Alex Adair: Make Me Feel Better

November 5, 2014

Made me feel better. Might work for you. Fullscreen helps.

Back to work.

53 Responses to “Alex Adair: Make Me Feel Better”

  1. Interesting election results. Considering the make-up of the Senate, maybe Obama should just change his party affiliation to Republican and get it over with.

    May I suggest that the 2016 presidential election be renamed:

    “Election for the next captain of the Titanic.”

  2. Friends, rather than expressing a forlorn appeal for something to make you all feel better, would it not be more productive to examine exactly why you feel lousy in the first place? Pause a moment to consider the larger aspect of it: you feel depression over last night’s Senate losses, anger against those you feel are either ignorant, selfish or crooks, and you lose sleep at night over worries of an impending climate catastrophe and current ice cap loss and rising seas, out-of-control wildfires and superstores. Quite a miserable existence, wouldn’t you agree? Hard to get out of the bed in the mornings sometimes, isn’t it, to face a future with no hope, one where you must yell at your critics, call them names, loathe their ignorance and fear that they will misinform the otherwise disinterested public?

    But then take a moment to look through my comments here at ClimateCrocks or elsewhere, such as those with the “Hope Forpeace” commenter at my Youtube ICCC9 video comment section. Notice anything in particular? No anger, just straight up challenges for AGW folks to see for themselves if there are valid reasons for their own misery, and suggestions for self introspection where I try to prompt them to wonder why they place their trust in nasty accusations devoid of proof to support them.

    It’s a simple question, really. Do you enjoy the misery you wallow in, fearing the unknown, so uncertain that you can defeat critics with sound arguments that you must either demand for them to go away or flee from them instead? Or would you rather be liberated from this depressing situation, where you can have the confidence of speaking with authority while feeling relieved that the climate is nowhere near in as bad of shape as it is portrayed to be?

    This liberation won’t come from me or skeptic climate scientists, it comes from within you. You can seek empirical evidence that the ice caps are disappearing as we speak and that current weather is unprecedented and that there is proof that skeptics received money and orders to lie, rather than simply believe it unquestioningly. And if you start to see contradictions in any facet of AGW, you have the freedom to dig deeper into those and resolve them for yourself – to find out if what you’ve been told accurate or not.

    I have every confidence in the world that after an honest examination of AGW, you will thank me for the tip. I undertook this myself, and I sleep soundly at night while seeing the future as a bright sunny one. Wouldn’t you trade everything you have just to be able to wake up, look outside, and say what a nice day it is? You can, but the trade involves casting aside preconceived ideological opinion for critical thinking and honest examination of all the available facts. Give it a shot, seek evidence that points you to a conclusion instead of having a pre-set conclusion burdened with the necessity to find ‘evidence’ to prove it.

  3. And this is the best response commenter “jimbills” can come up with?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      I can do better. GO AWAY, RUSSELL!

      And sarcasm is perhaps the only way to deal with someone who is so utterly clueless that he finishes this string of mindless BS with:

      “….seek evidence that points you to a conclusion instead of having a pre-set conclusion burdened with the necessity to find ‘evidence’ to prove it”.

      Lord love a duck, but YOU are the one that describes, not us. You have obviously not taken your own advice.

      PS Russell? Speaking of “evidence”, Charles Zeller is waiting to discuss some science with you on another thread. He asked you a VERY simple question and you have NOT answered him. I have some “science” questions for you also if you can find the willpower to tear yourself away from your mirror.

      • I also asked Russell a very simple political science question, which appears to be his area of expertise.

        • No, I thing astute readers will readily see you repeated a loaded question based on a false premise, of which I’d already asked you to support the loaded part of it, which you sidestepped for all to see. After repeating your question, you employed a diversionary tactic which you’d previously acknowledged was in regard to points beyond my own science expertise and possibly beyond your own Bachelor’s of Science in Electrical Engineering training.

          And for those who haven’t caught it yet, my self-described expertise is entirely on two fronts: first, the manner in which the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation implodes; and second, the absolutely quantifiable way in which the PBS NewsHour is biased in its global warming reporting. So why would you attempt to misdirect readers into a broader unsupportable notion about me having some kind of ‘political science’ expertise? Are you trying to hammer home the way in which the collective AGW movement is enslaved to the kind of misdirection it claims to loathe?

          • Russell, forgive us for not understanding your self-described expertise. You probably won’t find many experts in the PBS News Hour’s programming choices over here. However, we can address your first area of expertise: “the manner in which the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation implodes.”

            My loaded question was because you do refer to the NIPCC to validate your opinion. The NIPCC describes itself as follows – “NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.” Therefore, I perhaps incorrectly assumed that you have some insight into why the NIPCC/Heartland believes that government would want to exaggerate the impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, given that fossil fuel has been an excellent energy source.

            Loaded question #2: Are the world’s major science academies corrupt, incompetent, or know something that you don’t know?

            My “diversionary tactic” of trying to steer the conversation to the science was a question that a competent high school physics student could answer. (Even Caltech engineering students get a heavy dose of physics.) As for being included on your “you’re not climate scientists” lists you’re right. However, not being qualified to do something doesn’t mean that people can’t study and understand that something.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’m an “astute reader”, and I once again call BS on Russell. For someone who talks about others not being able to “have it it both ways”, Russell sure tries to have it ALL ways himself. Too bad that he has neither the brainpower nor logic skills necessary to carry through on the argument he attempts here.

            He asserts that his “self-described expertise is entirely on two fronts: first, the manner in which the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation implodes; and second, the absolutely quantifiable way in which the PBS NewsHour is biased in its global warming reporting”

            It is illogical for someone who admits he has NO science skills to maintain that he is qualified to make judgements about who is a climate change skeptic or is not a skeptic, since he doesn’t understand the arguments that the two “sides” make in support of their positions. And if he can’t define a skeptic for us, how can he judge whether any accusations about “industry corruption” of either skeptics or non-skeptics are valid?. In a court of law, Russell’s “self-described” expertise would result in his having a very short stay on the witness stand.

            His assertion that he is “expert” on PBS NewsHour AGW reporting bias is perhaps even more illogical. If he doesn’t understand the science behind the reporting enough to determine whether what is reported is correct or not, what criteria does he us to “quantify” that alleged “bias”? Compare what is said to his “Denier Trolls Checklist of Truth”?

            And listen to him whine and try to redirect with “So why would you attempt to misdirect readers into a broader unsupportable notion about me having some kind of ‘political science’ expertise?” No misdirection at all there. Since AGW has become such a politicized subject, it would be expected that any qualified commentator would have some expertise in “political science”. Russell shows us plenty, actually, but it is all the biased and dishonest political “science” of distortion and lies used by the denier right and the greedy fossil fuel interests. And so we come full circle to who Russell whores for and takes a paycheck from. I like it when it all comes together so neatly, especially when Russell climbs in the bag for us.

            PS I have captured a local VA rodent (variety Rattus Norvegicus) and asked him if his rear end gives a damn about “the manner in which the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation implodes or the absolutely quantifiable way in which the PBS NewsHour is biased in its global warming reporting”. He has assured me that his rear end cares not a whit about those irrelevant topics (and unlike Russell, I didn’t have to feed him any stinky Heartland Cheese to get him to say that).

          • Cue the Twilight Zone theme: commenter “Charles Zeller” openly admits he asked a loaded question (based on a false premise) and then later says a high school physics student could answer it. Beyond that, he claims my pointing to the NIPCC ‘validates my opinion’. What opinion?? I point to a collection of climate assessments that is contradicted by another collection (IPCC v NIPCC) and then I point to 20 years+ of anti-science anti-intellectual efforts to pretend the latter is unworthy of consideration because the scientists were supposedly paid illicit money to lie and mislead. My expertise is the manner in which narratives tied to that accusation don’t line up right.

            ….. and in case anybody hasn’t notice yet, despite probably thousands of words of bloviating, commenter “dumboldguy” cannot rise to the simple challenge of rummaging through any book, presentation, or web page to provide any of you with physical evidence to prove any money paid to skeptics came under specific instructions to lie, mislead, and fabricate reports that they knew were dead wrong.

            As I’ve tried to hammer home before, what I speak of are not words created in the boardrooms of Exxon or the Kochs, I quote material in my blog posts and in my other online pieces verbatim from your own heroes’ books, presentations & web pages, so when folks like “dumboldguy” calls my work unflattering names, they are calling the work of Desmog, Gore, Oreskes, Gelbspan, Hoggan, Monbiot, Mann, etc, etc unflattering names.

            Once again, as I suggested in my first comment within this blog post, if you-all want to feel better, look within your own work and see if it lines up right. When you make no better headway than I did, that’s your cue to ask why your leaders lead you down the path of misery while they line their pockets with your donations. Gore, Oreskes, Passacantando, and that lot have laughed all the way to the bank while you all lose sleep over a melting Arctic that is headed right into its standard yearly deep freeze:

          • This is starting to remind me of what it was like arguing with my teenage daughter Russell. Let’s just agree that we’re not going to establish a shared set of premises, and leave it at that.

      • (sorry chaps, multi-tasking on several fronts. Hard to keep tabs on my many obligations and challenges.)

        Odd. Commenter “dumboldguy” wishes for me to leave, yet invites me to stay and answer questions, while spooning out pure psychological projection. Regarding Mr Zeller, sorry for the delay; reply placed, and neither of you will like it. And again, not going away anytime soon, but do expect time lapses in responses, as I have much to do and many to respond to. This blog is not the center of the universe, you see.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Well, “friend”, you must be spread thin – like butter on too much bread – breathlessly informing other sites how these election results inform us about the verity of AGW.

          We shall persevere without you quite happily. Go spread your bonhomie and priceless insights elsewhere, where they will no doubt be truly appreciated.

          • So by default the two-time elections of President Obama allowed you to breathlessly inform all about the verity of AGW? Or did you not think that notion all the way through? Sorry, no, the work that spreads me thin is the very question you chose to completely sidestep. So tell us, would you in your future time travels shoot people you can’t currently prove are paid industry money to lie to the public, or enviro-activist One Percenters who lined their pockets while failing to prove the above challenge?

            Re-read your last line. I think you meant to say you’ll persevere without me in sheer misery, as was implied in Peter Sinclair’s title to this blog post, and as seen among so many of your fellow travelers. The choice is yours, and you can pretend I never existed if you wish: choose to live in abject misery, losing sleep at night over impending doom of climate catastrophe, bursting blood vessels in rage over corporate corruption of simple minds while believing in third-hand information about all of this…….. or check into it yourselves to see if the science adds up and if the industry corruption of skeptics accusation is true.

            What are you afraid of within the simple act of undertaking your own self-guided due diligence? That you’ll meet the true enemy and he is you?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          We are all aware that YOU are the center of the universe, Russell, and not “this blog”. I’m sorry that you can’t be honest enough to admit that your Heartland owners require you to spread the horsepucky around many sites, and that you will only visit Crock when it fits your rigid schedule. At your next evaluation, you might suggest to your bosses that you would seem more “natural” and be more effective if they allowed you to visit the sites you are paid to disrupt on a more flexible schedule.

          • *sigh* Say I’m paid to visit sites like this if it makes you feel better, but probably more and more of your pals are getting impatient with your sheer inability to prove it.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            Russell, If Heartland wasn’t paying you, I’d pay you myself. There’s nothing like a real-life example of pure, unadulterated cluelessness to make my point. In addition, I know that, while you are here, you are not bothering anyone else, and not outside where you might hurt yourself or others. Rock on. Just keep it clean, bro.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’ve also been trying to help the cause by feeding Russell the Troll, but one can’t hang around with people as sick as Russell very much and maintain one’s sanity.

            Like Charles, I don’t care whether he’s paid to be a clueless moron here or whether it’s just one or his many faults. Either way, I’m taking a break from Russell. He’s all yours, Charles (if you can stand him).

          • Most of us don’t care if you’re paid to visit this blog. (I don’t.)

  4. redskylite Says:

    Same thing happened in my country and across the pond, can’t understand the mass indifference to the effect our industrialization will have on future generations, or even the fact that we are on the road to possible mass extinctions of ourselves and other species, maybe it’s an inbred suicidal wish. Keep at it and take some solace in this “Phys” article.

  5. rayduray Says:

    And for today’s Inconvenient Truth, we might well have James Inhofe running the Senate’s Environment committee while Ted Cruz is set to run the Commerce/Science committee. If you love irony, you’ll gonna love the 114th Congress.

    It’s as if Franz Kafka and George Orwell wrote a nightmare and called it “Our Dour Political Future: Obduracy Uber Alles!” .

  6. rayduray Says:

    PRI’s The World offers this sober assessment of the gear shift in Washington, D.C.

    The “cup half full” headline reads:

    Republican control of Congress may be a setback for big climate change legislation, but the issue isn’t dead

    • astrostevo Says:

      The issue won’t go away by wishful thinking. It will become increasing undeniable over time.

      Actually scratch the “will be” and make that already is.

      Problem is the longer we leave it before we act, the harder and more drastic those actions are going to be and the worse the damage.

      I think I’ve used this analogy before, unsure if here or just elsewhere, but its like we’re in a car that’s careering off the road towards a wall. The steering isn’t working and a crash of some sort is inevitable but we can hit the brake sooner and hit with a slower speed, or hit the brakes later or not at all and hit with a much higher more damaging, maybe fatal velocity.

      So far, we have people ignoring the dust being kicked up, the on rushing wall and just saying “oh this feels fine, we’re just skidding sideways so I can’t accept that its going to be an impact soon, nevermind, we don’t need to act or prepare ourselves.” People like, oh say, Russell Cook above.

      Russell Cook, you ever heard of NASA? Well, they are rocket scientists they disagree with your assessment. You ever heard of actual climatologists -ditto. You are no climatologist nor rocket scientist that’s for sure.

      • Considering changes are already happening, that are observable and measurable, and the deniers still deny, it’s not comforting. Climate change is just gradual enough that people have a hard time “feeling” the change, which seems to be the only evidence many people will accept. And even if they do secretly acknowledge the problem, everyone who sits on their hands or obstructs movement has a million justifications for why, from “CHINA!” to “I’m just one person” to “The oil is coming out of the ground anyway, so I better get in on the action” or “Judith Curry says it’s going to be super mild so I don’t have to worry.”

        The latest I encountered was from a very smart thoughtful guy who still doesn’t understand that the risks to us all outweigh by a mile the inertia in the economic engine. That it doesn’t matter about energy futures, what’s cheapest on the market. That’s short term thinking, because it obviously doesn’t take into account the part of the bill we are not paying yet. Credit card debt can be a bitch, especially if it’s one of those high interest rate cards…

      • Right. Sez a movement who turns in a heartbeat against science-trained NASA astronauts. Meanwhile:

        You are neither a climatologist nor a rocket scientist nor is Naomi Oreskes, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Bill McKibbon, Gina McCarthy, President Obama, Peter Sinclair, Charles Zeller and commenter “dumboldguy”. So how’s that talking point tactic actually working out for you?

        I never said we don’t have to prepare for climate change and skeptic climate scientists don’t deny climate change. So how’s that “denier” talking point tactic actually working out for you? What I actually suggeste above in my initial comment in this post was introspection on your part. Do you know the things you point to are true, or do you just believe what others tell you. Ask yourself that honest question…… and then come back here with physical evidence proving skeptic climate scientists face cut-offs of funding if they stop lying and fabricating evidence.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          We have had many trolls visit Crock, but Russell is one of a kind. No troll in recent memory has so bald-facedly spouted the kind of insane BS that Russell subjects us to.

          He fits Einstein’s definition of insanity perfectly by repeatedly throwing the same horsepucky against the wall and expecting it to stick each time. His appeals to authority always lead back to discredited wing-nuts and wing-nut institutions like Heartland and its affiliates. Did he even read his first link, which shows that “NASA trained astronaut” Harrison Schmitt is a shill like Russell and has no credibility? The second link is to more Heartland crap (written by Steven freakin’ GODDARD, no less), and repeats more of the unproven conspiracy horsepucky that the deniers use to obscure truth.

          I can’t speak for the other straw men Russell has lined up here. Only for myself—“dumboldguy”. Unlike Russell, whose limited background in business administration and graphic design appears to have given him absolutely no “standing” (a legal term, look it up) to comment on ANY aspect of AGW, my science training and life experiences put me high enough on the Dunning-Kruger line that I feel safe in looking back and saying that Russell is incompetent, and wastes our time. I do understand the science of AGW, and far better than your average “rocket scientist” or astronaut.

          Russell refuses to discuss any climate science at all, and insists on returning us to his agenda of conspiracy and FUD every time we ask him to. “I never said we don’t have to prepare for climate change..”, he says? Really? OK, Russell, then tell us what steps you think we need to take to “prepare” for climate change. And after that, tell us what is causing that climate change you tjhik we need to prepare for. Tell us about the things that concern climate scientists and have 97% of them, believing that it’s a serious problem that you agree we need to prepare for.

          I am really getting tired of Russell’s BS.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS Forgot to mention that Russell’s incompetence is perfectly displayed in his constantly referring to “talking points”. Russell is one who puts forth “talking points”, and he fails to recognize that the rest of us on Crock are more concerned with science, facts, logic, and rational discourse.

            Perhaps he has spent too much time in the wing-nut echo chamber where there exists nothing but BS “talking points” and he can’t tell the difference?

          • “… really getting tired of Russell’s BS. …” No doubt because you cannot point out anywhere in the non-science political material you believe in where you or your pals can see actual physical evidence proving skeptics received money in exchange for lies and fabricated reports. A person doesn’t have to be a climatologist to point to that wipeout, and that must irritate commenter “dumboldguy” no end. Witness the rage out of him over it.

  7. […] Made me feel better. Might work for you. Fullscreen helps. Back to work.  […]

  8. andrewfez Says:

    Most of the progressive ballot measures were passed. Minimum wage was increased in 4 red states. During the last election the only reason i showed up at the voting poll was to vote on a ballot measure that closed tax loopholes on businesses and diverted the saved money into green energy projects…

  9. Gingerbaker Says:

    Just touching base…. a thought experiment:

    You are a time traveler. You go back to 1938 Germany and find yourself in a dark alley with a young Adolf Hitler. You have a loaded pistol in your hand. Time travel paradoxes aside, – Would it be ethical for you to shoot him?

    • So in this case today, who’d you shoot, people you can’t currently prove are paid industry money to lie to the public, or enviro-activist One Percenters who lined their pockets while failing to prove the above challenge, thus enabling a movement to continuing vacuuming up cash that could have been better spent on actually saving lives and solving genuine human suffering?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      IMO, it would be against the law to shoot Hitler without a fair trial (for those who worry about such niceties), but it most certainly would be ethically and morally correct to do so. Unless of course, that then allowed the Germans to continue with their plans for fighting WW2 and WIN IT because that nut job Hitler didn’t get in the way of the finest fighting machine on earth at that time—the Wermacht. Such is the nature of “time travel paradoxes”—they can lead to unintended and undesirable consequences. BTW, Hitler was no longer “young” in 1938—you would have had to go back 30+ years from 1938 to shoot him when he was.

      Russell then appears on scene to try to deflect the discussion to his BS conspiracy agenda. He asks who we’d shoot today? Since this is only a “thought experiment”, I will suggest that we can could come up with a long list of deserving folks, many of whom we have discussed at length on Crock. Russell is perhaps too small-time to be on the “shoot on sight list”, but he IS high on the “slap the s**t out of him” list.

      • You are one hilarious curmudgeon DOG.

        • But will he remain hilarious to you the moment you say something that doesn’t meet his approval, anything that begins to look like it wavers from the orthodoxy, such that it begins to cross his mind that the only way to get you back into line is to physically injure you… or maybe add your name to his “shoot on sight list” because you are less than pure now. One has to wonder what he truly thinks of you for not yelling at me to go away…. or of what he truly thinks of Peter for allowing me to occupy pace in this blog. Scary thought, isn’t it? Do you really feel comfortable with someone having that amount of rage over a guy like me who has the audacity to challenge him on a core detail, which you notice he has yet to answer after all this time.

          • I’ve said things that don’t meet his approval, Russell. Curmudgeons spare no one. Some are both confrontational and entertaining.

            What “core detail” are you wanting answered?

            Why do you think governments and climate scientists have a stake in exaggerating claims about the risk of burning fossil fuel at the current rate?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “What “core detail” are you wanting answered?”

            Now you’ve done it—-you have mentioned the all powerful (in Russell’s mind, anyway) CORE DETAIL, and Russell will fixate on that so he can continue to avoid answering your truly substantial questions.

            The CORE DETAIL is Russell’s challenge to PROVE that he and other deniers are paid shills and trolls for the fossil fuel interests. Russell enjoys beating dead horses. The rest of us are smart enough to recognize them as smelly piles of maggot food and avoid them.

          • Oh, puh-lease. The CORE DETAIL is “dumboldguy”’s challenge to PROVE that I and skeptic climate scientists are paid shills and trolls for the fossil fuel interests. Do I really have to spell that out to the both of you this late in the whole ClimateCrocks comment process? What part of that epic failure of the AGW industry do you not yet comprehend?

      • “… BS conspiracy agenda …” This, coming from commenter “dumboldgoy” who has every appearance in the world of believing in the same kind of ‘enemy du jour funds skeptic climate scientists’ conspiracy as what’s seen coming from the 911 Truthers, the ChemTrail believers, and the creation scientist folks. Notice the hate and the anger, coming from him, though.

        Nossir, I didn’t come into this particular blog post to deflect anyone to what I say, as is abundantly obvious from my first comment, I offered you-all the suggestion of introspection and examining your own material from your own heroes to see if it lines up right. Pretend I don’t exist and then rummage through all that you hold dear to see if it doesn’t contain irreconcilable differences. What on Earth could any one of you have to fear from your own due diligence examinations if you are so confident that my material is Heartland-fed fabrications?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Russell is swinging by Crock again, making another inane comment and getting his time card punched so that his Heartland masters will continue to pay him.

          No hate and only a little anger coming from me, Russell. Didn’t you notice that you’re not on my “kill” list but on my “slap the s**t out of him” list? Do you understand the difference there?

          “Pretend I don’t exist” says Russell? Easy! That’s exactly what ALL Crockers do when Russell is quiet, and what NEARLY all Crockers do when he makes an appearance. Some of us are “good Christians” and want to help him with his Heartland job and so we reply to his BS. I don’t know how shills and trolls get paid, but I would imagine that they don’t unless they evoke some sort of a response, even though it may be one of mockery, ridicule, and disdain. (Do you think Heartland knows how inept Russell is and how they are wasting their $$$?—-someone who is not feeling very “Christian” might just pick up the phone, spill the beans to the HL paymasters, and put Russell back on the dole)

        • dumboldguy Says:

          PS Forgot to mention that I want to thank you for constantly returning to one of the most laughable straw men ever seen on Crock. That BS about a “challenge on a CORE DETAIL” cracks me up every time! Awesomely mindless!

    • andrewfez Says:

      The experiment gets more interesting if you consider that all US presidents after WWII have committed war crimes, by the Nuremberg definition, and then ask: ‘Should Kennedy have been shot sooner to spare the countless Vietnamese civilians whose lives were destroyed or hostilely disrupted by U.S. desires to continue comprehensive imperialist control of that region of the world?’

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “….continue comprehensive imperialist control of that region of the world?”

        You need to reread your history books.

    • astrostevo Says:

      Y’know there are alternatives to shooting him – even if he will richly deserve it later – in this scenario.

      Imagine if you could stop him and prevent the Shoah (Holocaust) another way or three?

    • astrostevo Says:

      Oh & Gingerbaker – you pose the question but do not give your own answer. Do you think it would be or not?

      My answer – a definite maybe!

  10. […] to smithereens. Don’t think of that as a hopeless prospect, though, look at it as one more among other reasons for an exercise in introspection that could very well open up a bright future for you that […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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

%d bloggers like this: