Stupid Scientists Are Doing Climate Change Deniers Job

You just have to wonder sometimes whether, if the IQs of all scientists were added together they would reach double figures.

A story published in the New York Times last week produced new, “more positive scientific proof that climate change is actually accelerating” than any previous evidence.

Well that’s nice, I thought having campaigned to raise awareness of climate change for thirty years. Imagine my dismay when I learned the NYT had been compelled to print a full retraction admitting the article had violated every principle of journalism.

The scientist had made his stuff up and the journo had reported it without question.


In fact where the article laid the blame for climate chainge squarely on the toes of humanity the best evidence shows the daya supporting that far from conclusive. The problem you see is the scientists, who claim impartiality, objectivity and academic integrity are bust peddlers of business and political agendas for their paymasters.

The public already have zero trust in politicians, businesses and the media. If academics are shown to be willing to sell their souls for filthy lucre can we trust anybody?

There is a growing lobby in the United States that claims the climate change lobby are a bunch of self interested charlatans. We can do without climate change scientists and “green” journalists making bullets for these people to fire.

The Divine Right Of Kings and the Divine Right Of Scientists
Pain In Spain As Green Fraud Revealed


Latest archive selection now online: Boggart Blog Select vol 5

and don’t forget all the other Greenteeth Multi Media pages…
Greenteeth Multi Media
Greenteeth Comedy Pages
A Tale Told By An Idiot

8 thoughts on “Stupid Scientists Are Doing Climate Change Deniers Job

  1. There is no scientific proof that everyone will die. As the population grows exponentially, less than half the people who have ever lived died so far, and this is a biased sample.

    So although it is a statistical curiosity, itย’s not good enough to be used as a proof


    1. When Lord Tennyson wrote “Every moment one man dies, every moment one is born,” protogeek Charles Babbage corrrected him thus: As the population is gowing it is statistically impossible for your assertion to be true. I suggest you rewrite you poem to read “every moment one man dies, every moment one and one sixteenth is born.

      The problem with the “no scientific proof everyone will die is based on a huge assumption, well more of a misconception than an assumption really, that population has never gone down.

      The Zend Avesta of Zoroaster however states that before The Flood (circa 12000 years ago) the world (the middle east) “teemed with people and had done for a long time. So it looks as if those scientists, would you credit it, are basing ther calculations on estimates starting from the date of the Biblical creation which they dismiss as superstitious nonsense.

      You just can’t trust the buggers.


      1. Just as a matter of interest I did a quick calc based on the population growing by 10% per generation.

        To reach todays level from a base of around 150,000 would take 100 generations. Estimate 4 generations per century and that takes us back to the era when the Perians were fielding an alleged 1,000,000 fighting men against the Spartans at Thermopylae.

        Now if you take the most recent 5 generations most of whom are still living though generation 5 (age 100 – 125) are pretty thin on the ground now, everybody born before them is dead. As those 5 generations are within the known human lifespan, we can say everybody dies. That piece of deductive logic only serves to demonstrate why some people of my generation wre working for eanuts as academic researchers while others were making big money as Information technology consultants ๐Ÿ˜‰
        Another deduction based on the existential rather than the scientific reality of time proves equally conclusively that everybody lives forever.

        Wat do we learn from this? Only that there is no point worrying so you might as well go and have a drink.


  2. Sir, who are we to decide that only journalists of the Boggart Press have the licence to make up things, and scientists should not have the same right?

    Like your reporters do never sacrifice a joke for the sake of the truth, scientists too will never sacrifice a nice statistic for the sake of objectivity. The fun comes first, Sir, and then the… filthy lucre, and then… other things you might like to call objectivity. ๐Ÿ™‚


    1. Ah, the point is we admit to making things up. I have often challenged scientists about their “scientific facts” and they reply, you cad sir, you bounder, how dare you suggest a scientist would make up evidence to substantiate his theory.”
      but I am not suggesting they made up evidence because I know they read the information in Boggart Blog and we made it up. :))


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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