Climate Scientists & Gratutious Cleavage

(Since the following post is quite dry, I shall endeavor to alleviate the tedium with some easy-on-the-eye graphics. To wit- Gratuitous cleavage shots of Scarlett Johanssen. To my more purient Constant Readers, enjoy. To the more prudish, Why are you reading this site?)


Seems Larry Bell over at Forbes is getting into a pissing match with
the head of the American Geophysical Union over at Glowball Warmening Inc...
The back and forth in the comments section is quite the spectacle.

First - the takedown by Larry-
We Get What We Pay For With Disastrous Climate Science
Go- read it. Tasty stuff.



HeadGuy takes offense at Larry's position and presumes to school him.

Head Guy from AGU: "Many research scientists – including members of the American Geophysical Union – are dedicated to promoting discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity. The scientific method that governs their work has been well established for centuries. Applied to the problem of climate change, the conclusions are clear: Our climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming. Climate scientists worldwide are in virtually unanimous agreement about the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence on this issue."

Then the rebuttal:

Bell:"Are you indicating here that there is scientific evidence that there is indeed a human-caused climate crisis? And if so, which, exactly, human activities are causing it? AGW? Agriculture/land management? Urban heat islands? Rain forest depletion?

Yes… and according to exactly what scientific evidence? Climate models? Satellite data since it first became available in 1979?
...
Does AGU take issue with the accuracy of East Anglia-CRU quotations I cited as evidence of serious integrity and peer-review problems within important segments of the climate science community? Is this just a misinformed opinion of my own— or an issue to be dismissed of scant importance?"

Astute Constant Readers will note how specific Mr Bell is regarding his questions. In fact - he gives a 748 word reply to Head Guy... Again, RTWT.

To which Head Guy decides short and obfuscatory is the way to reply to Mr Bell.

HGfAGU: "Let me be more concise:
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that our climate is changing. The world’s climate scientists are in nearly unanimous agreement that humans are the cause. The same scientific method that has given us life saving vaccines, human flight, and electrical power generation now tells us we are influencing climate in potentially dangerous ways. Research funding has been key to advancing our knowledge about Earth system science and human impacts on it.

Buying into the arguments of climate change denialists when the evidence is so clear is like blithely taking advice from a banker about your health when all your doctors tell you there is a problem."

Wow... What an erudite and pithy comeback.
Let me translate for you:
"Fuck you. I'm right, you are an uneducated, unwashed, ignorant fool."

Mr Bell takes it in stride and elaborates on his position.

 "Thank you for your simple clarification of what many may have erroneously regarded to be a complex issue...

So apparently they all agree that since humans are the only cause you mention, presumably there are no natural forcings that account for anything…and that climate is actually changing for the first time.

Excuse me for posing a few more pesky questions.

1) What benchmark temperature is climate changing from (now for the first time)? The period when T-Rex ruled and before we messed everything up? The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods? The 1930s?

2) How much, precisely, have human influences contributed? Can you cite solid scientific evidence that your nearly universal throngs have agreed with? What percent of them consider it a big deal to really worry about? And what, if anything measurable, (and at what costs) do those minions propose to do about it?

3) If climate didn’t change, wouldn’t it all just be called “weather”?

Thanks for clearly illuminating just how dangerous it is to challenge the orthodoxy that is discussed in my article.

(A change up, so to speak. Why should Scarlett enjoy all the spotlight?
I think Faith Hill would look great here.
Since that might be a bit hard to accomplish, how about a picture of Faith Hill... Yeah. That'd do it.)


HeadGuy, unable to answer specific questions concerning his own field of study (which the Gubbmint has paid him bazillions of dollars to study) falls back on that old subterfuge of "Bosh! Flimshaw! Old data, my boy. See my previously published work where I already answered that question."

HGfAGU: "For answers to your specific questions, I refer you to “America’s Climate Choices”, a series of reports on climate change, its implications for the U.S., and what we can do about it. Congress commissioned these reports, published in 2010, from the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences..." Blah blah blah...

One thing I don't get about soi-disant Scientists, is that they are quick to throw around statistics, (albeit very fishy stats, but specific figures none the less) when it is in their best interest.
However- they sure as hell won't come up with specific info when it is detrimental to their cause.
Any time a Scientist uses a vague term (see examples in bold above) his credentials need to be revoked and someone needs to smack them in the forehead with a ballpeen hammer.
Hard.

Shakespere had it partially right.
Kill all the lawyers.

Then kill all the Climate Scientists.

TBG- ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE