Sometimes one must take time off from being the Jolly Scientist explaining the science to members of an inquisitive public…

…and perform the public service of slapping the shit out of assholes who posit themselves an enemy of mankind.

They shall !

Bad news: They are taking us down with them.

To me, the similarity between Spencer and DAESHists ( DAESHITs?) is quite high in terms of their ability to put illogical beliefs on top of their hierarchy of values. I suspect, also, that this type of susceptibility to the illogical has its roots at a very young age. Through punishment and reward, through blinding fear or through hope of religious ecstasy, people are molded to support ideologies that are divorced from reality.

There is obviously no way to know how many people will ultimately suffer and die from fossil fueled climate disaster, or to know how much Spencer, through the powerful influence of that arse, Rush Limbaugh, will help facilitate said disaster. But Spencer and DAESH both have the blood of innocents on their hands. Spencer is just too much of a dumb cluck to realize it.

I look forward to a day when the world has conquered not only DAESH, but also the idiocy promulgated by the Roy Spencers and Rush Limbaughs of the world. May they all fall soon.

“Pandering, simple-minded, exploitative, science half-truth pushing, poverty-exacerbating, job- and prosperity-killing faux-scientific shill for crony capitalist boutique energy scams, Mr. Bill Nye.”

And his fans eat it up…

In fact it was the Pentagon, starting in the last couple of years of the Bush Administration.

Every five years, the Pentagon issues a document that provides a look-ahead on strategic threats and their implications for our defense planning. An unclassified version is made available to the public. You can probably find it (and subsequent versions) by going to http://www.ixquick.com and putting in the search terms “pentagon climate change.”

It was in one of those documents that our military planners first said explicitly that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. This because climate change drives resource competition, local and regional conflicts that can become wars, mass refugee migrations, and the spread of fanatical ideologies. On all of these fronts they were spot-on, as we see today.

There comes a point where _we the people_ have to trust the expertise of those whose task is to protect us from very real threats that could kill us in large numbers or destroy our society. Almost always, there are key facts that we do not know, usually because they are classified: and if we knew these facts we would agree with the policies and decisions that followed from them. Anyone here who has had access to “that type of information” knows this is true.

Spencer and his ilk constitute a very real threat to our national security, and to global security as well. They play right into the hands of groups such as ISIL. They are what Stalin called “useful idiots,” and what we should call _traitors_.

Meanwhile, as for the useful idiots and traitors who have shown up in this blog: Do not feed the trolls. Ignore them.

Lastly, re. Cosmicomics @ 47, I hope you don’t take the rantings of these sociopaths on the radio and elsewhere as representing the whole of the American public. Most of us are downright ashamed of them. “Some day there’ll be a cure.”

I don’t know how to process that.

Suffering Succotash, yo sure fuled me.

RickA: “This means that it is NOT very likely that most (> 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures BEFORE mid-20th century (before 1950) is caused by humans.”

Me: “No it does not mean that. It just means they do not want to claim that most of the observed increase in global average temperature in the first half of the 20th century is very likely (>90% IPCC definition) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It just means they are not making any claims about likelihood in that period. That doesn’t mean they are making a claim about proportions in that period. They’re just leaving that open with the proviso that the anthropogenic part is (significantly) greater than zero.

You have some problems with logic RickA. Not something I’d want to have in a lawyer.

BTW, you could look up what the IPCC means by “very likely” etc. sometime.”