Wednesday, May 18, 2016

One of the most Ignorant Bastards on DA

There you have it. I have seen a lot of F**king stupid on DA but claiming a person's knowledge on a subject is tainted because THEY OWN STOCK is one of THE most stupid things I have ever seen. Copied out here because the dumb bastard will likely have hidden it.

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Additional on scythemantis

The following is an exchange in notes prior to my posting this at DA Take note to what he says: he claims it has been half a decade. It has not. It has been three years since I began responding to his assaults. He claims he 'never thought about me' even though there are quite a few journals about me on his page- and apparently he has erased several since then so the number was even higher. As noted in the last blog entry I was able to recover one of those journals. He says he does not know what those lies were even though I have repeatedly laid it out for him, culminating in the above journal. If he is being at all honest then he will own up to his lies, misrepresentations and smears. Also take note that I had not agreed to anything other than to discuss the situation- which my entry on DA was designed for. More: Here is his activity on his alternate account. You can see how long ago it was since we last spoke: 204 weeks since he was blocked. That's not 'half a decade.' Further, it was a full Year before I even began to respond to his lies. The above image was taken May 6 2016.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016


Items regarding scythemantis' war: The Wayback Machine unfortunately has not captured all of the journals scythemantis erased, but it has found a few items. This first image details just a small portion of the many assault journals he wrote, never bothering to find out what I actually believe. Unfortunately I cannot find some of his best lines, such as 'I never read anything he writes' - and yet in one piece below, he claims to be reporting what he 'knows' of me. Well I absolutely agree that you never read much if anything which I have written scythe. Which means you simply manufactured what you wanted people to believe about me. That is the acting of a lying bastard.
'what I believed to be true.' No, what YOU chose to be 'true.' Anyone making the effort to read my writings knows my POV on climate change has shifted over the years- in fact, I started out as a True Believer in AGW. His claim however is also that I somehow believe it is OK to pollute. That is an outright LIE and on that score at the very least he owes me a Public apology. He has also claimed in regards to the one of the pieces I put up that I am 'trying to discredit all science.' Once again an ugly lie- he deliberately misrepresented a piece in which I showed that some scientists do indeed work for profit, power and prestige- as opposed to the constant claims that no scientist would EVER do anything to mislead the public, especially in climate change. Attempting to smear that obvious FACT into 'trying to discredit all science' is the act of a lying, deceitful bastard.
Did I block scythe after a number of exchanges a few years back? Yes. Had he blocked me since? YES! Last fall I wiped my block list clean, 100%. Since then two new names have been added but the point here is that scythe was OFF my list seven months ago- yet I was unable to post any comments to his page or believe me I would have! Yet he is trying to make it out that I was not blocked on his page.
Additional: As noted elsewhere: scythe came by one of my early climate pieces. We had a few exchanges despite his claim that I 'blocked him instantly.' Two months later I discover that he is so obsessed with me that he has written Nine entire journals against me within those two months. What could possibly make me think he was obsessed? (that's sarcasm, for any of his followers who look in here) And here is the first of those journals. Note that in the final paragraph, scythe chooses to LIE about every single thing skeptics believe or think: Does this sound like a person who wants a 'reasonable' discussion?

Friday, January 23, 2015

What is a Social Justice Warrior (SJW)

<b>(My thoughts on the matter shall be in bold / parens)</b>

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.
The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies. <b>(in other words, elitist wanna-bees. Good luck with that, useless tools)</b>

SJW’s do not view all humans as equal

Using a “privilege” hierarchy, SJW’s calculate the worth of a human being based on perceived injustices or wrongs that group has suffered since the time of ancestral man, using selective and narrow interpretations of history. SJW’s elevate groups that they believe have received the least amount of “privilege” in the past, and then use internet activism in the form of mobs and community purges to target those who are determined to have greater amounts of privilege. The idea of privilege is so essential to SJW ideology that a common debate tactic they use is to say “check your privilege,” which roughly translates to, “you must immediately halt or change your speech because your ancestors may or may not have done bad things to women or minority races.”
For example, if a notable white American male makes a joke about a lesbian black woman who practices Islam, SJW’s will coordinate using a combination of blogs, Youtube, and social networking to dox him (publish his personal information, including where he works). They will then pressure the man’s company by flooding it with calls and messages with the goal to remove his source of income while engaging in a mass reporting campaign to get his online accounts suspended.
Their ultimate goal is to silence all speech that they don’t like and which they find offensive while also punishing the speech offender by removing his source of income. As they grow in power, the acceptable range of speech that would trigger an SJW witch hunt is becoming more narrow, and those who are high up on the privilege hierarchy (white men) have to speak through a careful filter if they don’t want to be subject to an SJW attack.

<b>(My impression of the arguments going on with SJWs on DA, is that they don't care what color or sex you really are- they are going to paint you the way they Want to see you. After all, if you were actually black / Hispanic / Asian / female / whatever, you MUST naturally be on their side of the argument; if they are screaming at you, you MUST be a white male. Simple logic!)</b>

They believe consensus is more important than objectivity

SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience. The feeling of the statement must also be taken into account, which can be affected by current news, cultural moods, and pop trends.
For example let’s consider the statement “Asian people are nerds.” If a famous white man uttered this phrase on Twitter after a major Japanese earthquake, a punitive SJW witch hunt may be triggered, but if a popular gay black female Youtuber said the exact same statement, no action would be taken. The reason is because the black woman is low in the SJW privilege hierarchy and therefore has a greater range of free speech that she could give before triggering a witch hunt. The white man, who is at the top of the privilege hierarchy, has no leeway to make a joke about any race since he is not in a protected SJW class. He would be decried as racist and a bigot, in spite of the fact that a statement like “Asian people are nerds” has low ambiguity regardless of the race or status of the person who said it.
The lack of such objectivity in SJWism is by design. It’s borrowed from Cultural Marxist thought, which argues that objectivity and the idea of right or wrong is less important than consensus. The reason is that consensus can be easily accomplished by controlling the narrative—cultural facts, ideas, and memes that are possessed by a specific population. If one can manufacture consensus by controlling this narrative through domination of the media or by swiftly eliminating speech which goes against what “should” be believed, specific beliefs can be held even if they go against proven scientific thought or basic rationale. SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.
For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion [1] [2] [3], so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:
(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action
(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented
(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech
You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality. Consensus used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Sadly, many great men were imprisoned or executed for going against consensus on beliefs that we know are true today. Consensus in America also supported the institution of slavery, which of course didn’t make it right. And not long ago consensus believed in segregation between whites and blacks, even in the north where slavery was not practiced. Consensus has been shown to be a dangerous method to validate ideas or behavior.
Observers will note that information control is a huge component of SJW ideology. They have no other choice—their ideas do not hold water to basic science and logic so SJW’s evolved mechanisms where they must control and censor speech which goes against their beliefs. By controlling what arguments or ideas people are exposed to, they have a greater chance of convincing others through manipulation and outright bullying of their world view to create the consensus they need to affect societal change. Some individuals buy into their cause because opposing viewpoints were hidden from them, often labeled as “hate speech.”
An SJW writer implores readers not to pursue an area of study that conflicts with her world view
<b>(Hoooo Boy, am I familiar with this one! Just look at the shriekings of scythemantis in regards to climate change, in the nearly three years since I had the misfortune to encounter him.)</b>

SJW’s are human label machines

If censorship is not an option, SJW’s attempt to destroy the reputation of the speech offender by labeling him a racist, misogynist, creep, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, or transphobe. This is one of their most reliable tactics to prime the general public against listening to individuals they don’t like because of the negative weight that such terms still carry. I personally have been called every label under the sun and a site I operate, Return Of Kings, was denounced in mainstream blogs sympathetic to SJW’s and then put on blacklists.
While labels are still effective today, SJW’s are diluting the power of them through overuse. If the majority of men are decided to be “misogynist,” the general public will become desensitized to hearing it. We are already seeing signs of this whereby SJW’s have to escalate the labels to outright crimes. A tactic I have been seeing lately is accusing men of “sexual harassment,” which is often when a man did nothing more than factually criticize a woman or flirt with her.
Even worse, SJW’s have started labeling men as rapists based on anonymous internet allegations, even when the supposed victims never reported the crime to police. It doesn’t matter that a conviction is not present via due process of law, and “rapist” labels persist against men even when authorities refuse to file charges. This eradicates the presumption of innocence whereby an individual is innocent until proven guilty, a basic right used since Roman times and included in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s possible that we may reach a point where all men are presumed to have raped a woman, and when a men says something improper, this label will be used against him to limit his speech.

