Well, if nobody’s going to ask the question, I will.

David

By any stretch of the imagination, the climate skeptic community and the people inside it willing to express that supposedly unfashionable viewpoint in public are in terms of representation a small one. It’s invariably portrayed by an overwhelmingly hostile mass media as diminishingly small, marginalised, insane, revanchist, bigoted, reactionary, scientifically ignorant, misogynist, racist, petroleum corrupted and whatever other vile aspersions they can think of.

We’re the niggas of the twenty-first century, we’re in the search and destroy zone, a free fire zone, if you find them standing in it, you shoot them, if they run, you shoot them as well. It’s a Rules of Engagement wet dream situation. Anything can be said of us by people who feel all white and moral as they string us up in the media. All that’s missing is hooded Klansmen with burning torches in the middle of the night but on reflection, that’s already happened.

Once you voice dissent, you automatically become all of those things and worse. Those slurs are not only untrue, but in my experience of being a member of that community, the reverse of most of those accusations is usually the rule. As with any community, there are a few individuals who fit the stereotype but that’s the usual hazard of being an outlier – deranged limpets seek to relieve their isolation by affixing themselves to you, and a measure of Christian charity tends to be exercised towards them. We’re a much less judgemental bunch of desperados and I’m partial to that sort of easy-going company.

As with any small community under siege by overwhelming force, it will either crumple under the pressure or the aggression will forge a sense of comradeship and that happened. As that arschloch Nietzsche said, whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. Given the gross mismatch in resources, I characterised the skeptic community a number of years ago as very much a guerrilla force which refused to be crushed by a superior foe. It was a formalisation and recognition of the real situation on the ground or should I say the internet, and it found a resonance with the community because quite simply it was true.

In a very calculated sense, that was always a reason for starting this blog and the contribution I thought I could make to the skeptic community and the voice of opposition. We were a disparate group, at one time the last best gasp of resistance but the commonalities, the patterns needed to be flagged up because that same independence of mind meant that in any practical sense of concentrating and pointing what little influence we had at anything more than passing targets of opportunity proved to be impossible. Believe me, I tried that on more than one occasion. So much of it is all couch potato yap, big fishies in little pools and no commitment to action. A much more insidious approach was required, and that’s what I do here.

The downside of surviving such a concerted assault from all sides, is that a community can easily turn inwards. That hasn’t happened and I think that’s largely because there’s a significant leadership demographic within it who have endured their own long dark night of the soul, wrestling between their conscience and their own professional self-interest. The choice was quite stark – speak up and take a kicking or just keep your gob shut like everyone else.

They thought over what they knew they’d surely lose by voicing their opposition but out of reasons of principal, ethics, pure cussedness or simply a refusal to be intimidated, made the decision to put themselves in harm’s way. People like that have a considered position, have already conceded the price they’ll pay and what that means is they simply won’t be going away anytime soon. We are fortunate to count ourselves in the company of such heroes, every one of them a warrior of conscience.

So, given we are such a minor, insular, marginalised, ignored and aberrant demographic, why are so many big guns being deployed against us? We’re irrelevant, as they never cease to tell us. Restated even more simply, why are all those big people picking on little old us?

Seriously, think about it. We’ve got at best a few spud guns and they’ve got all the tactical nukes, never mind the orbital ICBMs. Basically, there’s only us few chickens running around out here on the internet and a few survivor papers which manage to weasel it through the pal-reviewed publication process to the light of day and yet they seem OCD determined to obliterate us from the very face of the Earth.

If a decent sceptical article ever managed to see the light in an MSM publication, someone screwed up and they will be losing their job. We’ve got the mainstream media after us, nearly every scientist, nearly every politician up to and including the leader of the free world, anyone with a bulge bracket wallet who wants to sic various nutter enviro-groups on us and even Hollywood eye candy who’d have problems conjugating the verb to thunk. What the fuck did we ever do to deserve such massive attention? It’s overkill. What’s it all about Alfie?

I’ve thought about that question a lot and like most simple but basic questions, the answer is complex and layered. There’s a range of answers, like an onion with layers, so let’s start peeling that onion.

I suppose the first is that despite us all having finally evolved to moral perfection, a lot of people still have a deep psychological need for a whipping boy, someone to despise and feel superior to. Everyone is so politically correct, it’s no longer possible to vent your particular frustrations or feelings of low self-esteem on Niggers, Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals or whoever, but there’s one blessed exception. That would be us.

Everybody is in role. We have no way, no mechanism to reply and they can say pretty much anything with impunity. It’s been open season on us for a number of years. There’ve been various campaigns or calls for us to be fired from our professions, put in re-education camps, be criminilised for our dissent and even have denier tattooed on our forehead. It gets a bit worse though, climate skeptics tend to have read a few books and quite a few of them actually know stuff about business, engineering and science, and most Neanderthals like kicking the shit out of the brighter smaller kids anyway. It makes them feel better about themselves.

Thing is though – everybody knows that smartie kid is finding whacking great bloody holes in the supposedly “settled” science.

That leads us nicely on to the next layer. We’ve had at least two decades of what can only be described as bantam-weight thinking. The admittedly ivory towered intelligentsia of a bygone academia have by now been replaced by the chatterati, with the only difference being the former figuring out ways to prove angels actually did dance on pin heads and the latter just assuming it was so and going from there. It’s the triumph of needing things to be true over the real facts and people like us saying hang on a moment, can you prove that? Nobody appears to like that question.

Money of course is the next layer. There’s so many people making so much money and at the same time kidding everyone they’re doing something noble and good. I’ve written about them several times but in a deep tired sense, I’m really ended when it comes to writing anything more about them. I find it exhausting and depressing. They take the lives of our most vulnerable, and it’s done inch by inch, day by day, week by week, month by month through a brutal and freezing northern hemisphere winter. They’ll all get away with it too. I really hate them. Dante had no circle of hell for such creatures. Let’s move on before I lose it completely.

The next layer is frustration at what the establishment see as guerrilla warfare against big government. Everywhere around the world, government is getting bigger, getting more controlling and getting more prescriptive about what is a permissible viewpoint. And all of it for the best possible reasons. There are trends in the style of governance in democracies. We’ve slipped back into a 1970’s era of somehow believing more government is the solution to all of our problems, rather than the problem itself, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan.

Look around the real democracies and what becomes apparent is there is not much difference in the policies of incumbent administrations and the opposition. It’d be tough to slip a fag paper between the competing policies on offer. It’s a tired game of flicking a coin. Okay Mr Voter, place your bet, heads I win, tails you lose, okay? There are no real choices, the mainstream media has been brought to heel like a beaten cur and any resistance to climate dogma only occurs out here in the bad lands of the internet.

We are articulating opposition to what is taken to be so many consensual truisms by a world-wide political class who basically run things without anyone saying hang on a moment. They all come from the same well-heeled class, on a personal level talk only to each other and are used to people doing and believing as they say. They’ve never in their entire life done the week’s grocery shop or looked at a utility bill, never mind one they knew they didn’t have the money to cover.

The truth is that most administrations of the western democracies are either centrist or leftish of it, and I include in that cluster nominally right-wing parties because they’re by now too intimidated by an overwhelmingly liberal media to flex their muscles. Given that political consensus, the policies being pursued to combat global warming are essentially the same failed socialist ones of the dysfunctional 1970s, but now they’re being enacted under a cloak of saving the Earth.

Those policies didn’t work then and indeed their abject failure led to the politics of the right wing sweeping across the world in the 1980s. As soon as those socialist policies started to bite, the common person in desperation broke class ranks and the old demographic of always voting as your granddaddy did rapidly became a memory. Any appeal to vote along class lines is nowadays met only with blank stares. The whole idea of using the scare of Global Warming is essentially a pragmatic acknowledgement of the neo-con social engineering of the 1980s, which destroyed that automatic alignment of the proletariat’s voting patterns with Marxist theology.

Global Warming is the maskirovka, as the Soviets used to say. It’s a second bite of the cherry but once you strip the glitter and tits off it is seen as the same old decayed fruit, and suffers from that same fatal flaw and assumption that came with it in the 1970s. The chances of propagandising the unpolitised centre, the Moms and Dads with a passel of kids, into becoming ardent socialists is no better than persuading them to become enthusiastic fascists. They pay the bills, they know better.

I suppose the innermost layer of the onion in the climate wars are the colours, just a part of a wider struggle. If they lose it, they’re gone and looking at the latest Gallup poll, they’ve lost it. Going forward, you might as well be warned, it’s going to get a lot uglier as they go down.

Once upon a time there was a guy called Bill Shankly. What crappy statistics WordPress gives me, assures me that 75% of the readership will have no idea of him. However, and overcoming my natural antipathy to Liverpool FC, he said something germane to the climate wars. “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

In a very similar sense, we’re in the ring fighting for a lot more than cone head science, and that’s why all the big guns are aimed at poor little us.

And we’re winning.

©Pointman

Comments
28 Responses to “Well, if nobody’s going to ask the question, I will.”
  1. Katabasis says:

    One of your best yet Pointy.

    Articulates perfectly how I feel as an academic, climate sceptic and a right winger. I’m not long for the first btw anymore because of the other two….

  2. Anne Ominous says:

    This, sir, is an admirable and most poignant essay. I hope you don’t mind if I continue quoting you until… well… the government is forced to allow the cows to come home.

    I shall be sure to properly cite the source. Or perhaps “credit” is the better word.

  3. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    Thanks for another great read and the trip down memory lane to all those previous posts. You’ve certainly covered some territory in recent years and you always hit the nail squarely on the head.

    Robert Ruark wrote a book called “Use Enough Gun”, about hunting big game in Africa. Using anything of a lesser calibre than was necessary for a clean kill was certain to wound and injure the animal therefore making it more dangerous – to the hunter himself.

    Pointy, you say … “We’ve got at best a few spud guns and they’ve got all the tactical nukes …”

    Our spud guns have been well aimed and we’ve shot holes through so many of their stupid theories and predictions and exposed their corrupted data. Actually, Mother Gaia herself has been our best asset because the cantankerous cow herself keeps exposing the Alarmist claims as ludicrous – the theoretical woman just won’t conform to their agenda or their useless theoretic climate models.

    They made a big mistake in trying to take down our sceptic heroes – as a tribe we’re all wounded and dangerous. We’ll keep plugging away because it’s the Alarmists themselves who keep providing the ammo for our spud guns and we will never stop our guerilla campaign. Someone in their bunker had better have the cojones to use their “tactical nukes” because nothing less will ever make us give up the fight.

    • meltemian says:

      Ah but “cojones” is something they don’t have as they have proved time and time again. They refuse to take us on in any sort of meaningful discussion and prefer to snipe from the sidelines. Unless they can call the tune they run away from true confrontation.

  4. The climate models on which the entire Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.
    The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.
    For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range.For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle.
    I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America.are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future

    • Bart says:

      Bang on. Everything is linear in the climate world. Lay people are just so ill-equipped to understand. They have no inkling of how benighted and substandard the “science” is on this.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        It isn’t even “science”! It is nonsense composed of a few meaningless “equations” mixed with some erudite-sounding jargon and supposedly the product of deductive reasoning that allows meaningful predictions. It is none of that. It is casuistry supported with nothing more than attempted character assault.

        How and why the political Left hitched their wagon to this one is a mystery to me – although not the first time in history something like this has been associated with them

      • dadodeaf says:

        Go read your Engels and Marx and then visit the US Communist Party (CPUSA) website today. Those folks have tried to pin environmental disaster on Capitalism from the mid-1800’s onward. It is a popular and oft repeated theme of theirs. It was interesting that after the Iron Curtain fell Gorbachev’s next move was as leader of the European Green Party.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        That’s it, then. Dialectical Materialism is the Scientific foundation of AGW.

        Beatniks and hippies were useless, unfortunately they became a detriment, and not simply a burden, to society with this

  5. richard clenney says:

    I have followed this for the last 20 yrs, read a bunch; this is the best, most clear, evaluation
    of reality I have read. Thank you. We may still win, but the outcome is still in doubt. You
    could add a”RULE’. If you know you won’t like the answer, don’t ask the question.

  6. Keitho says:

    Excellent article Pointy. A clarion call for us to keep on keeping on because they have begun to fear us for our grit and righteousness.

    Guerrillas indeed.

  7. catweazle666 says:

    “By any stretch of the imagination, the climate skeptic community and the people inside it willing to express that supposedly unfashionable viewpoint in public are in terms of representation a small one.”

    For all that, it seems that the majority of the population are not taken in by the alarmism of the Warmists.

    According to the 2015 United Nations My World Global survey now covering the views of 7,361,305 respondents action on climate change comes flat last – 16th of 16 categories – of causes for concern.

    http://data.myworld2015.org/

  8. Brian G Valentine says:

    Seems to me that loudest and most indigestible global warming antagonists have some personal character flaw/stink/perversion associated with them. I have never heard any of that associated with the other side – and are proud they have nothing to hide

  9. I must be an aberration, because IRL I speak about #AGW and how the Global Warming is causing winters to be colder meme, the oceans are flooding the statue of Liberty meme, the poor polar bears meme etc, and find receptive and supportive audience whenever I do so.

    Perhaps it’s because I’m not in an academic or university setting, but among adults who have jobs and are productive members of society?

  10. maltesertoo says:

    Pointman,
    I only have two words for this post: A gem.

  11. Russ Steele says:

    Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
    Caution, this article should not be read by liberal warmers, it could damage their health and mental stability.

    • Graeme No.3 says:

      I think their mental condition doesn’t merit the description ‘stability’.

      • Old Rooster says:

        Perhaps “further damage their health and mental instability” would be more to the Point!😄😉‼️

        The AGCC, or however else described, scam is certainly one of the greatest mental health challenges of our time: being as it is a case of mass hysteria and delusion orchestrated by shysters, who in many cases, have succumbed to their own bullshit. Perhaps Ima Debatin could refer to this as the “Earth as mental health facility run by the inmates” meme.

