How Scott Johnson Gets It Wrong

Johnson’s essay is a series of ad hominem attacks disguised as a blog post. With his out-of-date post, at least 40 self-reinforcing feedback loops ago, Johnson has overtly declared himself a mouthpiece for imperialism. I’ll explain briefly.

1. Johnson believes the solution to our myriad predicaments can be found in civilization. But each of the predicaments is rooted in civilization. The average reader can detect the insanity, but Johnson cannot. With respect to climate change, Johnson ignores Tim Garrett’s excellent published research indicating civilization is a heat engine. Johnson is working to sustain the omnicide. Due to the absence of global dimming when industrial civilization ceases, turning off civilization causes human extinction even more rapidly than maintaining the heat engine. But don’t expect facts from Mr. Johnson.

2. Johnson believes atmospheric methane will be an issue for the grandchildren to deal with. He ignores abundant science indicating otherwise. He clings to his preconceptions, and ignores the work of legitimate climate scientists.

3. Johnson is motivated by money. He is paid to produce information that supports the status quo. In contrast, I’m motivated by evidence.

I have neither time nor interest in addressing each point Johnson mentions. Furthermore, unlike Johnson, I’m not paid to promote the Sixth Great Extinction induced by civilization. I welcome the efforts of others to write a point-by-point assessment of Johnson’s essay, which is strong on shooting the messenger and weak on attacking the science. But don’t expect to be rewarded for pointing out the facts. As with Johnson, you’ll be rewarded only if you dismiss the message and disparage the messenger.

Class dismissed. Johnson fails, as does his buddy Michael Tobis, as pointed out here. For the short version, please read this short essay.

A few minutes after I posted this brief essay, Johnson responded via Twitter. Ironically, he told me to stop slandering him. Twice. Once would have been sufficient to indicate his inability to properly use the English language.

Comments 104

  • Jeff,

    Listen to the beginning of part 1 of Shakhova’s interview with Nick Breeze where she says that she has to be very careful about saying that methane emissions have increased because that would require many return trips to the same area. She says that they don’t usually do that. So, as I’ve said, there isn’t the data to reach conclusions on the dynamics of methane releases. Scribbler misreports some of this, implying estimates are actual measurements. Shakhova herself says that there was no observational data on methane, from the ESAS, before 2003. Now we have sparse data and little ongoing data. The reports that plumes had increased from tens of metres to a kilometre across were inaccurate as these were from different areas.

    Regarding the measuring stations around the Arctic, are you saying that the methane bomb went off many decades ago? Because rates of increase are only about as high as they were in the 90s and before. The only evidence that there seems to be for a new situation is rare short term spikes at some stations, many of which turn out to be errors, and what appears to be some manipulation of combining different data sets by Carana. I’m more worried about the possibility of a methane bomb than Archer, et al, but, so far, it doesn’t appear to have gone off.

    Did you see the NASA article about no increase in emissions in Alaska?

  • Tony is not getting desperate. Like Scott Johnson, he’s always been desperate. Clinging to their expectations, they refuse to accept evidence contrary to their respective world views.