What kind of BULLSHIT is Lord Muck even talking about here? Honestly.
Yes I am calling him Lord Muck. I think it’s “rather” an appropriate name too! Let me tell you, Lord Muck over here would be laughed out of a room full of true intellectuals. Because this is definitely not the manner in which scientists discuss real science in order to convince other scientists who are already in the know of anything new.
Maybe some of my readers should wander right on in to any old university campus. And sit in a lecture, just to look and listen for a while. To know what real science sounds like.
Science universities are not isolated fortresses after all. They hardly ever get any visitors! So I don’t think many lecturers around the world would disapprove of you being there. You just… won’t be able to sit in on any exams and/or graduate and get your degree unless you pay your union fees is all.
Contrary to seeming like an authority on cimate change, the global science community just collectively laughed at his expense. He might as well have incinerated his degree, for all the good this presentation did.
Having a posh voice only makes you an authority on… umm… poshness. It doesn’t automatically give you extra clout whenever you are ‘talking’ about climate change. And I say ‘talking’, in inverted commas like that, because, well, he doesn’t actually ‘talk’ much at all about the data at all. He’d rather put up slides that say: “Greens are too yellow to admit they’re really red”. Wow. That sentence certainly has a lot to do with climate change.
Seriously. The first thing I do, or anyone who’s studied science for that matter, is look up people’s credibility. Then we can know what kind of mind we are dealing with. What ‘level’ we’re at. And what do I see with this “Lord Muck” fellow? I see a degree in classics (languages). And another one in journalism. Not that there’s anything wrong with either of those study areas. I like people who can speak more than one language. I like journalists. And I even ‘like’ mathematicians. But I don’t see *any* science education *anywhere* in his entire CV. Hasn’t worked in a university, hasn’t done any real research, hasn’t published anything. You name it, he just hasn’t got it.
Hmm. Not good, Mr. Muck, not good. Here’s what I think. Perhaps if you actually studied one of the physical sciences (subjects like physics, chemistry, geology, ) you’d actually be one of the 97% consensus, instead of making a total fool of yourself in front of the whole world like you’ve just done after uploading that video of yours?
Do you want to know what I think? I think I’ve ‘researched’ more about ‘lord’ Christopher Monckton himself (and his prodigously stupid ‘entitled’ pathetic little weener life; for none other than this whole story) than he’s ‘researched’ climate change. That’s what I think.
I think he’s come into the debate with predrawn conclusions, something which which scientist never do. Probably because he owns an estate and simply can’t fathom a simpler (less climate change inducing) lifestyle (and yes, find that to often be the case, sadly).
And then you find little gems like this in the comments section:
“you find this climate change alot of bull crap”.
On what basis? Your own personal obervations about climate? Statements like that don’t hold up much under scrutiny…
You know, I don’t see many people refuting, debating or denying how or why their computer works. For example. Go ahead. Pick and choose the parts of science you want to ‘believe’ in. But don’t come on here [youtube] trying to convince everyone about ‘facts’ or ‘objectivity’.
I am not saying I am an expert on it; but I am clever enough to recognise that people other than myself know more than me. Enough time spent here, go hear what they have to say already!
All scientists care about are facts. They don’t care about your feelings. They don’t care about profit. They don’t care about speculation. The ones I know don’t even care much about socialising, something which other ‘normal’ people simply can’t understand (much to their dismay). Facts. Data. Real, solid data. That’s all they care about. And if it isn’t all that solid, then at least include an estimate of the errors (yes we can do that).
Now, see, if you want to change my opinion, then at least go and do your research first. Anyone can be an ‘expert’ on climate change — all you have to do is “read upon it” enough.
So, dear reader, if you want the true truth, start reading science journals.
Not blog sites. Not fake news. Not someone who knows how to grow potatoes1.
Perhaps start with this paper?
Then look in the references at the back of that article. Next, read all of those papers too. Then, read the references in all of those ones as well. Pretty soon you will realise you are sitting on a veritable mountain of results/discussion/conclusions, none of which is even remotely discussed in the mainstream media.
- Truly. No offense intended. It’s not meant to be disrespectful. It’s just that some people know more things than others. Mainly through a lot of research and study. They are the so called experts. Of which I am not one. But there is a lot at stake here. So people with science training are not going to simply sit down and shut up about what they know. If I want to know how to grow a good potato, I will ask the WA potato farmer. If I want to know about climate modelling, I’m probably not going to ask them for it. I laugh when Nick Coates says “I will when I get the chance.” Because it means he is going for the information that he already knows is going to confirm what he already believes. I.e. it is biased information. If you want to look at it more objectively, read the science. I personally do not have the time. All I know is that there are many people who are WAY smarter than me.