Translating AGW claims

This post is to explain in clear language what the AGW crowd is saying.  I will start with one very common example and add more over time.

What it really means:

Today, at the Guardian, we find a book on how the science of global warming was hijacked by corporate minions. The actual translation of this is “Global warming science is very unpersuasive and cannot actually defend itself against those who point out severe flaws in the data and methodology. However, since the politicians and scientists cannot admit this, blame will be shifted to corporations, who, by the way, are apparently far smarter and more persuasive than the global warming advocates. Even the spokespeople for global warming were so poor at conveying the need for action that they failed monumentally.”


August 9, 2015 from a comment on a skeptic blog:

“go look it up or make the point you want to make so I can respond to that”  (After being asked by a commenter if the person knew about plate techtonics over the past 20,000 years)

This often used by true believers in AGW who don’t understand the science but don’t want to look foolish.  When asked a question they cannot answer, they simply bluster up like a rooster and try to intimidate.  What they are really saying is:

“I have no idea what you’re talking about and I can’t look up the proper answer in the warmist manual without further information.  I, left to my own devices, would never be able to answer your question.”

August 19 2015 from a Kevin Trenbreth paper:

“The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

Translation:  Our models are reality and the fact that the actual temperatures are not doing what our models say will happen does not mean our models are wrong.  It’s the temperatures in the real world that are the problem.  Our models know the future and the future will be HOT.

So there you have it.  Global warming is a sure thing because the models say it is and it does not matter what the actual real world is doing.  The real world temperatures will fall in line with those models.  Some day.  Some day in the future.  Some day in the future but we’re not sure when.  But it will happen.

August 31, 2015 from a comment in the online version of the Albany Herald:

“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.”

Translation: I am a warmist and a true conspiracy believer. I see conspiracies anywhere and everywhere there is a challenge to my thinking. It’s interesting to note that this comment was in response to a parody of global warming–meaning the commenter was not even bright enough to realize he is for parodies of things he disagrees with but no one can parody anything said person believes in.  Global warming is godlike and cannot be mocked.

The website is quite depressing, though that is not unusual among such parody websites run by warmists.  Most are reminiscent of a toddler coloring on a wall with a crayon.  His comment policy is “If your comment is not concise, rational and relevant or is redundant or repetitious it will not appear.”  This from a guy who uses only a first name and is criticizing Watts for misinformation and being boring?  Again, you have to realize that the website is not going to allow any discussion or disagreement.  Discussion and disagreement are boring, you know.  And probably a threat to one’s faith in global warming.  Truly sad to be so seeped in the faith, especially since that is completely and utterly unscientific.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

11 comments on “Translating AGW claims

  1. geeaye: I certainly agree no one is obligated to answer a question. My point was you did answer and you did so in a way that sounded evasive. I do recognize that people often respond based on their mood without considering how what they are saying will be perceived. In your case, this was apparently not a sign that you did not know the answer but rather you just did not want to take the time to properly answer. Perhaps not answering at all would have been a better choice—exercising your right not to answer.

    • geeaye says:

      In which case I could have been called out for avoiding. Looking forward to feisty discussions in the future.

      I found myself agreeing with you earlier elsewhere but was in no position to type a reply and the thread wont miss my contribution if I don’t get back to it.

      Your comment about unemployment stats was pretty much what I was thinking, The definition of unemployment in Australia at least, has made it impossible to compare data from one time period with another. Sometimes it helps to have a definition nailed down and any variation requires a new set of words to distinguish it. You watch Paris later in the year to see every country claiming how good they are using their choice among 50 definitions of emissions reduction targets (x% of y year by z year)

      • Perhaps you would have been called out for avoiding, but not by me.

        I too agreed with some of what you were saying and look forward to “feisty discussions” too!

  2. geeaye says:

    Sheri, you have also misrepresented the post to which I responded in your blog.

    I was not asked if I “knew about plate techtonics over the past 20,000 years”. If that had been the question I would have replied, “yes to a reasonable extent as I am an evolutionary biologist who has worked on offshore species, why are you asking?”.

    I was actually asked what was the rate of continental drift 20k ya. This is a specific detail that does not pop off the top of my head and would require me to use my personal time to delve into the literature to come back some days later with a considered, evidence based reply with errors and doubt included. That is not my job and me going to that effort gives no additional advantage to the person asking since the same answer was available to the questioner if they looked it up themselves. Which is what I suggested they do.

    • I was typing the comment from memory—a very bad thing for me to do it seems. In the future, I will link to the comment as you have done on your blog. It does not change the fact that the question was simply responded to as if you had no knowledge of the question. You could have answered exactly as you did here and not made the “Translation List”. Why you would just dismiss someone who asked a legitimate question is not clear. As noted, that is generally what trolls do and those who do not know the answer.

      • geeaye says:

        I can see your point and it fits with a definition of troll but there are so many definitions of troll that anything anyone writes on a blog can be deamed as such. In the instance you commented on from memory, and in all instances, I respond in part according to my experience, mood etc whether that is (or appears) rational or not.

        In this case I adjudged that the person pulled out a question that did not follow the previous debate and they provided no context for it. I think this is their obligation if they want someone to respond to their question. I don’t think it is anyone’s obligation to respond to questions merely because they are being asked.

  3. Gary says:

    It’s amusing how a foundational delusion will make people twist the facts to conform to the original error. Contrary to the claim, AGW never was about the science; yet its proponents say the contrarians made it about economics.

  4. omanuel says:

    BBC News reported that my research mentor, the late Professor P. K Kuroda, secretly retained a copy of Japan’s atomic bomb design from 1945 until 2002.

    BBC News, “Atomic plans returned to Japan,” News Front Page, World Edition (3 Aug 2002)

    Kuroda wanted the world to know that Japan developed the atomic bomb and understood the source of nuclear energy.

    • If Japan understood the source of nuclear energy, how did they end up building a nuclear power plant like Fukushima? Your writings would seem to indicate that a different design should have been used if they understood. Am I not understanding your writings?

  5. omanuel says:

    As reported yesterday in comments on the end of WWII in Japan Times,

    To hide truths revealed on 6 Aug 1945 by Hiroshima’s destruction, the integrity of sovereign governments and government science were destroyed by uniting nations on 24 Oct 1945, especially astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and theoretical physics.

    The divine simplicity of our beautiful, bountiful and benevolent universe is now obscured by 97% Consensus Science (UN)Truths purchased with public research funds for greedy propaganda artists.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

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