You have to feel sorry for him. He’s genuine. He’s stressed to the point of mania. And it’s all for nothing.
But as Brice Bosnich says, Hilarious; bring the back to front canvas jacket, rubber spoon…
Greg Craven posted his infamous AGU speech and asked us to share it. Craven is absolutely right in a chain of logic except for one ever so small point, in the first link. His chain is anchored to his Gods of Science. He doesn’t question authority. Everything else is an error cascade, and he’s over the waterfall. He’s just done Niagara in a tin-can.
I hope he makes it.
The irony is he’ll devote hours to “understanding” the official establishment version of events, and three years working non-stop to promote that, but nothing to understanding why people are unconvinced. He’s living in the matrix — he thinks the punters are dumber than him, and they’re being exploited by a “ruthless denial machine” — meanwhile his religious zeal, and blind faith in authority is passively exploited by a ruthless power-seeking money-hungry machine.
Shame, if only someone had taught him the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. All those good intentions could be used to help the daughters he loves so much. Instead he willingly feeds the establishment that wants to take away their freedom and shackle them for life to be vassals for bureaucrats and banksters. (We fight for your daughters too Greg).
He faithfully ignores the missing stations, the smearing of measurements across 1200km, the thermometers in car-parks, the endless shifting excuses, the un-falsifiability of their predictions, the weather-balloon results, the polite questions from skeptics and the pattern of deceit in some of his hallowed hero scientists who somehow repeatedly hide and lose their records.
I’ve selected the choice edits…
What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Veteran of the Climate Change Culture Wars Explains Why America Isn’t Listening and What To Do About It.
American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting
Dec. 15, 2010
This is not a talk. This is a primal scream. For help. For salvation. For the lives of my children. And I will not apologize. I will not yield. I will charge the stage and scream my message if I must. I am in the zone. I am over the edge. I am gone. I am enlightened. I am maniacal. I am insane. I am terrified at what I have just become. All of my life has been to serve this single moment. And you may need to forcibly remove me to the hospital, screaming like a madman. But you will not stop me. For I have revelation to bring.
Wait for it… the revelation to save the world: the multi-billion-dollar machine with professional PR writers, journalists, editors of science journals, and whole popular science magazines (which subscribe and promote the “party line” 100%) it’s failing because it doesn’t communicate the science well.
I am a fanatic of science. I love you, and what you do. What I bring you is the loving but eviscerating criticism of the outsider looking in. So I’m going to give you the gift of brutal frankness. Because you have done an abhorrent job at communicating climate change to the public so far. Because what you’ve been giving them up to now, as a scientist, is information. And with the terrifying divergence between public opinion and scientific opinion in the last few years, with public opinion in the U.S. plummeting over the last several years, that strategy clearly is not working.
So it is time for a radical change in tactics. [Applause.]
Don’t applaud just yet, I’m about to call you insane. [Mild laughter.]
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And I’m sorry you have to hear this, but it’s best to come from a friend. You have become insane. You have brought them information when they needed emotion. What you must bring them now, as a citizen, as a father, as a mother, as an aunt, as a grandparent, who knows better than anyone else what the physical world will bring in the future, you must give them yourself.
This talk was supposed to be about becoming better communicators about climate change. My answer to the question “What can be done about it?”—about America not listening—was “You must become better communicators by understanding the psychology of the individual, the foibles of the brain, how they are exploited by the ruthless denial machine, and how we can work with that.”
Golly. He’s finally realized that it’s all about PR (about 15 years after the IPCC did).
Well I’ve got sober news for you. You, in this room, in this community of science—you are that someone. You are the ones we have been waiting for. You are the last battle reserves in civilization’s last stand. And you damn well need to saddle up and come down off that hill as the cavalry, to turn the tide of battle when all hope seems lost. So sound your bugle call and come down into the bloody fray.
My journey in climate change has gone from dawning realization, to “holy shit!” to terror and fierce urgency to protect my children, and now sadly, inevitably, to despair. And to leaving the ship to itself, to build my lifeboat for my family, before what others have wrought take us below the icy water. You say you want to have an effect on the public? If you trod a journey at all similar to mine, think, visualize, take five minutes to meditate on the impact it would have if you took off your goddamned scientist hat for just a moment, and put on your citizen hat. And said frankly to the public through the largest mouthpiece you can: “As a scientist, here’s my understanding. As a citizen, here’s my hope, my vision. And as a mother, here’s my contingency plan, here’s my lifeboat.”
The monumental effort — misdirected:
I went through the harshest, most unimaginable hell doing my climate change crusade over the last three years. Three and a half years ago I posted a single innocuous video on YouTube—a ten minute whiteboard lecture drawing a decision grid for risk analysis, proposing how confused but sincere laypeople can possibly make sense out of the shouting match about climate change when they don’t have the expertise, they don’t have the time, they don’t have the training, and they’ve got to get their kids to school.
“Lucky” for us that Greg Craven has the brains that most people don’t:
And you’ve got to know: the public requires certainty before making a decision. They misunderstand the basic nature of science, and that science cannot provide certainty–it can only provide “good enough to go on.” So tell them that. Unhitch them from the con man in their brains that keeps them holding on to something that they can never get from science, which is “The Answer.”
That civilization is teetering over the precipice, staring down into the abyss. You must be the hand that reaches out, grabs hold, and pulls us back from the brink of extinction. The hand of a hero. You. You must stop selfishly pursuing your pleasure in finding things out. To be frank: fuck your research. We. Need. You. I know I am almost certain to outrage you with my impertinence and the audacity of my message.