<b>(I would also add to the above list that they will also go into hysterics such as 'anti-science,' 'Creationist,' 'fossil-fuel shill,' and so forth)</b>

SJW’s are sexually confused and admittedly mentally ill

Many SJW’s readily admit to serious mental illness and being bullied or mocked as a kid. They have gone on to be bullies themselves on the internet, a platform where physical strength, courage, or defined identity is not needed to be an effective activist. Even though they are confused about how to live their own lives thanks to the lack of values they possess, and many deal with suicide, cutting, or other mental issues that prevent them from reading certain articles without a “trigger warning” to act as a disclaimer to reality, they have no problem telling society how to live. It’s unclear why they respond to their life problems in such a manner instead of seeking professional help or reading self-help, but we can speculate that they seek to control others to compensate for the lack of control they have in their own lives. SJWism is a form of treatment to their problems because they can focus on the perceived problems of other people instead of their own.
A common problem SJW’s have is confusion about their own sexual identity or outright biological sex. Most of them find out about SJWism when they are in their teen years and not yet absolutely certain of their sexual preference. Once exposed to SJW writing that presents the theory that two sexes don’t exist, proven biology is wrong, and that you are free to place yourself on a kaleidoscope of gender including multiple kinds of homosexuality and transsexuality, the newly SJW activist mixes and matches her sexual identity to seek approval within her new group.
SJW’s have invented new sexes and sexual preferences, the most popular of which being pansexual, the definition of which can vary depending on which SJW you ask but which comes close to bisexuality. Other inventions include polysexuality, genderqueer, pangender, skoliosexual, and the most curious one of all which assumes a new mammalian life form that science has yet to describe—trigender.
While many of their members are plain vanilla heterosexual, they despise any sexuality or behavior that comes from the straight male. A male is someone exhibiting offensive privilege when he rates a girl on her attractiveness, exhibits a preference for thin women, or flirts with a woman he wants to have sex with, but when a woman does the same things, she is making an empowered display of her sexuality and must therefore be encouraged. The male sex drive is considered dangerous and oppressive to women but the female sex drive is wonderful, natural, and deserving of firm praise.
It’s worth noting that some in the SJW community believe that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape, even when the sex is consensual. Masculinity exhibited by men is dangerous and criminal, but masculine behaviors in women (cutting their hair short, becoming burly in body size, cursing, sexually pursuing other women) are promoted. Again, this highlights the subjectivity and inequality of SJW thought.

How did SJW’s become such a powerful force?

We can only speculate why an ideology that is so removed from science and Western values has established roots in America. One theory is that their ideology is soma for confused people who have been disappointed in life or have failed in achieving their goals. It’s easy for these sub-performers to flock to an ideology that says, “You failed because you were held down by the white patriarchy, who still maintains invincible privilege and is robbing you of your daily bread and happiness.”
Obviously, it’s a much easier job to blame others or play the victim card than to solve the individual problems of your life. Hard work is not as valued in today’s society as in the past, so when you give someone a choice between expending effort on one hand to complaining and mob bullying on the other, it’s not hard to see how many (as in millions of people) pick the latter option. It’s also more satisfying to their egos from a power standpoint.
That leads to the question of why straight white males become a part of the SJW movement, since it would be similar to a Jewish person joining the Nazis. Most of these men are shy with low confidence and low muscle mass. They have social anxiety issues and simply want to be part of a co-ed group that increases their access to women. It turns out that white men are carrying the water of SJW’s who would denounce them in a second all for the hopes of getting sex. The male sex drive is so strong that a man is willing to throw his entire race and sex under the bus in order to possibly fornicate with a woman.
Even though men are usually the targets of SJW’s, it is not uncommon for them to turn on their own. For example, if a white woman, a protected group in SJW ideology, offends a transsexual, who is more protected on the privilege scale, SJW’s may attack the white woman, even if they may have defended her previously (this happened with Laci Green, a protected feminist who once used the word “tranny” and was threatened with death by transsexual SJW’s). Since SJW’ism is so subjective, at whim to constantly shifting winds, an SJW who is on the right side of SJW thought today may find themselves on the wrong side tomorrow.

<b>(The idea that these slime will turn upon one another has been with me for some time. These are the kind of people who, as in another era in another part of the world, will have at some point staged group photographs for their 'revolution'..... only to start 'disappearing' people from both the photographs and history, when everything they 'believe' in begins to blow up in their faces, more than likely harming both their image and the fortunes they hope to amass as the new 1%)</b>

What do SJW’s want to achieve?

Their goal is power and domination over the Western cultural narrative to manufacture a consensus that is aligned with their extreme far-left ideology. Since their ideas are so far removed from science, logic, and rationale, this requires a complete control of information to disseminate their immoral world view along with the complete silencing of those who contradict them. It is not clear what their end game is when it comes to the white men who they believe are a bane to planet Earth, but it’s not a stretch to predict violence in the future assuming their mobs grow in size, anger, and power, which would put them close to being classified as terrorists according to the FBI. Currently their main strategies are bullying, spreading propaganda, and censoring opponents.
A growing way they have been accomplishing this goals is by installing SJW activists in prominent institution and communities. Many are now active moderators on popular forums, leaders in campus groups, tenured professors, or popular bloggers and entertainers who have huge audiences they spread SJW propaganda to. Some SJW’s, like Zoe Quinn, simply achieved prominent status by having heterosexual sex with men who have access to information that they want to modulate. Since most feminists, progressives, and liberals are sympathetic to the SJW cause, it’s easy to see how they have reached a stunning amount of influence in America to spread their message.

<b>(Despite claims made by the SJW who has foamed obsessively over me in a score of journal entries, it is quite obvious that they are all about doing as much harm as possible to those whom they hate)</b>

Social Justice Warriors are a threat to Western values

SJW’s utilize censorship, discriminate against white men, and disagree with basic human rights concerning due process that has existed in the Western legal canon for centuries. They are against free speech as granted by the US Constitution and don’t believe that all men are created equal. They disregard science and wrongly apply labels, accusations, and criminal allegations to those who dare cross their path. They have determined that some groups should be elevated to receive more benefits and speech rights than others, and have been successful in silencing the speech of those whom they disagree with through their internet witch mobs. They continue to infect every group, platform, and community that they come into contact with. Their goal is not to add value or to create, but to control the flow of ideas and thereby thought. Their values are opposed to Western values.
SJW ideas have reached a critical mass in America. University students are indoctrinated with progressive thought that is becoming aligned with SJWism, and even students in grade school are becoming exposed to SJW ideas through feminist-friendly teachers who read the same sites as SJW’s. My fear is that their efforts at censorship and cultural domination will become more onerous as they cement positions in prominent media companies, Silicon Valley, universities, and even in politics. If your belief system is against that of SJW’s, it would be prudent to take measures to protect yourself from their witch hunts, because there is no sign that they will be weakening in power anytime soon.


Full article can be found here


<b>SJWs are cyber-bullies, and many are hatetheists on top of that</b>

<b>We cannot ever let our guard down against bullies. Falling silent is giving them the win. Fight back, or find the fight coming to your very doorstep down the road - that I speak truly can found in the fact that they have already destroyed lives, and sometimes, ended them</b>  <b>Theirs is the same kind of thinking which led to the Gulags in the Soviet Union. Lysenkoism. Eugenics. Reichskristallnacht.</b>

<b>Never allow yourself to believe in 'Never Again.' These people don't, because it serves their purposes.</b>


There used to be a group on here called 'LogicSquad' which used the same tactics. I am please to note that many of them got banned and the previous manager of the group backed down from his attacks on me, even deleting his ugly hate-'art' attacks, and has long since fallen silent.

While there may be one or two more pieces regarding SJWs, this is pretty much as far as I plan to go with it. I have quite more than enough on my plate, and I've already written a dozen such journals on hatetheists (just plug 'hatetheist' into the DA search engine). Their small minds are a drain on decent people's time and efforts.
Note to SJWs who come by to comment: you WILL be tossed in the SPAM folder. I don't have time for ignorant rants from infantile minds- I have gotten more than enough of those from buggsy. (hmmm. Is it censorship when you spam comments which contain NO content, NO critical thinking, NO intellectual honesty, NO decency?)