  12. geronimo says:

    Bill Shankly also had another aphorism, which is as pertinent as any, he once said that he’d never had an education which had led to him needing to use his brains most of his life. He’d have been as baffled by highly educated people telling us they can foretell the future as anyone who has to use their brains” is.”

    Great essay Pointy and as a LFC supporter I sympathise with your antipathy.

  13. fmb says:

    This is the first time I’ve stumbled across your blog. Edgy, well written, and intelligent.

    I think you missed a ring or two of the onion–or perhaps they were embedded between the lines in your commentary.

    For one, I think the obvious lying has eroded the climate change argument.

    Secondly, the manipulated data and unpublished computer model assumptions have damaged their credibility as well. After all, the heart and soul of science is that other scientists can review your work and repeat the experiments. So you have to ask yourself, why are the warmists so reluctant to reveal their data and methods. while the skeptics freely publish there data for all to see and analyze? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    Third, not a single prediction of doom and gloom that the warmists have made since the first Earth Day in 1970 within the specific time frames they have established have ever materialized. We only have five years until … We only have ten years until… etc. Check it out. Not one has been accurate.

    Finally (not really, but in the interest of time and space) the claims of the warmists simply do not correspond with historical realities. During the last North American Ice Age (the Wisconsin Stage), ice sheets of 3-4 kilometers (up to 2.5 miles) thick extended down to about the southern edge of the Great Lakes. That’s a lot of ice. So what caused the ice sheets to begin melting about 10,000 years ago–the CO2 from caveman fires roasting the rabbit catch de jour? No, it was the natural cycle of glacial cooling and interglacial warming. 10,000 years ago (about) the Holocene period (cycle) of warming began and has continued to the present. So the temperatures is warming? Duh, yes, for the pays 10,000 years.

    However, there is mounting evidence that we are entering the 19th “little ice age” that will last for about 100 years (about 50 years of steady cooling followed by 50 years of gradual warming.

    So a tip of the old Donegal to you for you article. But there is so much more to the climate change scam.

  14. Gary in Erko says:

    Another hypothesis – Every now and then a black fairy glides overhead sprinkling bad fairy dust. eg: The medieval witch hunts. eg: HItler’s willing executors. eg: US Civil War. eg: Climate apocalypse tyranny. We’re stuck with it until she’s had enough of her laughs. After it’s over those who succumbed won’t remember why nor that they did. Just be patient is all we’ve got.

  15. hillbilly33 says:

    Apologies for the belated comment Pointy, but read the comments on the linked site to get an idea of the idiotic tripe we’re getting from University academics in Australia. These people are teaching our kids and /or grandkids!

    ‘The Conversation’ has also just announced an expansion into South Africa as part of a growing world -wide spread. Anyone trying to ask pertinent questions or put an alternative point of view is usually jumped on very quickly and generally edited out.

    They just love preaching to the converted!

    http://theconversation.com/us-submits-climate-target-to-un-while-australia-looks-for-excuses-39625?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+April+2015+-+2600&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+2+April+2015+-+2600+CID_522acc44cdd70df87be065f2d090962b&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=US%20submits%20climate%20target%20to%20UN%20while%20Australia%20looks%20for%20excuses

  16. Geoff Sherrington says:

    With much of my career spent in the application of good science to mineral exploration, and with much success, in retirement now I can say that I was never the slightest shade of green or even pink. There was no need for an Eureka moment.
    There was also the experience, the learning, that even with the best of sciece applied, some expected outcomes simply did not happen. While each type of measurement we made was sometimes positive for the discovery of yet another mine – our small team found about 10 of them in 30 years – there were many times when we did not find economically viable ore. So what, that is the nature of science. When your predictions become 100% good, it ceases to be science because there is little interest in taking certainty further.
    So to climate models and projections and wishful thinking. Sure, any well rounded scientist can accept the proposition that GHG should warm the globe, but that hypothesis does not come with any certainty, let alone 100%. It is a notion that has to be tested, with the expectation that more often than not, it will fail.
    It was simply ignorant and juvenile to use the science is settled meme. It took no effort, no moral turmoil, to be sceptical from the beginning, because compared to what I was used to, the science of climate was unbelievably poor.
    There is no sense of loss here. Truth will out. There was an earlier episode like this, in the 1980s, about a coming epidemic of cancers from man-made chemicals (Edith Efron’s “The Apocalyptics” is a must read because it describes the end game, largely one of defection of big names as the good science started to prevail.)
    Sadly, by the time the climate science perversions are corrected, I shall be too old to cackle.
    But, corrected it shall be, so do worry less, Pointy.
    I so much enjoy your writing. Chin up, better times are emerging.
    Geoff.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Well, if nobody’s going to ask the question, I will. | Pointman’s. […]



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: