NPR: Public's Absolute Lack of Interest in Totalist Responses to Global Warming is Proof We Are Scared Shitless of It.


NPR ran a piece today about the apparent paradox that as "scientists" become more convinced that climate change is real, man-made, and catastrophic, the global public is shrugging its shoulders.

In a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, climate comes in dead last, No. 20 of the 20 big issues of concern to America.

As former Sen. Tim Wirth, who calls for massive, transformative responses to global warming, puts it:

"I don't think any place in the world would you find the public demanding [climate legislation]. I think it's very hard to see the public demand anything. That's very rare."

NPR puzzled over the lack of concern from you, me, and the Chinese factory worker. What might explain the lack of a sense of urgency? Well, ClimateGate ain't helping. And then there's all that money from Big Carbon, which is reinforcing doubts that warming is either occuring as rapidly as doomsayers claim and underscores the economic consequences of say, reducing carbon emissions per capita back to what they were in 1875.

As a talking head put it during the segment, "It's the economy, stupid": Because of the crap economy, goes this line of thinking, economic concerns are paramount. Eh, mebbe. But that doesn't explain why expert opinion ranks the combating of global warming equally low on the totem pole of holier-than-thou causes. Hence, the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus, a group of eight economists organized by "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg, prioritized 30 ways to improve life on Earth for the poor via cost-benefit analysis of all sorts of activities. Fighting man-made global warming came in 30th out of 30 after the analysts found "that spending $800 billion until 2100 would yield just $685 billion in climate change benefits."

Needless to say, NPR didn't talk to anyone from the Copenhagen Consensus. Instead, they offered a really fascinating way to explain the lack of mass interest in reducing global warming. The reason, the story suggests, is that we just can't handle the truth:

[Whitman College's Kari Marie] Norgaard studied this shift in public opinion and found that as people start to feel overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, they simply turn away from the topic. It's a form of denial, she says.

"We just don't want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it."

That implies that some of the swing in public opinion can actually be explained as a reaction to growing public awareness of the issue, like Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, or the 2007 United Nations science report.

Whole NPR segment in text and audio here.

Let me suggest a counter-narrative: Americans are rightly skeptical not of climate change per se, but of obviously politicized areas of science. We thankfully do not live in a world of lab-coat-wearing experts who dictate the Truth to us anymore. Any number of bogus scientific discoveries has cured us of such faith and so has decades of politicians lying to us about everything from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to the meaning of the word is to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the pressing need for the feds to run GM. This sort of doubt has added support to what Ron Bailey has called "policy nihilism," a very rational belief that policies designed to mitigate climate change will be far, far worse than simply dealing with changed climates. As Bailey puts it

The transaction costs associated with addressing man-made global warming may turn out to be prohibitively high. In other words, the benefits achieved from trying to mitigate global warming will be swamped by the costs of distributing the corporate welfare used to buy the political acquiescence of various industries. You might hope to implement good public policy to deal with a problem, but if good public policy is impossible, policy nihilism is the more rational response.

Think about it, NPR listeners (or, better yet, NPR editors and journos): Climate-change activists aver that the very fate of the planet is at stake. And they call for a hurry-up offense on a set of plans that will by their own admission restructure every aspect of life on the Big Blue Marble. We don't have all the answers but the time for action is now! Think of TARP. Think of the Patriot Act. Has there ever been a time outside of a used-car lot where those sorts of high-pressure tactics are taken seriously? I don't think so. That the public is slow to action may just be a sign that it knows what it's doing, not that it's scared shitless by Al Gore's inconvenient exaggerations.

NEXT: Global Temperature Trend Update -- December 7, 2009

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Liberals are always right about everything and everybody knows it. Any pretense of disagreement is to hide fear, greed, racism, sexism, etc.

    Get with the program.

  2. Nick, the answer is simpler than that.

    As a former broadcast news guy, let me state unequivocally that news people are

    1) Dumber than they let on
    2) VERY insecure about that.

    They WANT to toe the line with the scientists, because it makes them seem smart and forward-thinking by association.

    They don’t understand the science — hell, they don’t understand enough to VET the science, or even examine the method. And they don’t want to admit it.

    Then there is the condescension that says “Joe Sixpack can’t understand this, it’s too technical.”

    It’s appalling.

    (my dream was to be a science journalist, but I couldn’t get my professors to go along with my idea for a General Science degree. I finished with more than 40 credit hours in hard science and calculus.)

    1. They WANT to toe the line with the scientists…

      The proper formation of this phrase is: ‘tow the lion’. Please use correctly in the future.

      1. “tow the Mark and wok the lion”! get it rite!

        1. pedantic fail

          1. “Tow the lion” is a running gag around here. Admittedly, not hilarious, but intentional nevertheless. So, double pedantic fail for you.

            1. so…I realize that the point of an inside joke is that others aren’t in on it, but…are you gonna let us in on it?
              Signed, Confused Wannabe Libertarian in Michigan

          2. You must be new here. Please report for H&R Inside Joke Orientation in Room 101 immediately.

            1. seems to be a lot of silly inside jokes around here for a mag called reason…

              1. No drink if it’s intentional.

              2. Which strikes me as a good thing.

              3. Well it’s a libertarian site, so calling the site reason was also sort of an inside joke.

      2. Please to use correctly in the furniture.


    2. When I was getting my undergrad journalism degree and completing internships, I was blown away by the expectation that reporters should appear to be experts on everything and dissuade any notion to the contrary.

      It was one of the reasons I soured on it (the shitty pay being another). How is it that you are supposed to go ask questions of Top Men, with no background whatsoever in their field of study, and ask informed questions that will reveal relevant information? Better yet, understand their answers and be able to communicate simply, extremely complex ideas and answers?

        1. If that’s a “Raiders” quote – major props

      1. JW, I earned my journalism BA, wrote for the daily paper, etc., and came to your conclusions in about three years. If one has the brains to function well as a public affairs reporter, it won’t be long before better opportunities make their existence – – and salaries – – painfully apparent. I am embarrassed by what passes for professional journalism these days.

        1. Wait – so having a journalism degree doesn’t mean that they are experts in every field they are talking about with some semblance of authority and factuality? Oh man…

      2. I know a reporter for a newspaper who does a pretty good job. I can only feel for him as he sees example after example of idiotic colleagues. For example, he read every e-mail from CRU. That might be a hint of how to do it right. They used to call it work.

    3. I’d personally rather have journalists report on scientists’ opinions rather than mouth out their own opinions with nothing to back it up. Journalists don’t have to be smart, they just relay information on to the listeners (in this case). And I don’t see how it’s their responsibility to examine the method either, that’s the responsibility of other scientists, which happens all the time.

  3. I think it is much simpler. People will go about their busy little lives until something catastrophic happens (if it is actually true) like in that Dennis Quaid film and then they will scream for big bro to save their butts. Like the good people of New Orleans, but on a much larger scale. America, in my opinion, has taken the mindset that the government is responsible for our well being, no matter what the circumstance and in spite of any warnings we may have had.

    1. Agreed. The same thinking also applies to trillion dollar deficits. It sounds really bad, but until the US economy implodes due to the debt load, voters will continue merrily along and vote for congresscritters who pad their wallets with soon to be worthless script.

    2. “has taken the mindset that the government is responsible for our well being”

      Project much?

      1. I guess I wouldn’t put a handle on my posts either if all I ever said amounted to immature personal attacks. Stop being a dick and actually try contributing to the discussion.

        1. I could use a handle, but I’m too damn lazy to type one.

      2. Are you implying that a majority of adults in the US don’t think the government is responsible for their well being? If so, you need to get out more.

    3. No. I think it is more that people are not going to radically change their lives and panic until there is absolute proof and the risk is somewhat immediate, not decades down the line. If NASA came out tommorow and had indistubable proof that an astroid was going to hit earth next month, people would panic, even though nothing catastrophic had happened yet.

      1. No. I think it is more that people are not going to radically change their lives and panic until there is absolute proof and the risk is somewhat immediate, not decades down the line. If NASA came out tommorow and had indistubable proof that an astroid was going to hit earth next month, people would panic, even though nothing catastrophic had happened yet.

        On another note, why exactly are we supposed to worry about what the world will be like in 2100?

        We know for certain that an Ice Age will come within the next ten thousand years, an event that would destroy civilization in most of the planet. Would not global warming put the next Ice Age off by a few centuries?

        1. No, we *don’t* know that an ice age will come within the next 10 thousand years. The CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere; if we continue we can irrevocably change things. Little photosynthetic bacteria did it—killed themselves off by their oxygen waste, too.

          I’d like to think we’re smarter than that but it seems that may not be true.

      2. Well, a month would be way too short a time to do anything about an approaching asteroid. The AGW people claim there is something we can do to prevent the catastrophic results said to flow from global worming.

        A better analogy would be, say an asteroid that was likely to impact in five years. That would galvanize people to act right now.

        1. I know it is not polite to point out typos (assuming it is one) but this probably reflects poorly on my sense of humor but I am both horrified and amused by the idea of global worming. maybe that really is the solution

    4. I don’t remember anything like this happening in Dreamscape

      1. RRD, that was hilarious.

    5. NPR’s difficulty explaining the lack of interest was caused by the usual reason: They were trying to explain some aspect of reality without exposing or contradicting some foolish, naive, ignorant liberal fantasy.

      In this case, the obvious reason is that many people don’t believe that man-made global warming exists, or that its effects will kill off 90% of mankind (as was emphatically stated two days ago). This is particularly true after the Climategate e-mails were leaked.

      The fact that the MSM, some climate scientists, Democrats, and the U.N. have been encouraging people to ignore the content of those e-mails, is absolute proof that their real agenda has nothing what-so-ever to do with the climate or with the truth.

  4. And they call for a hurry-up offense on a set of plans that will by their own admission restructure every aspect of life on the Big Blue Marble.

    The hurry-up offense is generally employed only when someone is running out of time to implement their agenda. Say, Democratic politicians mightily worried about the 2010 midterms, and “hoping” to “change” stuff before their power dissipates.

    1. I can understand “quoting” the word “change”, but quoting the word “hoping” is an error. You believe they really are hoping to “change” stuff, not that they pretend to be hoping or falsly hoping or sarcastically hoping or any other type of way a person can hope. I hope this helps.

  5. I realize I’m a selfish pig (and weather is not climate, et c), but…

    The temperature at my house, right now, is about ten degrees below zero.

    I’m having a tough time getting terribly worked up about global warming.

    1. ten degrees below zero.

      C or F?

      1. F

        Now I have to go do penance for breaking my threaded comments boycott.

    2. THIS is perhaps the real reason most folks aren’t worried. They are horribly misinformed on the difference between weather and climate and since the weather is not behaving as we know the climate will, it doesn’t seem real to them; therefore it’s not a problem.

      What I don’t get is how easily folks were *convinced* Iraq had WMD on FAR less evidence than climate change has now.

  6. This is an interesting letter

    The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Daniel Henninger critical of scientists who allowed the culture of Climategate to develop in their professions.

    Christopher Essex, a leading Canadian applied mathematician and award-winning author, has written to Henninger.

    Dear Daniel

    My friend Willie Soon passed on an article from your “Wonder Land” column. It’s very good. It is an angle that I have anticipated for a very long time.

    Wonderland is certainly where I have been trapped for more than twenty years. But it is not nearly as nice as Alice’s version. Thoughts of the inquisition come to mind instead.

    Many of we scientists have been ringing the alarm bells from the beginning on this. We have been telling everyone who would listen about who we were dealing with. We have known all along.

    Climategate is no surprise at all to us. Evidence for this is in my book with Ross McKitrick from 2002, Taken by Storm. It won a $10,000 prize, and is now in a second edition. But few were listening. If my book had a title like Oh, my God, we are all going to die, I am sure that it would have been on the NYT bestseller list at once.

    Even though I understand where you are coming from, I find it rings flat with me to have to face people asking where the scientists were when we were overcoming so many many obstacles to get a rare fair hearing. The scientists have been tied up and gagged in the back room. I hate that. We were there screaming our lungs out all along.

    Damn it all, my friends Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre had to have a hearing before US congress to get that ridiculous hockey stick broken! It should have been a simple matter. The thing could hardly hold together under its own weight.

    Ross and I had a whole chapter on the hockey stick in our book, long before that controversy came to light. We used similar techniques to compute the US GDP with tree rings back to the year 1000, and we got a lovely hockey stick.

    I did not want in on the original hockey stick paper, because of my objections to the merits of the underlying physics, but I did comment on the drafts. In the second edition, there is an account of how the thing got broken by Ross and Steve.

    That science needed to get settled in Congress should have got people’s attention right there that there was something seriously wrong.

    Science is alive and well in the individual scientists who are not caught up in gaming the system for bigger grants. I call it small science. Many of them are doing very unfashionable things, and are happy to get no recognition for it.

    That is where you can find the real scientists. That is where the future will be.

    A milestone in this mess can be said to be when John Houghton of the IPCC said it was the IPCC’s job to “orchestrate” the views of science. Everything that has happened flows as an inevitable consequence of that.

    Some important research fields have been “orchestrated” out of existence. Even before Climategate, I have been saying that we have set ourselves back a generation by taking the money from governments with so many strings attached.

    Governments leaders wanted something where they could absolve themselves of the responsibility for making informed decisions. They would have to read science stuff otherwise. They ordered up a kind of unnatural scientist that would tell them precisely what they wanted to hear.

    But they gave the puppeteers clubs to deal with those of us who remained true. And the perps of Climategate are what they got. All of my colleagues have had to endure these bullies and criminals for a very long time.

    You should understand that (real) scientists have had to pay the heaviest price for the creation of these monsters for decades. And they were not created by us.

    Best wishes,


    Christopher Essex is Professor and Associate Chair of the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.


    There are lots of smart, serious scientists who find this thing rediculous.

    1. John
      Do you have any letters about the culture that allowed the Pilt-down man hoax to develop and what it says about evolutionary science?

      1. I think the comparison is inapt for several reasons. Piltdown Man was just one of a string of fossils used as evidence of evolution, not the first, and not central. It wasn’t discovered by the leading lights of the field. And it certainly wasn’t used as an argument that we had to remake the world economy at a cost of trillions or We’re All Gonna Die.

        1. Well, noone has offered any proof that the CRU’s research is “more central” to AGW than Pilt-down was in its day to evolutionary science.

          1. They were the lead authors of the IPCC reports. That’s pretty central.

            1. That isn’t how science works. Libertarians will yell “Global Warming is all political” one minute, and then use shady politics (which the lead authors of the IPCC reports may or may not have been engaged in) as evidence that it doesn’t exist the next. If you look at the science, not the stuff funded by politicians, but just the mere science research into climate you will find that it is very real.

              So is it pretty central? Yes, to a government trying to convince a skeptical – and scientifically illiterate – society but is it central to the theory of human influenced global warming? No.

      2. I’m curious how your question is germane to the topic.

        1. Because of the Piltdown hockey stick. Duh.

          Don’t you get it? Climatology and biological/archeological sciences are the exact same thing. You’d know that if you were a scientist.

          1. Yeah. I’m a metrologist but I’ve been reminded many times that I’m not a scientist.

            1. Careful you don’t get your certification revoked for having impure climatological thoughts.


              1. Not meteorologiest. Metrologist. But my impure thoughts could probably still get me in trouble.

                1. Ah, apologies. I presumed a typo.

                  The good news is that I learned a new word today.


        2. Because saying AGW is disproved because of fraud committed by some researchers supporting AGW is like saying evolution is disproved because of fraud committed by some researchers supporting evolution. Try to keep up.

          1. The letters are forged but the content is accurate.

            1. 10 thumbs up.

      3. MNG seems to have de-evolved into a one-line script.

        s/global warming/Piltdown man/

        1. My Administration is thinking of revoking his troll credentials.

    2. Excellent! Thank you for sharing.

  7. In 1890’s, Arrhenius built upon Fourier’s assessment of atmospheric properties plotting CO2 and temperature data collected in industrialized England. Arrhenius’ plots and calculations related CO2 and ambient temperatures. Callendar (1930’s) extended the analysis using long term observations from 200 stations reiterating the relation between CO2 and climate warming. Keeling (1950’s) began collecting atmospheric CO2 samples at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii which is the most complete record.

    USGS reports all volcanic activity produces nearly 200-million tons CO2 annually; although much less than human activity production. Mauna Loa, near the Observatory and the world’s most active volcano, had major eruptions in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Atmospheric CO2 levels measured at volcanoes indicate the degree of activity and estimated heat flow from one volcano are reported at140-mW/m2. Correlating CO2 and temperatures data collected near active volcanoes should be significant but not show a cause and effect relation; however, correlating world-wide data significantly shows CO2 lagging temperature by approximately two years. Arrhenius and Callendar analysis similarly could be significantly biased owing to urban heat-island effects and extensive coal burning at the time, as CO2 is an abundant byproduct of burning.

    Apparently, no laboratory control experiment to date, such as in a biodome, has shown CO2 levels influencing ambient temperatures. Tyndall (1861) measured the absorptive characteristics of CO2 followed by more precise measurements by Burch (1970). Absorbance is a measure of the quantity of light (energy) absorbed by a sample (CO2 molecule) and the amount of absorbed energy can be represented as specific heat of a substance. Specific heat of CO2 ranges from 0.791-kJ/kgK at 0-degrees F to 0.871-kJ/kgK at 125-degrees F and average atmospheric concentrations are 0.0306-percent. As revealed, the specific heat of CO2 increases as ambient temperatures increase showing CO2 likely is an ambient temperature buffer.

    The atmosphere contains from 4-percent water vapor in the troposphere to 40-percent near the surface. Specific heat of water vapor relatively remains constant at 1.996-kJ/kgK. Water absorbs energy (heat) and evaporates to water vapor. During condensation (precipitation), latent heat is released to the atmosphere thus increasing ambient temperatures. Water vapor holds the majority of atmospheric heat and regulates climate and temperature more than any compound. Historically, however, water vapor characteristics as related to climate were much less appreciated, but investigations concerning the significance water vapor plays in global climate-dynamics are just beginning.

    Energy not stored in the atmosphere is released into space through radiation. Re-radiation is the emission of previously absorbed radiation by molecules. Specific heat of water vapor and CO2 molecules shows that water vapor reradiates significantly more energy back to the surface and this case further is justified by quantities of each compound. Thus, this synopsis and other publications suggest that minute variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely results in an insignificant affect on climate; whereas water vapor likely is the significant factor. Nevertheless, this argument easily could be rectified with an appropriate biodome-type control experiment.

  8. “Newspeople are dumber than they let on.”

    In other words, “staggeringly- mindbogglingly- dumb”.

  9. Interesting how the government usually works to prevent public panic, but in this case they’re trying to cause one. Most people aren’t buying into it. There’s this measured skepticism they must find frustrating.

    brotherben, I think a lot of people learned a lesson from New Orleans. That is, the government can sometimes be slow, inefficient, and just plain suck. Yet fellow citizens can and do rise up and take care of each other. Again, that must be frustrating to people who thing Government is the only thing keeping us from eating each other.

    1. “Again, that must be frustrating to people who thing Government is the only thing keeping us from eating each other.”

      You know who I’d like to eat? Katie Holmes, circa 2000. I just saw her in Wonder Boys this weekend. Hawt? OMFG!

    2. They’re not trying to create panic. They’re trying to create fear combined with a trust that their “leaders” can protect them as long as they get all the power they want.

      1. Reference: Patriot Act

    3. Since when do they work to prevent panic? What about Y2K, GWB’s terrists (OMG, there are sleeper cells everywhere), Avian Flu and H1N1?

  10. I don’t think one can exactly compare climate change legislation to TARP or the Patriot act or other “emergency” legislation since we’ve been, like, talking back and forth about this for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. I’m in my early 30’s and I can’t remember a time people haven’t been yammering about this.

    At the end of the day, I don’t even think it’s much worth bothering with it. Whether AGW is a total lie or is set to bring on a Mad Max style existence for our children, it doesn’t matter. Distant future voices may chant, “TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES!” But they’ll always be drowned out by today’s fellow citizens murmuring, “Screw that” and shuffling away when the politicians start saying, “Well the first thing we have to do is double gas prices, and then…”

    1. At the very least, the politicians calling for doubling the gas prices have to have some coherent explanation of how doubling the gas prices will help. That’s the thing that’s missing, for me, in the proposals that they keep coming up with.

      1. Make no mistake,gasoline prices are allready way higher than they would be without a president and congress that won’t drill off shore and in Anwar and won’t allow shale oil production. Although I get the uncomfrotable feeling that you ain’t seen nothing yet.

        1. Retail motor fuel (deisel and motor gasoline) is about $9 per gallon in the EU now. Despite much higher prices, EU27 oil consumption rose from 14 million barrels per day in 1993 to 15 million barrels per day in 2008. EU27 population increased from 475 M to 499 M over the same period, about the same percentage. Thus, per capita fuel consumption rose in the EU despite high prices.

          Europe, which always had much superior public transportation systems and greater population density than the US, has been unable to materially reduce transportation fuel consumption with high taxes.

          Bottom line: our overlords will have to enact fuel taxes much, much higher than $1/gallon to force drivers to stay away from their cars and thereby reduce CO2 emissions and diminish Arab wealth.

          And, I suspect, that is exactly what Obama and Gore have in mind: much, much higher fuels prices, as in “necessarily skyrocket”ing fuel prices.

          1. Actually, we don’t need to force people to stay away from their cars. We just need them to drive cars that get, say, 35 mpg rather than 11 mpg. As an aside, we really don’t need cars to get much better mileage than about 40 mpg, since the fuel savings drop off geometrically thereafter. There are still lots of cars on theroad that get 8-12 mpg. Higher gas taxes would fix that, at least.

    2. Sweetie, the reason you can’t remember anything but global warming is because when we were going to all die from the next ice age you were still in diapers. I remember a few years ago talking to a bunch of 30 somethings about global freezing – the latest and greatest hoax of the 70’s and 80’s and they were dumbfounded – never heard of it and had no clue. There’s a lot you can’t remember if you are only in your 30s – like lines in front of gas stations and gasoline at the unfathomable price of 0.75 cents a gallon when the year before it was running 0.25-0.30 per gallon.

      Of course we were also going to kill the planet due to overpopulation – see The Late Great Planet Earth. All that is happened since then is there’s a lot less people of certain ethnic backgrounds who in the 1950’s and 60’s had an average of 4 or 5 children per family (say for example Italy, Ireland and Spain where Catholics always had large families) who now have a negative population growth, i.e. Europe. Any growth that’s going on there now is from immigrants.

      Give yourself time – you’ll hear a lot more before you leave this wonderful planet when your time comes in about 50 years. You’ll be as big as a skeptic as I am.

      1. You’re memory is faulty. There was NO global freezing issue. Ever.

        In the 70’s folks noted that Ice Ages had a periodicity—they also discovered that it correlated with Earth’s nutation period and that nutation would mean we *may* be nearing another one, and that, on some small scales, winters were colder than before. Thus the whole thing needed a LOT of study since their models were all fairly crude and they needed more study.

        But at that very time most climatologists ALSO said all of it could be moot considering that we were pumping gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere that we may have already fundamentally changed the rules.

  11. I heard that report on NPR this morning. It was appalling. Apparently the Climate Change Deniers, backed by Big Carbon Big bucks, are having a “field day” over “suspicious-sounding statements” in stolen e-mails. But real scientists all agree; Nothing to see here, move along.

    1. You’re joking–right?

      1. Nope, nothing there to call the basic science into question. At least none of the stuff I’ve seen spewed out.

  12. Also, we like our gas-guzzlers and plastic toys.

    And sorting garbage like a bunch of hungry raccoons isn’t my idea of a good time.

    Give us some federal monetary incentive and we’ll be the best green citizens money (or tax deductions) can buy.

    1. “And sorting garbage like a bunch of hungry raccoons isn’t my idea of a good time.”

      Sounds like the very definition of a “green job”.

  13. I am so concerned about Global Warmism that I am encouraging EnvionMentals to kill themselves.

    Do it. Stop lying about your beliefs and get the fuck off my planet.

    1. no kidding. but first remember to drown your children first, since the worst thing you can do to the planet is to procreate… fucking death cult.

      1. I’m not sure that limiting procreation=death cult.

        And you guys accuse climate science of alarmism? Ballsy!

        1. ransom 147 is more than one guy? How many, MNG? You know that number in his handle doesn’t really mean what you must think it means.

          1. I was referring to JB as well.

            CN: 1+1=2. Plural.

            1. actually,

          2. yep. there’s drunk me, and occasionally – sober me. and we both think it’s a fucking death cult (AGW), whether people realise it or not.

        2. it’s not the biggest leap in the world… you’re the utilitarian, how many steps off is it?

        3. “I’m not sure that limiting procreation=death cult.”

          Me neither.

          1. You’re forgetting abortion.

            1. You don’t have to commit suicide; just quit breathing and emitting all that CO2.

    2. They’re actually Environists. There’s nothing mental about their cause. Rather there’s a lack of mental acuity and mental health.

  14. I’ll believe AGW is a “real” threat when the solution that would rid us of most of the carbon fuel at the center of the alleged warming is rushed into production: Nuclear.

    Nuclear could, feasibly, end most human output of carbon dioxide. Until its #1 on the list of solutions, I’m not sold that the world is ending tomorrow.

    It ends in 2012. Everyone knows that’s true.

    1. We’ll know that’s true if the Saints win the Super Bowl…….

    2. I’ll believe its a real threat when the people who tell me this start acting like they believe it.

      But when you have a Godzilla-sized carbon footprint of your very own, don’t tell me I have to cut mine in half.

      1. Offsets, RC, offsets. Plant a tree and then take that plane flight. It’s all good.

    3. I can’t wait until 2013 when people stop fucking talking about aztecs and mayans and shit.

      1. You won’t be so smug when the aztecs rip out your still beating heart to stop the mayan prophesied apocalypse, will you?

        Huitzilopochtli is coming back, bitches!

    4. Interesting point. As a liberal i can tell you that nothing has made more liberals reconsider nuclear power more than the global warming discussion.

      1. How many are reconsidering, MNG? Two? ‘Cause that’s what I’m thinking. Sounds about right.

      2. Interesting.

        The smoke and ash from coal-fired power plants were apparently not a good enough reason to switch to nuclear power, according to those liberals.

    5. I’ll believe AGW is a “real” threat when the solution that would rid us of most of the carbon fuel at the center of the alleged warming is rushed into production: Nuclear.

      Who is it that finances frivilous lawsuits to frustrate the construction of nuclear power plants?

      Who was it that campaigned against breeder reactors?

    6. Oh, so I have to choose between living in a greenhouse planet and having my descendants grow tentacles out of their nostrils due to all the nuclear waste being dumped everywhere.

      1. That’s not your ONLY choice torpid. Pick the wildlife program…it looked pretty cool,

    7. Nuclear also has this problem with radioactive waste… Do you really want hot strontium in your water table?!

  15. “We just don’t want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it.”

    Are you sure she’s not talking about ClimateGate there ?

  16. Alarmists (I get called a denier, so alarmist seems appropriate), certainly seem scarce in blogs I read these days. It’s ok guys, we’ll accept your admission of how wrong you were. I won’t hold it against you.

    1. I prefer the term “apocalyptics.”

    2. Climate Jim Joneses, thank you very much.

      1. How about the Peoples Climate Temple cult?

    3. You go to libertarian blogs, looking for liberals? I think I found your problem.

      However, I do think that people with minority opinions post on message boards disproportionately, because they need to work harder find justification for their beliefs.

  17. “It’s ok guys, we’ll accept your admission of how wrong you were.”

    This is borderline retarded.

    Look, I will make this point again: if we stipulate the horribleness of the CRU’s actions then the only thing that can be concluded from it all is this:
    1. Any research based on CRU data is unverifiable.
    2. Any research done by the CRU researchers is unrealiable.

    That’s it. The only way this “proves AGW wrong” is if the only evidence for AGW falls into those two categories. The fact is most of you have not been able to provide any point about how much of the evidence presented for AGW falls into those two categories. And we’re supposed to trust you guys have the science worked out? Maybe if all you read are right wing and libertarian blogs about this issue you would be quite ignorant as to why so many scientists and scientific organizations disagree with you, why so few of themare changing their position on AGW.


    1. I replied to this point on an earlier thread, but perhaps you didn’t see it. The CRU crew and associates were at the center of AGW: principle authors of the IPCC reports, etc. So it’s a big chunk of the evidence for AGW. (Though admittedly one of my questions is “How large a chunk?”) Because of that, I am worried about their influence on other “independent” researchers. Scientists are not immune from intellectual fads and a herd mentality. Recall the Overpopulation Doom hysteria of the ’60s-’70s.

      The revelations of the terrible CRU computer coding also make me wonder about the quality of the calculations used by other AGW people. If it was so bad for the leading lights of the field, how good is it elsewhere?

      Finally, there have been skeptics questioning the CRU and AGW generally for years. Having been proven at least partially correct re CRU, I’m inclined to give them a thorough hearing about other issues. For instance, much of the evidence of recent warming is based on weather station data of apparently doubtful reliability.

    2. CRU email is simply another in a long line of evidence piling up against the IPCC papers. If you actually read both sides of the issue you would know that the models that have been used to predict such warming, fail to even remotely match instrumental temperature trends. That is why the CRU crew had to resort to modifying the data to achieve the desired result. Additionally, they spliced together proxies with hard temperature data, which is a large error in methodology, and even that wasn’t good enough, they had to exclude portions of their own data because it didn’t fit the message. Even if you just look at their temperature reconstruction graphs with an eye towards history, reason, and other reconstructions, you quickly realize that they artificially minimized the Medieval warm period and little ice age in order to emphacize current temperature levels. One last point. In their reconstructions, they made un-explained corrections as large as 2.5 degrees in graphs with final variations of less then 1.5 degrees over 2000 years. In other words, their arbitrary corrections are larger then the actual graphed temperature increase. If that’s not reason for doubt, I don’t know what is.

      1. Well put, aelhues. Without all those specious, hockey-stick temperature “reconstructions,” AGW collapses, and the boys at UEA know it.

    3. You need another bullet:
      3. Verification of the claim that other climate researchers that have been purported to have arrived at their conclusions independently of CRU have not in fact based their conclusions on any CRU data or methodology.

    4. The fact is most of you have not been able to provide any point about how much of the evidence presented for AGW falls into those two categories…
      Dude they refused to hand over their codes and data…it had to be purloined for us to get our hands on it and it don’t look good! Another point here is how good IS the surface station data the US is providing? Take a look-see if you dare MNG:
      Hmmmm.something is AMISS I believe…maybe why NASA/HANSEN won’t release THEIR data and codes either…..pontificate on those apples Charley!

      1. Why should they have to hand over their code?! Do you just give away everything you do for a living?

        As for the data, you’re free to go collect up the raw data yourself—it’s all still there, they just didn’t keep copies of it. So what?

    5. The degree to which the “four main” data sources are inter-dependent means that essentially all of the so-called peer reviewed studies rely to some degree on CRU data.

      Moreover, there is another factor you are leaving out of the equation ? the admission by CRU that a significant amount (percentages still unknown) of the raw data has been lost/destroyed. The combination of the emails, the bad code, and the missing data strongly suggest that the CRU has something significant to hide. Many people with greater scientific credentials than I can claim point to major statistical failures, poor understanding of the role of reasonably well-defined factors in climate (mainly CO2) and even worse understanding of those factors which are still being measured (solar activity as one example).

      However, my credentials are more as a historian than as a scientist and I can suggest that there is a more simple and direct reason to doubt CRU and the rest of the alarmists ? the raw data is BAD. The general claim is that they have temperature records for about 140 years to work from and then, based on these, they estimate temperatures from earlier eras. Nonsense. They have less than a couple of decades of records that could plausibly be considered reliable (and there is an excellent case to be made that even these are not yet valid).

      Consider the nature of the people who gathered those records 60-140 years ago, especially those outside of modern urban areas ? an unhappy midshipman on a swaying ship, an exiled bureaucrat in czarist Siberia, an Arctic explorer suffering from frostbite and lead poisoning, etc, etc, all using glass thermometers, fountain pens, and oil lanterns under adverse conditions. Just how accurate do you believe these numbers are, even if they really did try to record it (rather than just deciding it must be 2 degrees colder than last night and I don’t need to leave the cabin to confirm that)? Then you have mind numbingly boring transcriptions of that data using either handwriting or manual typewriters (with all of those opportunities for errors repeated each time you copied the data).

      This doesn’t even consider the absence of a system to appropriately cover the globe to measure its temperature, vast amounts of territory that were simply not measured on any regular or reliable way (including the totality of the water surface and most of the underdeveloped land masses) or large scale errors, loss of data, or manipulation of data before the advent of computers. I point to Russia’s recent submission of one month’s data for another that was not identified for weeks (months?) in the 21st century during a time of great debate over climate. How often do you think this might have happened between the 1940’s and 1980’s in the communist Bloc and third world countries?

      Then they take this incomplete, unreliable, and otherwise dubious data and use that as a basis for estimating earlier temperatures from tree rings? The truth of the matter is that we have only had reliable data with the development of satellite and other “remote” technologies for a few years and a major reason the models have not projected the actual temperature of the past ten years is because they were never based on valid measurements.

      Regardless of their degree of dependence on CRU data, the raw data has always been insufficient – which is why none of the models forcast even a single decade of temperatures.

      Personally, I think that is why the raw data has “disappeared” and it is those who bought into this load of crap that are border-line retarded -no matter what degrees they may have.

  18. Don’t know if this has been linked to before, but the Weekly Standard has (to my eye) an excellent article on Climategate by Steven Hayward, going into some detail on what the emails mean for climate science: Hier.

  19. If anyone can demonstrate that the CRU teams data and research is the only, or even the most substantial evidence proferred for AGW then I will agree with you here and know that AGW is bull.

    If you can’t though perhaps you should stop crowing that “AGW has been disproved.”

    1. Go fetch my ass a purple cow, bitch. Make that two. Two purple cows. Dipshit.

      1. And then prove to me that the earth orbits the sun.

    2. Estimates I’ve seen is that the individuals involved in the CRU data scandal make up about 42% of the individuals involved in the IPCC reports.

      On the flip side, why don’t you show us evidence that isn’t derived from the proxies built by Mann, Jones, Briffa etc.. Or better yet, predictions that could actually be applied without arbitrary modifications, and excessive smoothing, to our temperature records, and match through to the current date.

      1. Linky? Look, if they account for 42% of the IPCC then the IPCC is doubtful. It’s as simple as that. But for all the rage that goes on here only two people even attempted to answer my question about how much of the evidence comes from these guys.

        1. My memory was apparently fuzzy. This is a quote from the article(http://lnk.nu/pajamasmedia.com/13mn/):

          I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?

        2. Awfully cheeky for a guy who is very picky about which questions he answers on these threads…

        3. Just another side note. The IPCC reports involved a fairly substantial number of people who’s negative or even tempering comments were rejected. Additionally, the statement for policymakers that everyone read, didn’t fairly represent the findings of the now allegedly questionable data in the report.

        4. You demand links? Oh the irony. How it burns.

    3. If CRU and their collaborators make public their data and code for their models, and scrutiny by the computer science and other scientific communities reveals no flaws in their code or adulteration of the data, I’ll believe in AGW.

      Indeed, their conclusions should have been ignored in the first place since they kept their code secret. Hiding information to keep people from questioning your beliefs is the mark of a Scientologist, not a scientist.

    4. MNG are you in the middle of an AGW research paper or something which might fall apart due to CLIMATEGATE

  20. I have some data showing radio waves cause global warming. Time to close down NPR.

  21. Meant now, but hey know works too

  22. If anyone can demonstrate that the CRU team’s data and research is completely unimportant to the AGW debate, then I will refuse to let it fuel my skepticism.

