The Debate Is Over

It is pretty clear that the scientific debate is over, and that the people behind this scam are no longer making any attempt to be honest. I’m not used to dealing with criminals, and am somewhat at a loss for where the conversation must go next.

About stevengoddard

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

26 Responses to The Debate Is Over

  1. NikFromNYC says:

    Confrontation of working academics in the hard sciences who refuse to speak up, who have cultural authority that bloggers lack?

  2. gator69 says:

    OT – But speaking of criminals, apparently a gun went on a rampage, making a madman out of a ‘good person’.

    “Madman shoots five dead, including his own mother, in a Texas city gun rampage before going on a high speed chase with police”

    “Andre Dye, a friend of Mr Brownlow’s, told local media that he doesn’t know what could have caused the shooting spree, that the accused killer is a good man…

    Court records revealed Mr Brownlow has been convicted of a litany of criminal offenses dating back to the 1990s.
    Starting with nine months probation for multiple theft charges in 1998, Mr Brownlow has been in and out of courtrooms most of his life.
    He has also been convicted of multiple felony weapons and burglary charges, as well as domestic violence, drug possession and burglary of a vehicle.”

    I’m holding my breath for a statement from dear leader about cultures of violence, and cultures in denial.

  3. Ivan says:

    When has there been a “scientific debate”?
    I must have slept during that bit.

    • gator69 says:

      There have been a few, and they always end like this…

      “Science 135, global warming scare 110…

      For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

      Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

      Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.”

      This is why they refuse to debate.

  4. Kent Clizbe says:

    If you’re not used to dealing with criminal conspiracies a couple tips:
    1. Nearly the only way that an organized criminal conspiracy is broken up is by the use of whistleblowers–insiders who spill the beans. Motivation for whistleblowers to cooperate, in this case, is the very likely award of a large portion of the federal grant funds clawed back via a False Claims Act action. What you, and all other concerned parties, can do is to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. A grad student at PSU, or UVa, or any other institution that received federal grant money for “climate research” very likely has information that could blow the entire enterprise out of the water.

    2. Be prepared for the continuing reprisals, counter-accusations, and worse that will emanate from the bowels of the conspirators. Their modus operandi is clear. When confronted with reality: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.

  5. You do what I have been doing for the last 3 years, ever since I definitively disproved the “greenhouse effect” with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the scientific debate has been over ever since): You identify the Insane Left (and the subornation of all of our authoritative institutions by it) as the immediate problem–substituting as it does a political ideology, and outright tyranny, for science–and the underlying problem, that of a general incompetence among scientists, for letting climate science go so far wrong as to forget the Standard Atmosphere and the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere. Beyond that, I can only recommend mass civil disobedience of any and all laws passed during the Obama years, particularly Obamacare and the anti-scientific EPA regulations (like officially denoting CO2 an “air pollutant”, and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act).

    And you should prepare yourself mentally for increasing forays into governmental tyranny over individuals’ rights–as more and more citizens fail financially–and for actual war (although that is most likely to occur when most of the Baby Boomers are dead).

    When my greater discoveries are finally confronted and generally accepted, then our divisions will recede, people will start to really work together in a newly vibrant society, and real progress can be made, in science, religion and modern societies. For now, reason is taking a back seat to tribalism and past historical injustices, both real and imagined, and the world is pushing for war thereby.

  6. Olaf Koenders says:

    Where the conversation goes next is what jail do we house the crims in.

  7. gofer says:

    It’s all the white man’s fault because we know that all minorities are opposed to fossil fuels, right?

    ” A majority of the “white community” voted for Mitt Romney for president even in California. Thus: So left to the white community by itself, we would have a horrible set of environmental policies in place. We would be burning and drilling everywhere.” —–Van Jones in a speech at the Center for American Progress

  8. pinroot says:

    At some point, the actual Climate will drive the conversation, and people will realize that this emperor really does have no clothes.

  9. hannuko says:

    Me too. Things have become so bizarre, it’s difficult to maintain any interest on the subject. When the other side starts just making stuff up as they go along, is it an argument anymore?

    But they have the MSM, NGO’s and politicians on their side, so no matter what ridiculous lies they come up with they can get away with. I guess we just can’t give up until the majority sees what we see. Slowly but surely..,

  10. hannuko says:

    In a lighter note, the storm that killed people in Denmark hit Finland yesterday. Before the storm landed, newspapers asked readers to send pictures of storm damage the the magazine. These were the – rather sarcastic – pictures they received:

    It’s just one terror storm after another, isn’t it. What happened to just bad weather?

  11. Robertv says:

    We could stop drinking Coca Cola.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    Debate? Never debate facts with liars. The only way I have found that has any effect is to relentlessly hammer home the ethics of the matter.

    “Your support of unproven CAGW means that REAL environmental problems are ignored. Your actions mean that destructive land use, burning of tropical forests for use in biofuel production, overfishing, groundwater pollution — all these get worse and people die because you are pretending that CAGW is real.”

    “Your giant wind farms kill thousands of endangered birds and bats. You pretend to save the environment while you wipe out whole species!”

    Hyperbolic? Over the top? Maybe…But these are people who have already thrown out reasonable standards and logic. Punch them (metaphorically) in their ethical gut — if they still have one.

  13. DrSandman says:

    Some of us tried to do a proper academic debate in the usual sense, but were unprepared for the Alinsky-style knife fight when we (well, at least me…) brought a well-sharpened pencil and stacks of printouts of actual data.

    Fraud & brainwashing on a massive scale…. In my (physics) department, I had to pretend that I joined the Union of Concerned/Confused Scientists (UCS) to get approval from one of my PhD committee members! Meanwhile, the very same physics department (a Tier 1, research university that everyone knows with a sterling reputation…) graduated two Young Earth Creationists in the 5 years around my degree.

    I left academia as a result, and I’m not looking back.

  14. Stefan v says:

    The “conversation” will eventually get to the point where it resembles the one between the silver-eyed captive alien and the Prez in the movie Independence Day. The slimy alien wrapped a tentacle around Prez’ throat and answered his question “What do you want us to do?” succintly: “Die”. And since in our reality the Prez’ men have most of the guns (all the good ones anyway, and the other little gadgets like thermonuclear bombs, biowarfare, surveillance etc), they stand a good chance of making a lot of us unwanted humans redundant. However, there is good news…God is in control of all this and will bring it to the exact conclusion He intends. That’s Bad News for most, but I write to encourage the few. Look Up, continue watching, and stand.

  15. Dan s says:

    Preposterous. The only people that are making no attempt to be honest are the global warming deniers. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming. All you have to point to is dubious statistics regarding record temps, but you provide no details about how these statistics were generated.

    You deniers are delusinal.

    • gator69 says:

      You forgot the ‘sarc’ tag. 😉

    • Hew Manatee says:

      The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
      Perhaps you could share some of this “overwhelming evidence” with the rest of us.
      While your little tantrum is amusing, unfortunately it completely misses the point.
      The onus is not on the “deniers” to provide statistics, or any other proof for that matter, but rather on the bed-wetters to provide the evidence that establishes their case beyond reasonable doubt.
      Surely that is not too much to ask, after 20+ years and billions of taxpayer dollars on so-called “scientific research.”

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 )

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