended the shoreline of one island, Ranongga, by up to 70 metres (230 ft) exposing many once pristine coral reefs.[31]

    On February 6, 2013, an earthquake with magnitude of 8.0 occurred at epicentre S10.80 E165.11 in the Santa Cruz Islands followed by a tsunami up to 1.5 metres. At least nine people were killed and many houses demolished. The main quake was preceded by a sequence of earthquakes with a magnitude of up to 6.0. ”
    note uplift by 70m but as someone said alarmists do not believe in facts.

  13. Ceres

    From above:
    “So I say, why do you believe such things? What’s your evidence? And they always have evidence that convinces them. The last three that I can recall…….”
    The other hoary old chestnut the climate zealots drag out, as mentioned by Tim Ball, is, well Im not a scientist but I’ll go with the 97% of scientists who do know.
    When you consider how everyone under 27 has been subjected to a daily dose of climate hysteria through school and university, the brainwashing has been effective. Shame on them for not doing their own research easily available nowadays, compared to what we oldies had as resources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.