So what’s the key to better communication when you have already done the 3000 page reports, the 50 page glossies, the televised adverts, posters in schools, coloring in competitions, brochures, feature length documentaries, and interviews on every current affairs program in the Western World? The answer: scream louder.
You shall spill your blood. You shall soak the earth with your viscera. You shall scream the alarm until your throat runs raw. And then you shall pick up rocks and bang them together as the alarm until your hands become a bloody pulp. What shall be your future regrets if you choose? Will they be that you stood by, hopeful, desperate, unaffected, impotent while your children were slaughtered before you? Or will it be that you went too far, destroyed your career, your life, in your panic to save them?
This is your power. This is your purpose. This is your insignificant role in an infinite, uncaring universe. You will not be denied. You will charge the stage of the world and scream your message if you must. This is the most important thing here. This is the most important thing now. And I shall not yield. I shall not back down. I shall stand. And I will be heard. Because I have need to be all afire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.
Incidentally, nothing you can say critically after this can touch me. It’s strange to feel what it’s like to be inside the madman. I’ve always wondered. But it struck at 1 a.m. this morning. And I know what the face of god–which I don’t believe in–but this morning, for the first time in my life, I feel that level of faith: that this is what must be done.
[Sigh of relief that this exceedingly uncomfortable speech is done.]
I am Greg Craven. I am my daughter’s . . . [unable to speak] . . . I’m kind of exhausted. . . .
I am Greg Craven. Hear my name. I am my daughter’s father. On behalf of my children, please–I beseech you–and I thank you for your time. Sorry.
[Applause. Polite? Mildly enthusiastic? Scornful? Happy this ridiculously inappropriate rant is done? (I’m told this was the first time the word “fuck” has ever been used onstage at an AGU meeting, with hundreds of thousands of scientific presentations given over the decades. So . . . I’ve got that going for me.)]
[End of speech]
The whole speech is here.
h/t to Brice Bosnich!
I’d love to comment on Craven’s rantings but his insane wibbling brought on a painful case of mental indigestion of migrain proportions. Kudos to Jo for having the fortitude to work through such dire, maniacal drivel.
10
Fanatics like Craven keep real scientists away from studying climate change. Climate science is a fringe community of fear sharing apocalyptic doomsayers where very little, if any, science is real.
Craven talks and sounds like a coward. Hey what’s new in climate science?
10
Climategate, 10:10 splattergate…
The only thing missing from this rant seems to be the “send your money now by calling now, and we will save your eco soul”.
Isn’t it amazing. We sceptics don’t really need to do much. Each time a nutter like this opens up, I can hear more and more people starting to ask those difficult questions to which they won’t like the answer to.
I say let him go for it. It really just shows rational people what team their politicians are invariably on and what their decisions are based on – unhinged people with an agenda (and no, it’s not about their childrens welfare, it’s their reluctance to accept challenges to the beliefs they hold).
10
Or even the kidnappers’ staple: “Do as we say and you won’t get hurt.”
10
Embarrassing for Craven and embarrassing for the American Geophysical Union who claim over 90 years of quality research in geosciences. It’s not surprising though as the AGU president Mike McPhaden works at NOAA and is a huge fan of James Hansen and John Holdren who are climate change tragics from way back. They have also made regular, famous and outrageously wrong predictions in the past.
Perhaps it will give some of the scientists who have been happy to ride the funding gravy train a moment of pause as they realise what effect they are having on people. [snip… The] next person [might] take hostages to get his message across to those who wont listen to him? [snip]
10
“You have become insane. You have brought them information when they needed emotion.”
This rhetoric is from the mouth of an advisory spin-doctor PR consultancy, not a scientist. In the great retreat from trying to prove by ‘logic’, they are now at the last line of defence: let the PR spin – dogs loose and spread fearful predictions. Use emotion, because after all, it has been recognised as the dominant motivating tool in sales since the 70’s.
“Oh, what a feeling” trumps “Oh what a power to weight ratio” every time.
He admits that now, their ‘science’ is to be sold on emotional marketing principles – and who cares about facts – they’ve lost that war already. Pathetic.
10
Its late and past my bedtime but I thought I might insert this comment.
It seems to me that it is possible to identify five completely independent ways to become a sceptic.
1/ Science A person can examine the science of AGW theory and become sceptical of the science. Science is complicated, technical, and intellectually demanding and requires persistent application to get one’s mind around it. I doubt that it is a significant route to initial scepticism.
2/ Predictions. The atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a given and should lead to clear climate predictions. A person could then become a sceptic if the measured global temperatures can be seen to not match those predictions.
3/ Data sets. A person can become a sceptic by simply losing confidence in the global temperature data sets. This might be by looking at the uncertainties in the data collection mechanisms – the substandard weather stations, the Urban Heat Island Effect, the transfer of recording stations to airports, the missing “M”s in the Arctic METCAR weather reports, the spurious satellite data. It might be the alarm of seeing the “raw” “un-homogenised” data compared to the “corrected” data. It might be the systematic data changes that have occurred the loss of high altitude data stations loss of high latitude data stations. One can become a sceptic by simply losing confidence that the shape of the final global temperature graph has any integrity left to base any rational. The collapse of the NZ data set is a case in point.
4/ Dirty Tricks A person could rationally ignore the science and ignore the temperature graphs and become sceptical solely on the basis of the known fraud, dirty tricks and bad faith of some of the main AGW crew. The fabricated “hockey stick” The failure to honour reasonable FOI requests from fellow scientists. The deletion of emails. The deletion of data. The corrupting of the peer review process. It would be totally rational to be sceptical of a group of scientists who are failing to be open and honest about their scientific claims.
