Climate Cult Scientists Are Unhappy About This Whole Debate Thing

See, in science, there’s no debate, right?

We Are Wasting Time on These Climate Debates. The Next Steps are Clear.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which was released last week and which we co-authored with many colleagues, offers hope for limiting global warming.

But there is no time to waste. And wasted time includes time spent debating issues that divert us from our most important priorities right now.

Unfortunately, debates about distant future decisions and future uncertainties are distracting advocates, policymakers, researchers and the public from their shared, near-term goals. At best, these disputes give observers — especially policymakers and their advisers, who are trying to make tough short-term decisions during a global energy security crisis — a misleading impression that experts disagree about effective steps to decarbonize energy systems. At worst, these disputes can stall progress by delaying policies and incentives that would accelerate clean energy deployment.

Rather than getting mired in these debates, we should focus on credible commitments to public policy, private investment and innovation.

Steven Davis, Chris Bataille, John Bistline, and Inês Azevedo are tired of all that icky debate stuff. I guess they’re used to every “scientist” in their circle agreeing with them 100%, so, they want the people who can pass laws that force citizens to comply with the UN IPCC dictates. Here’s an idea: let’s force all the UN IPCC scientists to comply first. No more fossil fueled vehicles or airplane trips. No more fancy big homes, just tiny ones. No meat. No clothes or shoes made with fossil fuels. And so forth. See how they make out.

Anyhow, lots of blah blah blah, till

Rather than getting distracted by distant and likely irreducible uncertainties, let’s focus on what matters: deploying clean technologies we know we need, implementing a coherent climate policy, laying the groundwork for future progress and creating a just transition that shares the benefits of a sustainable energy system.

Those are political decisions, not scientific one, and they can all piss off.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Climate Cult Scientists Are Unhappy About This Whole Debate Thing”

  1. coralstrawberrydiomedes8862 says:

    I think Teach also no longer wants any “debate”” since his Lord Monckton has been proven to be a fraud and Roy Spenser says that he was wrong and that almost all the warming in the last 35 years has been caused by man.

    • Jl says:

      Science is all about debate. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. Richard Feynman

  2. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    Ya gotta love democrats. They twist and turn on every topic to get their way regardless of the pain, suffering and death they cause.

    Psaki, speaking on behalf of the Biden administration, invoked physician autonomy for the first time in two years saying,

    Republican lawmakers are currently debating legislation that, among many things, would target trans youth with tactics that threatens to put pediatricians in prison if they provide medically necessary, lifesaving healthcare for the kids they serve.

    So with COVID, “medically necessary, lifesaving healthcare,” as in off-label therapeutics, is prohibited and potentially criminalized. But when applied to teaching young children about sexual orientation or gender identity, autonomy is encouraged, and any resistance is now criminalized. How does that work?

    Are physicians to follow the medical science or the political science? And not being a physician but having two as siblings I must say there is nothing “medically necessary or lifesaving” about cutting off a 8 year old’s penis and testicles and turning it into a fake vagina. Nothing. If that 8 YO has a problem (which I doubt) it is psychological and/or emotional and that is where the treatment should focus not on emasculation. Regardless of what the groomers say.

    FJB and the pervert democrats.

  3. Authoritarians gotta authoritarian!

    We know what the scientists say, but unlike Plato’s idealized Republic, we allow the common people to have a voice in our policies, and what the scientists say we simply must do imposes huge costs on everybody, not the least on the commoners. Shockingly enough, people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, people who would struggle mightily were they to incur an unexpected $1,000 expenditure, have somewhat different concerns than the well-paid scientists. When you have to worry about keeping a roof over your head and food on the table, what might happen 80 years from now seems like a less important concern.

  4. Elwood P. dOwd says:

    The basic argument from the scientists is that global warming deniers such as Teach et al, are full of shit. Truth hurts. You’re full of shit.

    Recall that the U.S. is not a direct democracy but a Constitutional democratic Republic meaning that we empower our elected officials to rely on experts to help make tough political choices. When it suits the right’s purposes they cry out that the “commoners” are being railroaded by the authoritarians!! Bullshit. The master stagecraft of the American right is in choosing the most effective insult.

    Science is never settled. The denier position that we cannot act until it is 100%, absolutely, guaranteed, proved, beyond a shadow of any doubt that FUTURE global warming will continue to accelerate is a denier/big carbon/fossil fuel/multinational corporation ploy to do nothing. You go to war with the army you have…

    Teach whines that global warming is politics not science. Duh. So is nuclear energy. So is missile development. So is pandemic relief. Teach wants you to belief that if climate scientists persuade 100% of “the people” that global warming is a significant threat then the politics takes care of itself. Well, over 90% of Americans are persuaded we need more comprehensive firearms background checks. 80% of Americans are persuaded that abortion should be legal.

    So, piss off, fascists.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Looks like Rimjob is kinda upset that more and more people are actually seeing through the folly of “global warming”.

      Cry me a river, sweetheart.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Jl says:

      Funny-“the scientists”. All kinds of “scientists” on both sides of the issue, sorry. And when alarmists become frustrated because there’s really no data to back up their dire scenarios other than computer projections, they run and hide behind the skirts of Holocaust slurs..

      • Elwood P. dOwd says:

        Well denier ladies, two-thirds of Americans consider global warming a threat. What has changed is the perfidy of the godawful GOP –> QOP transition, and the media fascination with them.

        Add the tRump virus, the tRump recession and tRumPutin’s invasion of Ukraine and attention is diverted.

        Yet, the Earth continues to warm, driven CO2 released from our burning of fossil fuels.

        So yeah, you’re full of shit, like Teach and can piss off.

        • david7134 says:

          Nope. Everything you write is a lie. You have never given proofs of your claims.

          You are madder than usual. Get help.

        • Jl says:

          What people “think” is irrelevant in science, which is probably why you bring it up. The “we allegedly have more guys on our side so that means we’re right!” argument. Very scientific stuff there….
          “Earth continues to warm…”. Not really-the last 6 years temps have been steady or going down slightly.

          • Elwood P. dOwd says:

            Your ladyfriend, puppies, brought up what people think.

            You can always find warming and cooling trends when you deliberately set out to show it. It has warmed 4 degrees C at my house in the past 7.5 hr! Yet it cooled from 80F to 50F from 6PM to 6AM overnight! Is my world warming or cooling??? From mid 1998 to mid 2020 the Earth was cooling at a rate of 2C/decade! Recall the Great Pause scam that youse guys pimped? You have been a long-time temperature increase denier.

            You and your ladyfriend can piss off.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood. I try to ignore silly people. Especially silly people who like to toss around words like “war” as a false analogy. And doubly so to people who like to claim we are a Republic, which we are, while also claiming we must obey “experts” via our “elected officials.”

      So some advice.

      You only go to war when diplomacy has failed. That means your arguments have not been accepted.

      Our “elected officials” gave us Vietnam, Desert Storm and WND’s in Iraq, not to mention flooding the country with illegal aliens and a host of imported religious fanatics who want to “reform” us.

      With that record of “success” I think I’ll wait a bit before I burn my home and move into the woods.

      • Elwood P. dOwd says:

        Good for you!

        You may have noticed that the “army” quip was from Donald Rumsfeld. We apologize if you misunderstood our intent.

        But the analogy is not inapt. Many decisions have to be made without 100% absolute, guaranteed information. Business decisions, political decisions, decisions in war… we send people to prison for life and even to the gas chamber based on, not 100% “proof” but only “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

        • James Lewis says:

          Yes, I recognized DR’s connection with the quote. Whether or not he was the first I do not know. I do know that it was stupid then and stupid now.

          And I see that you admit that there is no, that’s like ZERO, science behind the man made global warming claim. So now you are saying, “Hey! Pay no attention to what’s been going on. The check’s in the mail. The beamer’s paid for. I’ll respect you in the morning….

          It’s not working.

          As for DR’s claim… It was made in response to criticism regarding some military equipment. It was as stupid as the claim that Saddam had WMD’s…The mistake only cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and a failed foreign policy that has generated a soon to be nuclear Iran.

        • James Lewis says:

          BTW – Intelligent people make decisions all the time using the old “cost v benefits” rule.

          BTW – How do you explain the Medieval Warming Period? Ox farts???

  5. Jl says:

    Who are these rubes that seem to know more about “consensus” than the alarmists?
    “Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached thinking stops”. Einstein

  6. […] Climate Scientists Are Unhappy About This Whole Debate Thing — Pirate’s Cove […]

Pirate's Cove