Thursday, January 1, 2015

They're Just Literally Lying About Climate Change

Climate change is never quite what they want you to believe it is. But they know that most people do NOT have the time to find out for themselves just what the real deal is- and the True Believers *Love* you for it!

So I though I'd toss these few tidbits out for the end of the year. Remember, Knowledge is Power!:

Wheat Crops Grow Despite Climate Alarmists’ Lies

Five Climate Lies of 2014

Seven more of the Top Lies by climate alarmists

Lies and insults against Skeptics don't change the facts

Famous Climate Alarmists Frequently Resort to Blatant Lies to Create Fear!

Latest round of climate hysteria articles are packed with lies

Half-truths, Lies & Climate Change

Remember those poor walruses? Well, THAT was lied about, also

Lies straight from the White House!

And last but not least, more on the ever-growing list of lies by hockey Schtick fraudster mikey mann


Oh Hey! There's a group on FaceBook dedicated to covering climate-change lies


I could list TONS more- but it is New Year's Eve!


And remember, NEVER live in fear of the weather. It's doing what it's been doing for the past billion years. Always. Changing.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

About those scientific organizations who *ALL* agree about 'man-made' global warming.....

One of the claims often made by those arguing the case in favor of the theory of 'man-made' global warming, is that ALL scientific organizations across the globe support the theory. People often supply a substantial list of organizations to back up their claim, and / or will quote from the statements made by those various organizations. NASA itself provides a list of over 200 such organizations.

The precise definition from one pro-AGW site on the internet, is this:

'That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.'

That is an interesting claim. It appears that virtually (supposedly) every single scientist on the face of the Earth, no matter what their degree in, views the current climate change as both A) human-caused and B) Catastrophic. After 8 years of arguing various points with a variety of people, it always seems to devolve to the above two contentions. No other point of view is to be tolerated. We must acknowledge the overwhelming consensus. There is no choice but to take action on the climate, Now!

But is that really the case? Do we know for certain the claim that '97% of all scientists agree'** is true? Can we really say that every single scientific organization on the face of the Earth, agrees with the theory of 'man-made' global warming / climate change?

If it is truly the case that the memberships of every single scientific organization on Earth agrees with and supports the theory of 'man-made' global warming / climate change, then we should not be able to find any dissent. So, just out of curiousity, let's try... the Geological Society of Australia:


'AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue "had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole."

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.'

Full article here


Wait. Large numbers of the membership disagree with the statement on AGW made by the leadership? How can that be? Didn't they poll every single member before they made such a statement? Are not the claims made within the theory, incontrovertible? If there is truly a '97% consensus,' then would not a straight vote have put an end to the issue? Who cares what 3% of the membership believes?

Let's get a bit closer to that divisive pro-AGW statement by the GSA, in a letter to the editor by one of the organization's members:

An independent poll
of members of the Society (conducted in
2010) showed that a majority (53% of
626 members who responded) did not
agree with the Society’s position
statement. The Executive then agreed
to withdraw that statement from the
Society’s website, but by then it had been
picked up by other websites and continues
to be freely available.

Surely no rational person could disagree
that any statement by the Society on such
a contentious issue needs to reflect the
various views of its members. Indeed the
statement by Brad Pillans does just that.
For the interest of readers, my own views
as a ‘sceptic’ (known to some AGW
believers as a ‘denier’) can be summarised
as follows:

• Modern global warming is a fact; it has
continued, with stops and starts, since
about 1850, the end of the Little Ice

• Geological evidence shows that the
Earth’s climate has always been
changing, due to natural causes, for
billions of years.

• Climate changes were much greater at
many times in the geological past than
those being experienced today, and
AGW could not have been a factor in
those past changes.

• Historical evidence shows that there
have been large changes in climate
during the past two millennia, entirely
due to natural causes — including the
Medieval Warm Period (AD 950 to
1250, when wine grapes were grown
as far north as Yorkshire and the
Norsemen colonised Greenland) and the
Little Ice Age (AD 1550 to 1850, when
the Thames periodically froze over, sea
ice extended into the Zuyder Zee, and
the Norsemen had to leave Greenland).

