More From The Whack-A-Doodle

About stevengoddard

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

29 Responses to More From The Whack-A-Doodle

  1. Alan Poirier says:

    It’s so frustrating dealing with the zealots and the converted. I applaud your fortitude.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    Tony, I really do believe that NotSheila (and a lot of the other CAGW cultists) simply do not understand graphs. At the risk of seeming cruel, consider this analogy. Have you ever shown a dog its reflection in a mirror? For the most part, they do not seem to understand what reflections are, or what mirrors do. Same thing with NotSheila and graphs. She literally does not understand what those squiggly lines mean or what the differences may imply.

    • Yet he or she pretends to be an expert in science, because he or she joined a group who profess to be scientists.

      I say he or she because she’s Not Sheila

      • _Jim says:

        “Not Sheila”

        Sheila – (alternatively spelled Shelagh and Sheelagh) is a common given name for a female, derived from the Irish name Síle/Sìle, which is believed to be a Gaelic form of Cecilia. Like “Cecil” or “Cecilia”, the name means “blind”, from the Latin word caecus.Per wiki

        Sheila – A great and loving person someone that you can call a sister. … generous heart,caring and loving. … Funny and loves to Dance even if it is to her own music. Life is full of fun and funny stories with lots of laughter when you are with her. She pushes her self out of her comfort zone to accomplish the tasks that’s placed before her with a job well done. When you are sad or feeling ill she is the first one to respond to your side. per Urban Dictionary

        Conclusion: The moniker/name is a play on words …

  3. SMS says:

    Put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and yell NAH! NAH! NAH! at the top of your lungs. NotSheila is showing off her cognitive dissonance for the rest of us to be entertained by. She must be so proud/

  4. Frankly, it takes a while to understand what you’re getting at, Tony. I’ve been reading Real Science since last Spring, and I understand that you are demonstrating from NASA’s own publications that (1) in 1999, they said 1934 had been warmer than 1998, but (2) now they say that 1998 was warmer than 1934 had been, and (3) in-between they said, at least once, that the two years were just about tied, showing (4) a progressive (no pun intended) cooling of the past and warming of the present, just by alteration of the temperature record.

    But nothing in the animation identifies these graphs as official NASA publications. It needs the context that can be provided in a blog post, but it doesn’t stand on its own very well. That is, I suppose, the nature of graphs: they can only provide so much information on their own.

    And I do not discount Jason’s notion that she doesn’t understand graphs. Many (most?) people don’t, especially the products of public education.

    And, with Alan, I applaud your fortitude.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Lane Core Jr. (@OneLaneHwy)! You make some good points. I think it is easy for any of us to forget the learning curve involved in studying the CAGW debate. One difference though (at least based on what I have seen) is that most members of the CAGW crowd are not interested in doing the difficult work of actually studying the science and math involved. Over the last six or seven years, I have never had even one committed CAGW proponent willing to even look at sceptic charts or essays. I actually had one person tell me “don’t bother to email that stuff to me; I wouldn’t understand it!” and then tell me in the next breath that I “need to learn the science.”

      Most sceptics eventually come to the conclusion that alarmists hold their beliefs for emotional or political reasons, not rational reasons. Alarmists seem to not differentiate between evidence and simple assertions. That, at least, is what I have observed.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Perhaps, if one isn’t adept enough even to understand this graphic, one should spend more time learning, and less time announcing one’s ignorance of the subject.

        I understand that most AGW, er, “Climate Change” sycophants aren’t knowledgeable or intelligent enough to do anything other than to parrot the talking points of their cult leaders; however, that doesn’t mean that we have to refrain from calling them out on it.

    • Jason & Lane:

      My initial suspicions have solidified into certainty over the years that many of the alarmists come from this political and quasi-religious nexus. The most stubborn CAGW proponents I’ve met are not scientifically educated people but rather committed socialists and they exhibit the same inflexible position in their leftist beliefs, despite hard historical evidence against them.

      That is also the reason why I disagree with those skeptics who say we must keep the discussion strictly scientific and keep politics out of it. How do you keep politics out of a political argument?

      It is true that it’s nearly impossible to move the many “religiously” inspired alarmists away from their beliefs. The old adage about not arguing about someone’s religion comes to mind but more importantly, I find alarmists, and leftists in general, more self-righteous than typical members of traditional congregations. They “know” they are morally superior to me in a way any true Catholic, as an example, would be ashamed to feel.

      The opportunity to change minds is elsewhere. I believe there are many “mild” believers who simply trust whom they consider the experts in the field but who at the same time have a healthy distrust in progressive big government prescriptions. These individuals in my opinion respond well to arguments linking the CAGW movement to other progressive causes just as Tony does here.

      There is no doubt a learning curve when it comes to provable facts and logical conclusions because of the amount of popular science pollution discharged regularly by the perpetrators and their supporters. I know intelligent people who harbor some doubts but never committed the time needed to look into the matter despite the huge stakes they—like anyone on Earth—have in the outcome of this fight.

      • Dave1billion says:

        I’ve come to the conclusion that some people just need an eschatology.

        I think that a lot of people can’t conceive of the world continuing after they’re gone. I think that they just unconsciously gravitate toward the favored apocalypse of the age.

        People have been seeing the signs of the fulfillment the Revelation of John for the last two Millenia. Napoleon was the Antichrist. Hitler was the Antichrist.

        The Norse had Ragnarok. The Mayans calendar reset, so that meant that these pre-Columbian prophets predicted the end of the world.

        At least in the second half of the 20th Century there really was an existential threat to the continued existence of civilization. But when that collapsed I think a lot of them gravitated to CAGW.

        30 years ago these same people were (or would have been for the younger ones) trumpeting Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament and were talking about Nuclear Winter.

        All of which brings to mind one of my favorite joke headlines:

        “The World to End Tomorrow. Women and Minorities to be Disproportionately Affected.”

        Sound familiar?

  5. Dave N says:

    So.. she’s unable to explain it? Or is having trouble refuting it?

  6. philjourdan says:

    You cannot make a moron think, no matter how hard you try.

  7. Dougmanxx says:

    For icing on the cake she links to the Media Matters “Steven Goddard is a birther” story. Amply demonstrating her clear lack of critical thinking skills. This is the kind of person I wouldn’t waste my time on, because you are challenging her Religion. Appeals to facts will get you no where, because these beliefs are tied up into her emotional well being.

  8. policycritic says:

    Ask her to make her own charts and disprove you.

  9. Gail Combs says:

    Ask her how good she is at flint knapping to make the hand axe to chop down and shape trees. How good she is at twisting rope out vines to make a harness for the plow she will be pulling.

    • Dave1billion says:


      That’s harsh even from you!!

      • Gail Combs says:

        I figure progressives are like mules, you need to whomp up side the head with a 2X4 to get their attention….

        On second thought only the progs need the 2X4. Most mules are a lot smarter than progs and can easily be reasoned with.

        (My donkey was the easiest animal I have ever trained. She seemed to just read our minds.)

        • Dave1billion says:

          I’ve actually plowed (actually I think it was pulling a harrow) behind a mule before, although it was long ago and not often.

          And yes, I can verify it was easier than reasoning with a lot of progressives. And a lot less futile.

    • The Whack-A-Doodle is NotSheila no more. It’s a shapeshifter. It will change into a mule any minute now.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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