5/ Money It would be totally rational to be sceptical of a group of scientists funded by (say) the tobacco industry and consider any of the out put possibly lacking independence. Similarly, it would be entirely rational to become sceptical of a group of scientists who are openly competing for grant money from pro-global warming funding bodies. One does not need to understand science to understand conflict of interest.
Perhaps it is because so many different routes to scepticism are actually independent of the science, that explains why so many non-scientists are sceptical. It might also explain the frustration of so many scientists who shout “the science is settled” but no-one seems to be listening. Maybe it explains Craven’s difficulties
I cant help thinking that this subdivision is useful but Im not a clear enough thinker or a psychologist to see where it leads Maybe someone else can see something
10
Tim @6
The worry is that their emotional marketing principles have been demonstrably successful. My concern is that this war will not be won by the facts.
10
An unhinged rant if I’ve ever read one.
It is because of people like Greg Craven that the science community finds itself in this stupid mess… Pushy, irrational people who become violent and aggressive the moment they can’t have their way. Who do nothing but forcefully involve themselves in everybody else’s business. Who use pseudoscience to push political agendas to bring about social change according to their own peculiar value sets… and to feather their own nests.
Well stuff you too Greg. I’m pointing to you and callin’ you a [snip] nutcase. [Hansford, you are quite within your rights to respond to his swearing rant with another one, but I’d rather we aimed a bit higher. It might catch on. — JN]
However, unlike Greg “the ranter” Craven, bowing obsequiously before his Godhead, I’ll chuck in an inconvenient fact… Like the Tropical Troposphere which observations show has not warmed according to Climate modelers predictions….. You wanna try explaining that Greg?
10
“while your children are slaughtered before you”? Call the rubber van.
It wasn’t a “skeptics” video that showed non-compliant children being blown up by their teacher.
10
Jo,
You are definately on the right track. Climate science has been following garbage science for years such as oscillations(another form of bio-rythms), CO2, temperatures annolalies, etc.
These miss a vast amount of physical movement of weather systems, physical changes, precipitation patterns and physical history of the past by following ane mindset to the exclusion of ALL others.
No scientist has noticed that our weather systems are slowing for extended periods of time and generating vast amounts of precitation.
I have researched a vast amount of material and we are in trouble but stupity has made us look in the wrong direction.
10
“The worry is that their emotional marketing principles have been demonstrably successful. My concern is that this war will not be won by the facts.”
Things like the recent high rainfall and present flooding in Australia that has been filling our TV screens, and the commentary which refers to century old and more records tells the “man in the street” that these events have been cyclically occurring before human CO2 emissions were significant. Craven is not your typical citizen who is much more cynical of and indifferent to a “Science” that, if not taken with a grain of salt, will cost him or her a lot including markedly reduced comforts and loss of industries that employ them.
Talk to the “average” person in the “super market” and you will find they are not impressed with the (specious) distinction between weather and climate. Thus a picture (on telly) is worth a thousand craven words from Craven and other CAGW fanatics. Unfortunately politicians, who should know better, are lagging behind those who vote for them on this issue. That is a promising scenario in terms of throwing the dopes out.
My guess is that despite the apparently false attribution of these sorts of cyclical events occurring around the world to a human cause, a trip to “foreign” supermarkets would also reveal a similar large number of non technical skeptics who are not quite as stupid as Craven imagines.
One counter to Craven, as he seeks to influence the masses is the observation of present weather and the memory of past similar weather events (with pictures of course).
10
” For I have revelation to bring”
Ho hum, A keynote speech at the AGU? Sorry, geophysics is not about revelations. Its about reproducible science!!
10
The clown hat really does it for me. I can almost envisage the denoument scene of an upcoming “Criminal Minds” episode:
HOTCHNER (classic FBI stance, aiming Glock at Craven, who is gibbering): “Greg, we know you had a traumatic education; We know you love your daughters more than the planet; Now, if you would just step away from the keyboard, slowly, nobody will get hurt.” [ASIDE (To Agent Morgan:] “Have you got that nice warm jacket ready, Derek? The cold seems to have affected this guy more than the others”
10
I’ve never heard of this nut before. Thanks anyway, didn’t really need to, he’s not even “funny” nuts. Just a pathetic spectacle.
10
AC:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
re five completely independent ways to become a sceptic.
I think there is another way to become a sceptic: History.
If there is no consistent explanation of ice-age to interglacial in the longer term and no explanation of climate optima (Minoan Roman etc.) to little ice ages in the shorter term, which cannot be explained by CO2, then why should we accept that the only explanation for the late 20th century warming be due to anthropogenic CO2?
10
Yes been said he is a NUT, but he is a little late as the AGW crowd have been saying lately that all these “Freak Weather Events” are because of global warming, just look at TV, news headlines, Jim Hansen, they have all been spouting off the same thing, the trouble is everybody so tired of hearing about it. Just look out your window, not the weather but has the climate actually change at all or even a little. Do not tell me that the seasons are coming earlier or later, look back in history 30,50,100 years. They come and go when mother nature says so not when the sceintist say so much less the calender dates, so craven get off your high horse before you fall off and hurt your little head.
10
I guess it is a platitude to note that some people scare more easily than others, and some people are more willing to try to scare others for their own ends. I think Craven may be of general interest for learning more about both. Scared people can cause panics, and can be exploited by others with agendas of their own.