• The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere
is vitally important to life on Earth, and
increasing levels stimulate plant

• CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and its
content in the atmosphere is rising
steadily due to the burning of fossil
fuels — but there is no accepted
scientific method to separate natural
causes of climate change from any that
are due to the rising levels of CO2.

• There was no global warming during the
period from the 1940s to the early
1970s, and again from 1999 to the
present, despite ever-increasing levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere

• During the 1970s serious concern was
expressed by some that the Earth was
about to descend into a new ice age,
which contrasts with the views of AGW
believers today that the Earth is about
to experience catastrophically hot
conditions and rising sea levels.

• Others now contend that Solar factors
are more important than has generally
been recognised, and the pattern of
recent sunspot cycles is similar to that
experienced prior to the Maunder and
Dalton Solar Minima, so that some solar
physicists predict that cooling of 1–2C
will occur during the next few decades.

I doubt that these issues can be resolved
conclusively in the near future. Although
the President of the [Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change] IPCC, Rajendra
Pachauri, has conceded that the rise in
global temperatures has stalled for the
past 14 years, he contends that this trend
will need to continue for at least another
30 or 40 years for it to invalidate the
AGW hypothesis. Some invoke the
‘precautionary principle’ in seeking to take
action to reduce CO2 levels in the atmos-
phere, and Australia is in the forefront in
that regard. However, in any case, Aus-
tralia produces only about 1.5% of global
CO2 emissions, and if it could entirely
eliminate its generation of CO2 that would
have no significant effect on the world’s


A copy of the complete letter, plus more information may be found here



Granted it was not the entire 2000 members, but, how much would the final % be if everyone had spoken their minds? Does 53% look anything like the claim of '97%'? Should we not know what Every. Single. Member of this organization thinks? When more than half the members disagree with the statement that 'man-made' global warming is the primary and possibly Only factor in current climate change, it seems to me fairly obvious that NO consensus exists.

Also, please take especial note of Dr. Playford's description of Skeptic beliefs. They mirror mine quite nicely. Heck, they mirror those of Most skeptics. Just ask Any pro-AGW type what skeptics believe.... oh, wait, you will hear the exact opposite. In very shrill, demeaning, condescending, demonizing tones.


But Ok. That is only one group. Surely the other 199 groups have all polled every single one of their members individually, and come up with a 97% consensus, right?

Erm, well, let's look at another group: the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Seems in 2009 there was a major kerfluffle within the ranks of membership there. The AMS had made a clear statement on 'man-made' global warming, claiming that current climate change is Of Course the fault of mankind. Well, that sat so well with a lot of people there that well over a hundred (how many more, I am uncertain) resigned membership in the organization.

One such person who had serious concerns about the validity of the AMS climate-change statement was hurricane expert Dr. William Gray.

Dr. Gray, hurricane forecaster with 70 years' experience under his belt, has had a great deal to say about the stance of the AMS (found here ), including the following:

'Of all the country’s scientific societies, the AMS is the most relevant to the global warming debate because its members have the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. The AMS should have been a leader in helping objectively to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics.

The U.S. legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a contended issue present their views in open debate before a nonpartisan jury. Given the political pressure created by global warming concerns, it’s important to subject the science behind such claims to exactly that kind of debate.

Unfortunately, nothing of the kind has happened regarding AGW. Instead of organizing free and open debates on the basic physics and likelihood of AGW-induced climate changes, the leaders of the national meteorological society (with the backing of its AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to place their full trust in the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate. I know of no AMS-sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion.

The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question, claiming the issue has already been settled by their model results. They take this view because they know the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods are unlikely to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review. Thus they simply will not debate the issue.

To forestall criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of all those who do not support their AGW hypothesis, falsely and maliciously denouncing them as tools of the fossil-fuel industry.'


In the above letter, Dr. Gray also called for a poll to be taken of the membership of the AMS, to see just how many supported the stance on global warming taken by the leadership. This poll did occur, and was published in 2013.

Did it support the '97% consensus'?

Take a look at the table at the top of this article (Which can be found, with commentary by climate scientist Dr Judith Curry, here . This is the breakdown of the internal poll taken by the AMS. Going by two definitions: A) the pro-AGW side, which contends that current climate change is pretty much your fault and a total disaster, and B) as described above, the Skeptic view on current climate change, what do we see?

