A pointed question

A pointed question (2014-03-07). Anthony Watts asks a pointed question and proves that he has a pointy head.

“What is the perfect temperature of Earth?”

This is one of those “answer that!” questions that merely reveal the stupidity of the person asking it. I’m not even going to dip a toe into the cesspool of ignorance that drives it.

The concern of environmentalists is that the current, completely unprecedented, rate of climate change dramatically exceeds our civilization’s ability to cope and how that change is un-balancing our biosphere, which we depend upon to feed our human population.

That completely unprecedented rate of climate change is what the hated “The Hockey Stick” showed, and triggered the libertarian/denialist “you can’t tell me what to do!” reaction we’re now so hampered by.

Cue Anthony’s idiot followers declaring warming is better and muttering darkly about taxes. What a pack of pin-heads.

10 thoughts on “A pointed question

  1. Watt a poorly-worded question.

    As far as the earth is concerned, temperature is irrelevant. The earth will go on as it always has regardless of temperature. It’s the effect of temperature on life forms on earth that is important.

    A more interesting question is: “Are the bloggers on WUWT more than sentient life forms?”. They certainly react amoebic-like to the environment at WUWT where they reflexively respond like Pavlov’s dog to the not-so-subliminal, derogatory phrases embedded in diatribes about climate research contrary to the Watts’ view of the world. But, after that, there’s nothing of substance which is best summed up as:
    “It’s life Jim, but not as we know it.” “There’s Klingons on the starboard bow!” “It’s worse than that Jim, he’s dead!”

    With apologies to The Firm’s 1987 song ‘Star Trekking’.

  2. Mass extinctions are really good for humans, so we should encourage a big one to happen right now.
    I mean if the K/T extinction hadn’t happened then mammals would probably still be minor players; if the end-Permian extinction hadn’t wiped out almost all life, then our ancestral therapsids may not have had new niches to expand into; if cyanobacteria hadn’t poisoned almost everything in the Proterozoic with their toxic oxygen emissions, then multi-cellular life wouldn’t be possible.
    Ergo, massive changes in the earth’s ecosystems are good for humans.

    [Always look on the bright side of life! – Ben]

  3. Is it possible for you to write an entry on this blog that does not resort to ad hominem?

    [Perhaps you can give us your definition of ad hominem? I do not think it means what you think it means. – Ben]

  4. Watts Up With That radiates seriousness and objectivity. This blog is abusive and hysterical. If you wish to be credible, I suggest you try to imitate Watts’ style.

    [Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thanks! – Ben]

  5. Anthony Watts has science on his website to explain his reasoning for his statements, and all you have is stupid comebacks like “Funniest thing I’ve read all day” Which is hardly a scientific explanation of why he, or anyone else is wrong. [I need to scientifically prove that WUWT doesn’t “radiate seriousness and objectivity”? After all the recent (ignorant) denialist howling on WUWT that you can’t “prove a negative”? – Ben]

    If you have anything better in the way of data, (not tarot cards, computer models, Ouija boards, or crystal balls), anything more lucid than the usual stupid comments, then people of reason might like to hear them.
    I have used plain language because you question what ad hominem means, as if you don’t know.what it is.
    It is attacking the person, instead of their argument. [I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Still. In this case, saying that Anthony is a pin head is entirely separate from his raising a question that is an utterly meaningless distraction. – Ben]

    I look forward to seeing some scientific argument to support your theory that CO2 is linked to global warming, when CO2 has been rapidly added to the atmosphere for a decade and half, and yet there has been no global warming. If you don’t believe me read the IPPC AR5. (The real report written by peer reviewed scientists, not the summary written by politicians) [So Chapter 1 of Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (“Previous assessments have already shown through multiple lines of evidence that the climate is changing across our planet, largely as a result of human activities.”) doesn’t cut it? – Ben]

    The world went into an ice age with CO2 levels more than double what they are today. [Evidence not presented. Kinda hypocritical of you, no? But do you understand that past, natural, climate changes have clear and understood connections to natural causes while the IPPC reports repeatedly show that there are no natural trends that can explain the last 50-60 years of warming? – Ben]

    Present us with data and facts, not stupid comments. [Yes, yes – every critic of denialist lies must continuously re-prove what every climate paper ever written on the subject has shown to be true, otherwise we’re ‘hiding from the facts.’ – Ben]

    • Oh, the perils of approving/annotating a comment just as I’m heading out for a morning run! I missed the obvious insight into Paul’s complaint: My post doesn’t claim that Anthony Watts is wrong just because he’s a pin-head. It points out that Anthony’s original post is an ignorant, witless, distraction. This is evidence that Anthony is a pin-head. That, my friends, is the opposite of even Paul’s faulty understanding of “ad hominem”.

  6. Ben,

    Having a little time on my hands just now I thought I’d venture onto WUWT and post some comments questioning the AGW – phobic consensus. What a dismal, depressing experience. The depths were plumbed when one of Anthony’s Acolytes when discussing a paper on Stratospheric cooling came out with the most appalling calumny, accusing the dozen or so authors of the paper of a very subtle form of lying, based on a mere surmise that he had constructed from the small extract from the paper that Watts had posted. He then trumped this a million-fold with the claim that “academics” do this kind of lying because they have the emotional level of four year olds. The cynicism and hatred is oppressive. To dismiss a class of people – a million people or more – in this fashion was breathtaking, yet it’s done on wuwt without a second thought.

    As an intermittent (for your own sanity, I would guess) watcher of the goings-on at WUWT do you have any feeling for how such levels of bile can be sustained. What is driving these people – it’s clearly not money from fossil fuel companies?

    [Yes, everyone who doesn’t agree with Anthony & Co. must be a malicious liar. It’s quite disgusting to see the willingness of climate denialists to attack scientists with such dedication and integrity. Having watched Anthony and the monkey gallery for some time now it’s clear that they are a) deep in the grip of a shared paranoid delusion and b) easily manipulated by capitalist interests. – Ben]

  7. No Ben, you are resorting to ad Homs and if you believe you are not, then I guess a remedial course in the English language is watt you need. Have a nice day.

    [Wrong. Let’s both go back to grade school for a minute, shall we? “ad Hom” is claiming that someone is wrong because you don’t like them. Criticism is saying that a person’s unrelenting promotion of false climate science shows that they are too stupid (or too intransigent) to rethink their arguments and hence are a pinhead. It’s an assessment based on their actual claims. Get it?

    Have a nice (passive-agressive) day too! – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s