The worldwide panic orchestrated by the IPCC has been so successful that it deserves deep study for many years to come. The machinations of the AGU, and their co-option of such as Craven, the UK Met Office being led by an ex-WWF CEO, the politicising of the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London, and many other similar events, are well worthy of being documented in detail in case future generations can find ways to protect their institutions from anything like it.
10
I can’t listen to the original…it brings on fears of the Nuremberg rallies. An appeal to emotion, just like Adolf used when talking about the ‘pure Aryan race’ Be frightened people, be very frightened. A ‘Krystal Nacht’ might be closer than you think…
10
Yikes! That Greg Caven:
I watched the vaunted video: The guy put a simple game theory matrix on the board, then claimed that it could determine the right response, even if you knew nothing about the underlying facts.
I thought, “Wow! This guy knows nothing about game theory!”. I checked my 1964 textbook on the subject to refresh my memory, then wrote a polite email to Craven explaining that his “analysis” amounted to “Those who predict the worst consequences, win”, and explained that this “decision system” was trivially gamed by simply upping the ante on your predictions of doom. Also, in a contest between a prediction of doom and a prediction of no doom, the prediction of doom would always win. This “system” gave you no information whatsoever, and virtually guarenteed you would be conned.
His reply was curt and dismissive: He had already considered all those possibilities and his next video took care of them. It didn’t.
The man is a “Legend in his own Mind” and incapable of mental progress.
10
I can’t help thinking that the vast majority of the AGU audience were curling their toes with embarrassment during this “speech”.
10
One thing i forgot to write, he says if he is wrong he is prepared to live with it, well if I am wrong, yes i am prepared to live with it. the doom sayers keep saying that the tipping point is around the corner , but all the temp. graphs i have seen only show 1c degree up or down it is to miniscule to worry about when talking about tenths of degree it is not a runaway problem.
10
Grayman,
There is no tipping point.
Freeze to melt is the 10,000 year pattern. And over again.
2000 years ago, much of the Northern part of the hemisphere still had ice which was retreating. After the ice melts, atmospheric pressure build then pattern change to cooling.
10
I could not stop reading the damn thing. And I do maintain a policy of averting my gaze when passing traffic accidents and road kill. Truly, I fear for the Craven’s welfare, even safety, and that of his family.
This kind of hysteria reminds me of the late sixties. There was much apocalyptic thinking then as there is now. “No more business as usual. The end is near.” What rankles is that the chief prophets of impending doom land on their feet when doom fails to materialize. They go on to other things or the next crisis. Ehrlich is comfortable in his sinecure in lovely Palo Alto. Holdren holds power in Washington. Gore goes from strength to strength financially, at least, even if warming catastrophists are calling for a new and improved messiah to take over for him. At least he no longer needs to watch his waist line so as to remain presentable.
For them and the other eco-celebrities, hey, it’s a business. Warming, cooling, “global weirding,” as Friedman dubbed it from his manor (or that of his strip mall heiress wife), DDT, you name it: if it bleeds it leads. But where does that leave the foot soldiers of the movement.
“What do I do with my cool PLO balaclava and my gender studies degree now that my leader has gone to beautiful La Jolla and there are no more MacDonald’s windows to smash. And why am I eating Double Cheese Burgers and he’s eating foi gras,” or, “How come I got my tubes tied and all these guys have kids,” or, ” How come I live in urban dark and cold and Monbiot lives in his comfortable “farm house” far from the madding crowd. Does he take on borders…to those according to their need and all that.”
Craven, though, Craven. I did say, for him and his children, a small prayer. I pray that his children are not frightened by his obsessiveness. I remember apocalyptic fear from my childhood in the fifties, duck and cover and all that. But that was real. There was a real enemy with real nuclear weapons and everyone was close to the idea of catastrophic war. My father had been “the boots on the ground” just a few years before. Mega death had actually occurred: no made up apocalypse then. Scars remain and distort later life. For me there is a permanent sense of unease and recurring dreams of being left behind in the evacuation of my town. The empty streets, the radio my only companion as I awaited a nuclear attack by the…French. Apocalyptic dreams are not always accurate. It is a shame to visit such on children needlessly
Craven, I suggest to you two possible cures. Stay off the Red Bull and, er….anything else with psychoactive properties not prescribed by a health professional. Two: stay on with the “Red Bull” but employ your energies consuming the entire Steve McIntyre oeuvre from soup to nuts and report back.
10
Well, he is hardly a Churchillian orator … or a leader … or even a visionary.
But he is useful. We need more people like him. We need more 10:10 videos, and falling Polar Bears.
As I used to say, prior to becoming erudite, “Yer average punter ain’t as stupid as yer think”.
The more extreme the warmist message becomes, the more suspicious “yer average punter” becomes. At some stage, there is a tipping point, and they think it is all, “nuffink but a load of ol’ rubbish”.
The real risk is that this scam will take the physical sciences down with it … and just when quantum mechanics was starting to get interesting, too.
10
I had initially felt anger towards this fool Craven. Then I felt sorry for him, but upon reading more of his ‘mea culpa’ diatribes, I realised he was a liar and totally unsuitable as a teacher of young people.
He USED his wife and children to get sympathy from the blogesphere that had lampooned him. Below is part of a comment I posted at WUWT in response to his “I’m just a poor soul trying to protect my family and save humanity” lie.
This man thought he was going to make a BIG IMPRESSION at the AGU meeting. He planned for it, he wrote a speech and thought if he delivered it in a strong passionate manner he’d get applause and kudos from the “fellows”.
But it backfired, it embarrssed him, he realised he’d made a fool of himself and nobody was willing to back him. So he tried a mea culpa to get sympathy and USED HIS WIFE AND KIDS to achieve that.
No, I don’t feel sorry for him, I feel sorry for his kids, his wife and I worry about the education his students receive from him.
10
AC #7
A lot of folks with careers that have spanned the growth of computer technology have “dabbled” in computer modelling at one time or another.
As soon as I heard that the whole of climate science was making predictions based on computer simulations, which were in turn based on indeterminate mathematics, I was sceptical.
People who have done modelling realise that models are only tools for identifying the things that you don’t know.
You could at that to your list.
10
Here is an interesting paragraph from Craven about his experience at the AGU meeting.
These are the scientists presenting us with unbiased, unadulterated, undiluted honest science?
There you go, we have a bunch of “the end is nigh” whackjobs presenting “science” to our policymakers.
From sandwichboard carriers to esteemed scientists in the blink of an eye.
10
We need this guy for our campaign commercial.
The main modification I would make, at some point during his rant I’d have Cris Monckton pop him with a tranquilizer dart.
It’d be like;
Well I’ve got sober news for you. You, in this room, in this community of science—you are that someone. You are the ones we have been waiting for. You are the last battle reserves in civilization’s last stand. And you damn well need to saddle up and come down off that hill as the cavalry, to turn the tide of battle…
Dart hits him. He gives a single grunt, then slumps to the floor.
The AGU gives Monckie a standing ovation.
The end.
10
My God – the degree people will to to promote their book and their ego!
10
BTW – he’s a high school teacher!! why is he addressing the AGU?
10
OT – The BoM have released their summary for 2010
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml
10
Did Mr. Greg Craven, say this too? “…Not only was I unwillingly channeling the spirit of the radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison,…” Seems strange to me…
10
RE: #28
Baa, why do you believe Craven’s characterization of scientists at the AGU?
I think he made all that up. There aren’t any AGU members digging fox holes out in the forest to “survive” climate change.
There might be a few looking to survive climategate, but that’s a different story.
10
Greg Craven:
I hope you are reading this.
You are reported as having said;
and
I can offer you help with both of these because I am an Accredited Methodist Preacher who has obtained all my income from the practice of science.
Your salvation is assured and was won for your 2 millenia ago.
If you want to know how and why then attend any service of worship I conduct and listen to my sermon.
Concerning the causes of climate change there is no “terrifying divergence between public opinion and scientific opinion in the last few years” but the public is growing in awareness of the realities of the bulk of scientific evidence.
If you want to know what that evidence is then I suggest that you read ‘The Skeptics Handbook’ by Ms Nova and ask me for any additional and/or clarifying scientific information that you require.
Richard
10
Craven’s YouTube video was that one where he tried to adapt Pascal’s Wager to CAGW — quite appropriate really because both pertain to religious belief.
The problem is that for him both action or inaction result in a Hell-on-Earth.
No wonder it sent him crazy.
10
Hey Guys. Just re-read these ‘craven thoughts’ and wondered why no one
cares to examine his CREDENTIALS. I mean… a high school teacher does NOT
A SCIENTIST MAKE.
He has NO DEGREE and was just promoted to his ‘position’ of indoctination
of our children by those in ‘Educational’/’Indoctrinational’ supposed, Power.
Yes. Pray for guys like Craven. It’s human to do so. But…unbalanced guys
like him in any ‘reasonable discussion’ is just plain absurd. If these are the
only ‘experts’ warmists can come up with….they TRULY have a bankrupted field
a ‘politically bankrupted field’ indeed.
Using a ‘key phrase’ of the Left… I suggest that we all ‘Move On’ and leave
Steve to a good psychiatrist.
C.L. Thorpe
10
epa want to crack down on farm dust……..
http://cfact.org/a/1792/EPA-set-to-crack-down-on-farm-dust
I HAVE HEARD IT ALL NOW, THIS IS COMPLETE MADNESS
THIS COUNTRY IS RUN BY A BUNCH OF COMPLETE NUTTERS, theres nobody at the helm
10
CRAVEN…..
–adjective
1.
cowardly; contemptibly timid; pusillanimous.
–noun
2.
a coward.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to make cowardly.
Sums up this character to a tee!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/craven
10
In theological terms, the global warming belief system is a reversion to “animism”.
Animists worship the creation rather than the Creator.
Animism is a superstitious way of life that believes in spirit worship, fetishism and the worship of nature. Although manifesting itself in different ways, animism believes that everything in nature has a soul and that there is a spirit or force residing in every living and inanimate object, including animals, rocks, trees, mountains, rivers, volcanoes, heavenly bodies or other created objects.
http://latter-rain.com/genko/animi.htm
Failure to Warm………
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Failure%20To%20Warm.pdf
10
Jo,
Do you know why ARGO will not give out it’s raw data?
Because the data is true.
Can’t get funding in a system if your showing cooling, so they announce their data incorrect and still use the system only mathematically change the numbers to higher values.
10
Greg Craven has now joined the Fonz in the academy of shark jumpers. My biggest concern is that such a fanatic is teaching kids science. If I was a father and had kids in his school I would sue the momment he started preaching the Gospel of Al Gore in class… I think that would be appropriate.
The USA is a country of contradictions… not supposed to say Merry Christmas in case you offend some other religious group, but feel free to preach Gaia Greeness in the classrooms. How does that work exactly?
But I agree with some others, the longer this fool preaches on Youtube the more people will turn away from CAGW.
10
Craven lunatic.
More to be pitied than scolded.
10
This guy is a science teacher?? Words fail me …
Reason is dead, long live Emotion! Whatever happened to Common Sense? Killed off by Political Correctness in this “Age of Seeming” (great term coined by Andrew Bolt)
Test it for yourselves: When was the last time someone asked you “What do you think of that?” ?
It’s invariably “How do you feel about that?”
Radical Feminism (as part of the whole culture war complex – don’t get me started on that!) has succeeded in vilifying all “male” traits like for instance “cold reason” in favour of “warm emotions” (note the manipulative adjectives) to the point of emasculating several generations of men. There’s even a new, pseudo-scientific term: Emotional IQ (yuk!). And I say this as a woman. Congratulations! Welcome to the death of science, rationality and reason. And out of it come unhinged idiots like Greg Craven! Teaching our children.
God help us all.
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roosevelt Wright, Jr, Joanne Nova. Joanne Nova said: It's a special kind of crazy. A willing victim of a false faith… Craven’s solution as it crashes: scream louder http://tinyurl.com/2dkqqmz […]
10
How did he get such an appropriate name?
BTW I don’t believe he has any hard physical science degrees at all. Yet he is teaching high school science?
Mind you I know there is at least one AGW whackjob teaching upper high school physics in the Western Australian school system. He was full on using the “denier” label when I met him 4 years ago.
10
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said:
Times haven’t changed much since either.
10
Richard S. Courtney @ 35:
*
*
*
AMEN!
*
*
*
10
Craven … Craven … hmmmm …. I knew it! THAT’s why the name was familiar: Greg could be related to Wes Craven, director of “Nightmare on Elm Street” and other horror movies! You know, Freddy Krueger …
Wes Craven
Excerpt:
“… The Serpent and the Rainbow portrays a man who cannot distinguish between nightmarish visions and reality. In Scream, the characters frequently reference horror films similar to their situations, and at one point Billy Loomis tells his girlfriend that life is just a big movie.”
It must run in the family. Now it makes perfect sense :-).
10
I sent a letter off the the SMH – of course they won’t print it but I feel satisfied I did it.
10
I think that guy who got his arm caught under a rock and lay out in the desert sun for a few days until he ran out of water, finally hacking off his own arm with a small folding knife probably went through worse (and coped a lot better too).
And of course, Pascal’s Wager not only already got there first (thus securing the naming rights), but already achieved the ultimate “upping the ante on your predictions of doom” by claiming that your immortal soul is in jeopardy for all of eternity, no returns, can’t take it back, nar nar nar. Since there is no possible physical consequence that can be anywhere near as bad as the loss of your immortal soul, Pascal’s Wager wins this game, and all future games of the same design. Thank you for playing.
… and now we go into the things that have been justified in the name of saving people’s immortal souls…
10
Greg Craven – aerosol!
10
I would say that game theory is a rational version of Pascal’s Wager — it is a way of making decisions with incomplete information. It is, however, useless (like Pascal’s Wager) if you have no information about the underlying facts and probabilities.
GIGO: Or, perhaps — Null-information in, Null-information out.
Or, in Craven’s case, Argument-from-Authority in, Argument-from-Authority out.
Just a shell game to disguise the fact that there is no added information.
Craven seemed to be very proud of himself (in the first video) for having had this brilliant insight. His “living Hell” was probably having to hear, from people who weren’t ignorant of logic, that it was just BS. He seems not to have learned anything at all from the experience in 3 years — just gotten more bitter and radical.
10
Jo, OT, but your friend Andy Pitman has risen from obscurity to post an article in the Australian referring to Tim Flannery’s recent use of the term Gaia. Might be worth a few replies to correct his obvious mistakes, omissions and exaggerations!
10
OK Cookster, here is my 1100 character limited reply to Pitman (a pale imitation of Jo’s acerbicim).
10
I hope they print it Michael – they haven’t printed mine.
10
Here’s Pitman’s latest folly on The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-need-to-go-gaga-over-gaia/comments-e6frg6zo-1225983237159
My response… I could have gone on for ages:
Oh and lest we forget the facts about funding:
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/apitman-funding
Clearly the page needs an update though… it is a couple years out of date.
10
I missed your link there Michael Cenjar… oh well, doesn’t hurt to duplicate 🙂
10
Janama:
I find it is very touch and go whether I get posted at The Australian these days. I wonder if it has something to do with the run ins with Jack the Insider some time back… perhaps my name is semi black-listed there /shrug.
10
I see some true believers are trotting out the same old rubbish like “Alan”:
To which Bulldust responds (probably won’t get posted):
10
I see the ABC is already wahwahing over The Australian attacking Flannery LOL:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/07/3108365.htm?site=thedrum
10
Back again:
This piece in the Daily Telegraph is priceless… Tim Blair talking about Flannery’s Gaia fixation:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-fn6b3v4f-1225980669696
It made me laugh, which is rare indeed.
10
Underlying the science that has made life on Earth as comfortable as it is today for so many of us is the concept it has of Mother Nature.
Those who hide behind the tag of “science”, to gain respectability, really believe that she is a kind , good natured , old lady who will be nice to humans if we only try to get along with her.
True science (and certain strains of observant religion for that matter) long ago learned that she is a capriciously cruel, mean old bitch, who must be opposed and fought with human science and ingenuity at every turn.
Give her an inch and she will take a mile. If she can’t kill us all with earthquakes and volcanoes then she’ll throw in the odd Tsunami. One of her favourite tricks is an earthquake followed by cholera. She’s also quite partial to killing millions with malaria too and doesn’t mind a temporary alliance with crazy uncaring politicians in her quest. She knows she will get them all in end with cancer or some of her other specialties.
Then of course she likes sending unexpected weather that freezes many humans to death. It gives her a giggle to send the hot stuff to fry us too. That’s why she hates the way science has developed ways in which cheap coal wipes the smile off her face and her acolytes, like Craven and Flannery etc.
The bottom line is that environmentalists are in league with this old girl and are sucking up to her because after millennia of her malevolence toward humanity they still don’t understand her true nature. Or do they?
True science, in all its branches has called her bluff and made this Earth a place where humans are in the process of mitigating her worst excesses if not completely beating her at her own game.
10
Our wonderful heroine Olivia Newton John wrote a whole album dedicated to Gaia
http://www.amazon.com/Gaia-Womans-Journey-Olivia-Newton-John/dp/B000065V8K
an album of love songs to the planet!
Bulldust – no I haven’t had my letter published in reply to Andy. The ABC didn’t publish my letter to Robyn Williams either. I think I’m getting banned everywhere. Facebook will be next because I keep on correcting all the BS that’s posted there on the environment as well.
10
I notice a few comments about the article in the Aust today concerning Flannery; here’s my comment which did get published
I guess Tim Flannery is entitled to his opinions even though none of his alarmist predictions have yet come true which somewhat diminishes his credibility. I wish scientists with opposite opinions (that is those who disagree with the AGW believers) got similar air time and media attention. The Australian a few weeks ago published an article confirming its belief in AGW. I found it extraordinary that a newspaper which should be promoting the principles of investigative journalism should suddenly take a closed eye stance and proclaim itself convinced when what it should be doing is investigating the science for and pro AGW in accordance with journalistic principles. If none of the media upholds those journalistic principles then sadly the media is just a propoganda arm of government.
10
The ‘Scientific Consensus’ About Global Warming Turns Out to Be About Manipulating the Numbers……………..
97% cooked statistics!!!
THE BOTTOM LINE
……..75 out of 77 (75/77 = 97%) of scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers, the master’s student and her prof, were then satisfied with the findings of her master’s thesis
(http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf)
Are you?
READ MORE:-
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/220947-The-Scientific-Consensus-About-Global-Warming-Turns-Out-to-Be-About-Manipulating-the-Numbers
10
Nup, my comment to Dr Pitman’s piece didn’t get up. Probably I should not have politely called him “Dr Pitman”, nor Tim as “Dr Flannery”. Putting some science in it probably didn’t help either as “PDO”, “solar cycle” and “CET record” must be warmists’ swearwords. Wash my mouth out with soap.
10
A couple of thoughts (FWIW) on this post and its comments:
So far, the evidence of calamity is remarkably scarce.
10
# Greg Craven
You do know your wife posts regularly here and on WUWT ?
You didn’t ? Oh. Sorry…
Just forget I said anything
10
Dear All,
RE: TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
I am confused why the terms ‘climate alarmist’, ‘climate skeptic’, ‘climate denier’, and ‘climate realist’ continue to be used in the mainstream media to label proponents and opponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I mean, c’mon! It’s like saying you’re a ‘hemisphere alarmist’ or a ‘hemisphere skeptic’ or a ‘hemisphere denier’ or a ‘hemisphere realist’. These climate labels make no sense whatsoever.
I’m an AGW skeptic and would therefore greatly appreciate it if the media would stop trying to insult me with climate labels that don’t make any sense. Instead, please consider inciting hatred and physical harm upon me by calling me a ‘global warming skeptic’ or ‘global warming denier’. Come to think of it, the world isn’t even warming anymore, so those terms probably shouldn’t be used either.
Tell you what! Feel free to call me a ‘carbon taxation nigger’. In fact, I insist. ‘Carbon emissions faggot’ is fine too. But no pressure!
Jo, if you feel the need to censure the words ‘nigger’ and ‘faggot’, then let me ask you this: if it’s not ok to publish the words ‘nigger’ and ‘faggot’ on a blog, then how can it be ok for mainstream newspapers and journals to repeatedly use the word ‘denier’ to stigmatize AGW skeptics as Nazi sympathizers?
Any publisher that censures the words ‘nigger’ and ‘faggot’ should then also censure the word ‘denier’, because all three words are used for the same purpose: to stigmatize and incite hatred against others.
I’m curious to know just how many Black, Jewish, or homosexual AGW proponents have in the past labeled AGW skeptics as ‘deniers’. Better them than me, right?
It must really suck to be a Black Jewish homosexual AGW skeptic.
===
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
10
My dad, a smiling Aussie who was self-educated, very bright and who fought in 2 world wars, would have said about this bloke “Stone the crows, Mate! All that education has turned yer brian to manure.”
10
I believe Ecstasy leads some people to rave like that. It’s the most likely explanation.
10
Tel and BobC:
You comment on Pascal’s wager.
The real problem with it is that the wager has no downside: the problem is not that it maximises the risk. In that wager if there is an afterlife then the proposed action ensures a ‘good’ afterlife, but if there is no afterlife then the proposed action costs nothing. So, a cost-benefit analysis can have only one outcome.
In the case of man-made global warming the proposed action is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and such reduction would have severe cost. The cost-benefit analysis is – at best – complex if one agrees the global warming is a real threat. Hence, Pascal’s Wager is not an appropriate analogy or methodology whether or not the threat of global Warming is real.
Personally, I prefer the famous last words of the unbeliever Rabellais. The priest leant over him and asked,
“Will you now, in your last moments, denounce the Devil and all his works?”
Rabellais looked up at the priest and replied,
“This is not the moment to be making enemies”,
then he immediately gave his last breath.
Richard
10
“I am maniacal. I am insane.”
You said it mate?
Anyone know the score in the cricket? 🙂
10
Richard @ 73:
Good point (and funny story!) — Pascal’s Wager would be an appropriate analogy if Pascal had had to join a monastery and renounce all his earthly belongings.
Had that been the case, and Pascal had announced that he would simply take the word of whichever preacher could paint the direst vision of Hell, then that would be exactly equivalent to Craven’s “analysis”.
It’s hard to believe Craven is that dumb, and a science teacher (yet, the evidence can’t be ignored). Perhaps he has some unacknowledged psychological motivation — like being enraged at others’ questioning of authorities he reveres.
10
If you think this is bad, we’re in deep trouble if they get their way,
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-eco-fascists-call-for-prison-cities/
10
From the point of view of an American I’m very sorry to have to disappoint the “esteemed” Mr. Craven — we are paying attention. That’s why we don’t believe his sorry ass nonsense. November’s election was all about waking up. The people are no longer going to just stand there for the sucker punch to the jaw.
Back in the 60s the scare was nuclear holocaust. Fallout shelters were big business and one of my college professors and her husband had one put in their back yard. I got a tour of it — very impressive (and costly). But no one dropped the bomb.
If some of these nut cases are really
Then I say let them waste their money. I’ll be happy to laugh at them. This bomb won’t drop either.
10
So when I search for further information and try to understand the research I am part of the the “ruthless denial machine”.
I prefer to call myself a “seeker of truth” but he says I must think what I am told to think.
Must I believe what I am told to believe ? Am I allowed to read the original papers and weigh their conclusions in my own balance?
10
“Embarrassing” is an understatement.
I’ve just finished reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, having first read it at the age of 19. In portraying the evil ones of society, Rand writing the equivalent of “Unhitch them from the con man in their brains that keeps them holding on to something that they can never get from science, which is “The Answer.”” made my 19-year-old brain conclude that Rand was prone to exaggeration. Not this time. She absolutely nailed the collectivist mindset and progression. No exaggeration. Fact really is stranger than fiction.
Cheers,
Janet
10
There one more problem with his reasoning. If you obey to the logic you have to act accordingly for every alarm presented. No risk assessment, no reasoning. Only compliance counts. Some would call it greene-paradise. For me it is eco-facism.
10
There goes the reputation of the AGU. (Not only because of Craven, but he helped a lot.)
10
This is a bit late but to AC in 7 i like your list but i dont think most people find scepticism through any one of your points but rather through all of them.
I believe the number one error made by the alarmists was allowing wannbe global warming scientists to make outlandish predictions, yes this may have propelled the cause initially and kept the momentum going they did not bank on people having long memories or maybe they actually thought some of the stupid predictions will come true to further imbed the lie. So number two would be the entry point for most poeple on their journey.
Number two would make a small amount of people sceptical but those with inquisitive would look a little deeper and find number three to be the game changer. If you are not sceptical after number 2 or 3 then you are looking for an excuse to believe.
At this point steps four and five could be swapped around as either should be the straw that breaks the camels back if after journeying through steps 2 then 3 then 4/5 and you are still not sceptical then you are running on faith not common sense and logic.
You will notice i have not mentioned point 1, that is because most people do not experience the science until they have become sceptical. A sceptical person will try to understand the science “just in case” they are wrong which is what a true sceptic should do. Unfortunately a believer never makes it to point one, what would be the point of trying to understand settled science?
This is why when you debate a believer they invoke the appeal to authority defence because they have no idea what the science is.
Cheers
10
Here is a video that perfectly illustrates the conversation:
10
Greg Craven has more than a little in common with Professor David Shearman, MD, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences and Law School. Professor Shearman was also an Assessor for the IPCC Third & Fourth Assessment Reports.
“IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming” here http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/ipcc-green-doctor-prescribes-end-to-democracy-to-solve-global-warming/.
The following Comments are well worth a read – Shades of the 1930’s! Scary stuff.
These two EcoWarriors belong in padded cells.
10
So, while appealing to authority, he’s telling a group of scientists to abuse their standing in society as scientists for the purpose of becoming screaming experts and become the authority that others can appeal to?
“We know this is true because those like you said it was true, therefore you must stop investigating what is true so that you may tell everyone else what you yourself have already told us to be true.”
?????
Well at least one person in the room was truly insane.
BTW, declaration of independence…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all mean are created equal…”
Only an infant fascist would speak with such conviction about what is truth for the purposes of convincing others of the truth. Real truth is self-evident and always will be.
10
I’d have no problems living with Greg Craven being wrong!!!
What a sad, pathetic character……..
10
This man is a pathetic figure with delusions of grandeur, a false prophet of a false religion.
That any organisation, let alone a scientific one would allow him to speak shows the depth of decline in science. A post on WUWT gave me a new word [Sarchasm] The gulf between green/socialists and the truth.
Keep up the good fight, the battle has just begun and their backs are to the wall. They fight dirty, maintain a clean and honest fight and history will place them in the garbage bin with Piltdown man.
10