52% agree with the idea that current climate change is pretty much your fault. Going by the Skeptic view, a full 35% disagree, leaving a few % who don't really say one way or the other.

Interesting how the % agreeing or disagreeing, keeps floating right around 50/50, isn't it? Hardly a '97% consensus.' And yet, proponents of AGW continue to contend that only a small fraction of scientists- say, 3%?- disagree... and they would like you to believe that those who disagree do so ONLY for political reasons, or due to mental defects, or because they were worthless in the science department to begin with. This despite the easily-verifiable facts that many of them hold PhDs, have been working in the field for decades, have taught thousands of students over the years, and even, here and there, have been awarded the Nobel prize.


Well now, that's two. Do we consider them flukes, or is a pattern at complete odds with claims made to the public, beginning to emerge here? Seems like one Hell of a lot of scientists disagree with the 'consensus.'

'But,' some might say, 'meteorologists are *not* climate scientists! Their viewpoint doesn't count!'

Well there's an interesting point. If you are going to contend that *only* 'climate scientists' can hold a valid POV on climate change, then you have just eliminated the AMS from that list of over 200 scientific organizations which support the contention that current climate change is both our fault, and catastrophic.

Ohhhhhhhhh, wait. That makes for a slight problem, don't you think? If non-'climate scientists' cannot be allowed to be holding a 'valid' opinion on climate change.......... If *only* 'climate scientists' can hold a 'valid' opinion on climate change....... Then you had better start striking other organizations off the list. Such as the:

American Medical Association.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences   (One of the things I have long noted is that pro-AGW types sneer down upon engineers- what *could* they possibly know about climate?)

Crop Science Society of America

American Academy of Pediatrics

The American Astronomical Society......? (I thought THE SUN could not have an effect upon the climate, let alone the rest of the universe...)

The list goes on, many groups quite substantially having little or NO climate scientists within their ranks. I mean, biologists? Psychologists? Really?

If members of the American Meteorological Society cannot be allowed to hold a 'valid' POV on climate change, then you must needs eliminate the vast majority of the 200 groups NASA and wiki mention.

Oh My. That % of 'all the world's scientists'** keeps dwindling, doesn't it?


There's a great deal more that I could post here, of course. Educated, scientifically-backed dissent against the prevailing and unproven theory of 'man-made' global warming, is far more widespread than they would have you believe. Peer-reviewed research which indicates major and growing problems with both the unproven theory and its' manifestations in Reality, is far more extensive than most people know.

One has to wonder how many pro-AGW types are on serious high-blood-pressure meds, due to their efforts to prevent the public from learning just how many of the membership in their various organizations, seriously disagree with them- and for quite valid reasons.

Let me just throw out a few more quick items:

Scientists have resigned from the American Physical Society because they could not live with the statements supporting catastrophic, It-Is-YOUR-fault 'man-made' global warming. To whit:

'The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.'


'In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.'

Hmmm. That last statement was from a Nobel Laureate. Who on the pro-AGW side wishes to demean, denigrate and demonize him?

I'm waiting.

In the meantime, one can BET there is a lot more dissent among members of many other scientific organizations, than we are hearing about. It will come out, sooner or later.

The '97% consensus' meme is just that, a meme. Anyone who cares to take a look will find that number shrinking, that is has been shrinking for a long time, and that politics and ideology lie (in both senses of the word) at the heart of it.


And finally, just for fun, there is this comment I made to another person on Deviantart (found here )

'Couldn't find the original comment, but here's my thinking:

'47% of all petroleum geologists don't believe in climate change,' or some such Nonsense.

Funny how you just Don't seem to see the flip side of that.

A MAJORITY, 53%, by your numbers, WOULD believe in 'man-made' whatever.

Yet they are STILL DRAWING A PAYCHECK FROM the 'big oil' conspiracists.

And somehow, that doesn't bother you. Just the people who Don't 'believe' in your religion.

Just thought I'd mention that.'


Feel free to quote from or link to this article when people bring up the 'every scientific society' meme. Ask them to explain why the numbers seem to fall closer to 50/50, than 97/3.

**If you pay close attention when pro-AGW types cite these things, it has gone from '97% of all climate scientists' to '97% of ALL scientists.' And some have tried to nudge it '99%'