He is rejoicing at the troubles experienced recently by those whom he calls climate change 'deniers'.
His outburst of apocalyptic announcements regarding the state of the planet betrays his political opinions and reassures me that the planet is fine. Doomsayers are never right. The Earth always proves to be more resilient than they give it credit for. Doomsayers like to frighten people into accepting totalitarian solutions to non-problems. Bill's prognostications will find their way into the Hallowed Hall of Failed Predictions just like those of Harold Camping.
Facts are not McKibben's strong point although he does recognize the effective influence of the Climate Depot and Watt's Up With That web sites that keep people informed about the truth concerning the modern global warming scare.
As Anthony Watts comments:
Couple of things Bill, since I know you read WUWT:
1. Where’s the beef?
2. Hansen’s alternate view of cause was swept under the rug, he’s flip-flopped on the causes of global warming back and forth.
3. Climate “Deniers” Winning the War
Bill calls climate deniers planet wreckers and says that if they can delay climate action past the point of no return "they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history – one that will last for geological epochs."
Not just a political science victory but as Anthony's links show a real science epic victory as well. And we hope that Bill is correct about the geological epochs. It would be nice to rid the world of climate change fear mongers for that length of time. Not holding my breath!
The point of no return, the tipping point - when is that exactly, Bill? Oh yes, there is no consensus on that one for if it were ever unsuccessfully passed the funding would dry up. Thus the end date always leap frogs from climate conference to climate conference. Even though the world is 'on the brink' there is always time for a new conference to reintroduce the next scary date.
WUWT Commenter KENG succinctly captures the flavor of Bill's article:
"Typical professional alarmist rhetoric, just one long ad hom, no actual science discussed. What was it Lindzen said? “When the science is on your side you argue the science. When it’s not, you attack the messenger”.
McKibben’s article is another perfect example."
Bill swill!
