What I Have Noticed About Alarmists

They generally understand little or nothing about science, and get confused by data. Their beliefs seem to be shaped around the idea that the science is very difficult, and that only a select few in academia are capable of grasping these tricky concepts.

For example, until it is peer-reviewed, we can’t be certain that Manhattan is not underwater.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What I Have Noticed About Alarmists

  1. omnologos says:

    I disagree. Their fundamental belief is that Humans are alien vermins that have been polluting the planet for two million years and in any case since the invention of fire. Not being necessarily genocidal, they have the setback position of JJ Rousseau and Friedrich Engels, ie people should revert back to a life in perfect ‘harmony’ with nature, ie renounce all technological innovations apart, I suspect, from fire.

    That’s why those alarmists worship the Academics who can support such a depressing worldview, whilst at the same time shunning eg the peer-reviewed work on GMO.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Back to the stone age, but no fire, though. Fun!
      “The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” -Thomas Lovejoy, Smithsonian
      “It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
      “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States…” -John Holdren (1973), O’s “Science” Czar

    • Most alarmists are simply people, typically secularists, who have faith in scientific claims that mesh neatly with their political and social convictions. (They are only sceptical of scientific claims that don’t fit in with their idealogical perspectives.) They can be smart, they can be dumb, but they do have serious blind spots in their reasoning. The “eco nuts” are actually a very tiny (although influential) minority.

  2. Kaboom says:

    That kind of behavior is a carbon copy (harhar!) of how organized religions work. We have an anointed priesthood that passes the will of the gods down to the sheeple that carry it out and defend it to their dying breath against the heathens who doubt the wisdom. The “science” involved is called theology and it is much too hard to grasp by laymen.

  3. Rob says:

    What is the fastest way to make a small fortune?

    Become an environmentalist.

    What is the fastest way to make a large fortune?

    Become Al Gore.

  4. No, look at the pretty colours! This graph that I just posted on wikipedia has colours. Everything else is a straw man.

  5. gator69 says:

    It’s a mental disorder, like hypochondria.


  6. slimething says:

    “For example, until it is peer-reviewed, we can’t be certain that Manhattan is not underwater.”

    Yep. I see this quite often. Only “peer review” is acceptable, and then only if it supports the AGW axiom.

    RealClimate recently introduced the latest hockey stick using “approved” sources while ignoring the many conflicting ones. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/fresh-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere/

    A motley crew the whole lot of them. .

  7. Billy Liar says:

    David Apple doesn’t seem to believe anything that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Has his existence been peer-reviewed? I’m inclined to believe he’s a figment of my imagination until I see some peer-reviewed literature.

    • Andy DC says:

      Peer review means that if you scratch my back, rubber stamp my drivel and help me get a grant, I will do same for you. But no skeptics or other critics are allowed to participate or even get a whiff of the stinking process.

  8. Robertvdl says:

    Don’t we find Wall Street in Manhattan . Are they not up to their neck in deep waters?

  9. suyts says:

    Steve, you’re right! I found a piece in ERLw that actually referenced a paper stating that rising temperatures can enhance the melting of solid water (e.g. Barry et al 1993, Goodison and Walker 1993, Armstrong and Brun 2008).”


  10. scizzorbill says:

    There are 2 types of ‘alarmists’.

    1. Big Greenies: The BG’s are those who created, and use the AGW/environmental doom scam to achieve power and wealth including the scientists receiving Green grant money.

    2. Little Greenies are the hippies, which includes all manner of lefties. They are the useful idiots manipulated by the BG’s.

    The LG’s are typical liberals who find it difficult to understand anything requiring reason, logic, or common sense. Using their emotional center to ‘think’ is much better as it doesn’t cause a headache, and they can live in their own self deluded dream world.

  11. Marian says:

    “For example, until it is peer-reviewed, we can’t be certain that Manhattan is not underwater.”

    Might not be the case they can’t do peer-review because all sane humans amongst them have become extinct. Since according to some of those Alarmists. Humans have been just about all wiped out by now.. 🙂

  12. tckev says:

    I picked up a discarded newspaper and read that there is a transept of Venus soon(June 5), and to quote the newspaper’s *astronomer*, “Venus’s high surface temperature is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, trapped in the planet’s atmosphere…” I threw the paper away.
    So it is not because Venus is so close to the sun then? No, it’s the strange magic of greenhouse gases.

    • The distance from the Sun doesn’t have much of a direct effect. The heat is due to the thick atmosphere – which is due a lack of oceans.

    • Robert Austin says:

      A transept is part of a cathedral, namely the shorter wings intersecting the main central part , or nave. I am sure you meant to say “transit”.

      Venus being closer to the sun results in close to double the solar radiation intensity compared to earth but the 0.9 Bond albedo means that 90% of that incident radiation is reflected and causes no heating of the Venusian atmosphere. Compare this to Earth’s Bond albedo of about 0.3 where only 30% of incident radiation is reflected. So Earth actually absorbs more solar energy than Venus. I do not credit the 96% CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere with the 460C surface temperature. I credit the incredibly dense 93 bar atmosphere as the primary cause of the high surface temperature.

  13. Jimbo says:

    What I have noticed about all cultures is that they have one thing in common: religion. Many greens discarded traditional religion and yet they have to find religion. Think about it.

  14. Tourist in Chief says:

    I wanted to come up with a word to describe this religious lunacy, but Libtard is already taken.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s