Saturday, April 12, 2014

"I want a bunch of you commoners(especially white ones) to DIE!

so we can prove to you that The Science Is Settled!"
Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.

The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence
Um, because evidence has nothing to do with science?  Beats me.

Such wonderful people are the warmenists, are they not?  Further evidence:
Cognitive scientist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need:
You see, consensus is so often only reached after a painful confrontation with evidence.

Knowing this, I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map. Because the sooner the lesson is learnt by early confrontation, the better one more population will be suited to anticipate and mitigate the vast weather and climate (+ related) disasters that lie in the immediate future and to lose all distractions on the way.
(Let me dispel, right up front, a common and perhaps forgivable misinterpretation of this family of argument: no, Dr Kampen doesn’t mean to suggest the destruction of a single city would be sufficient. That’s just a silly strawman. As a scientist himself, Kampen is acutely aware that a single data point, such as the deletion of Cairns, would not even be attributable to man-made global warming with any confidence—let alone would it prove the planet was worse off, taking all metrics into account, under BAU. What we’re talking about here is a possibility which, with luck, would start a conversation on climate action, not end one.)
And that mass disaster would be good, because GLOBULAR WARMENING!!  WE NEED A CONVERSATION!!!
Problem is, they don't want a conversation, they want surrender; "You must do whatever we decide is needed to Fight Globular Warmering, because nothing else will do!"


SordidPanda said...

Scratch a green, find a red.

They are the ultimate believers in control. They believe they can control other people, so the weather should be a piece of cake...

JLA said...

It's a parody. You are just making yourself look stupid.

Firehand said...

Yes, because no warmenists have ever said such things before...
Oh, wait, yes, they have.

cRR Kampen said...

"... such as the deletion of Cairns, would not even be attributable to man-made global warming with any confidence"

Alright, how many cities do you suggest?

I love the way climate revisionists find my price suggestion far too low...