  23. Look, I will make this point again: if we stipulate the horribleness of the CRU’s actions then the only thing that can be concluded from it all is this:
    1. Any research based on CRU data is unverifiable.
    2. Any research done by the CRU researchers is unrealiable.

    You left out

    3. Any AGW research that hasn’t opened its books — released all its data, raw and processed, the code for its computer modeling and data adjustments, and all its internal emails showing scientists chatting about what they are doing — and had all this gone over by skeptics who were unable to find anything unethical — is suspect.

    By this gold standard, I would suspect that nothing out there can be stipulated to be completely reliable and trustworthy.

    1. Personally, if they release the raw data and the code, I couldn’t care if they release their personal emails. Strangely, most of these guys aren’t willing to do that.

      Part of what the episode has highlighted for me is just how shitty (in terms of taking existing data and making meaningful predictions) their models are. If I tried to design anything with models this bad, it would fail catastrophically and spectacularly.

      1. No, they prefer to destroy the raw data, block freedom of information requests, and when some of the data is eventually forced into the light, claim that all the silliness involved is normal science.

        When you can use their formulas and get a hockey stick shaped graph out of nearly any data set, you really should be willing to admit it was a scam.

    2. Of course you would want this to applied to AGW skeptic’s work as well, right prole?

      I mean, you’re getting daft here. I’ve yet to see all the internal emails of all economists who have done work concluding that the minimum wage is harmful. Therefore all of their work is suspect according to your principle.

      Do you see how stupid this debate is making you?

      1. If you really think economics is a real science, you are in sad shape but, yes, of they are using models to make their points, they should provide the data and the codes.

        Next point…

      2. Social science does not work like physical science. An economist can use data to add weight to an argument but the case must be made with a sound, logical argument. An economist who makes wild claims and tosses out data sets with the expectation that the numbers will prove his case is little more than a witch doctor.

        Any person’s labor/effort is worth the price of the given good or service that person produces or provides. For example: if Bob produces a widget that will sell for $x, Bob has produced $x worth of wealth.

        An employer cannot pay an employee a wage that exceeds the value the employee provides to the employer. For example: if an employer pays Bob more than $x for the $x widget Bob produced, he does so at a loss and will eventually go out of business.

        An employer coerced into paying a minimum wage rate will tend to hire only those employees who can naturally provide enough value to match the wage rate. For example: let us say Bob produces one $x widget per hour and earns a wage of $x per hour. A minimum wage rate of $1.5x/hr is enacted. Bob will be let go and the employer will hire Carl in his place as his productivity is 150% that of Bob’s. Bob will now have a hard time finding work in the widget industry as his productivity is lower than the forced wage rate requires. Bob’s options are now fairly limited and he is likely to turn to a life of begging or stealing or he may enter the lucrative sub-legal drug market.

        The minimum wage does not affect high productivity workers directly and mostly serves to harm low productivity ones by locking them out of the job market. (…thereby creating more clients for the welfare state and more fodder for the prison-industrial complex.)

  24. To get really philosophical about it:

    The world’s got to end some time. Why not now?

    We’ve all got to die too, one day, from some cause or another. Is it really that important whether the world ends before we die, or after? Either way, in the long run, we’re all dead. Is there a place where we store up “utils” accruing from individual lives started and stopped over the generations? Of course not. Does it really matter how many generations of human beings this planet sees come and go? I don’t see how.

    Maybe every man and woman understands this at some deep level, even though few are willing to talk about it. Most go about their lives resigned to make the best of it, and not worry too much about cosmic issues, or any other issues beyond their control.

    1. Who the fuck are you to decide that all potential future generations of humans don’t get to live because Exxon doesn’t want to give up its short-term profits?

      1. Tony, why don’t you look up the definitions of the words “normative” and “descriptive”. Then reread the Dark Philosopher’s post.

        If you apologize nicely, I’m sure he will forgive you for your ignorance and bad manners.

        1. liberals rarely have the intellectual honesty to deal with these sort of questions…

        2. One of my majors was philosophy–I’m aware of the definitions.

          There is a lot of this sort of nihilism going around. It’s not profound, it’s ridiculous. There shouldn’t even be a question of whether we should let the world end or try to prevent that from happening, right? This generation should not have the right to decide that we are the last, if we can possibly do anything to prevent it. We aren’t special enough for that distinction. As long as the world is capable of supporting human life I think our number 1 priority as a species should be to preserve it. Otherwise there may be a smattering of survivors 1000 years from now that will have forgotten about all the evil dictators we obsess over and declare that we were the biggest dicks in history for being too willfully dumb to protect our own living quarters.

          1. There shouldn’t even be a question of whether we should let the world end or try to prevent that from happening, right?

            So let’s just fire off the nukes then, right?

          2. As long as the world is capable of supporting human life I think our number 1 priority as a species should be to preserve it.

            That sounds a little bit like the Terry Schiavo argument, applied to a world instead of a person.

            But where is the util-bank where we shall store the utils experienced by the additional generations of humans, and how do we “win” by maximizing the size of that bank account? Maybe you are a theist, and believe that your God has commanded you (somewhat like an old school Roman Catholic couple) to produce as many lives as you can, for as long as you can. That’s certainly not the goal that most of us would agree to pursue.

            People are very uncomfortable addressing these questions, because they need to address them for their own lives as well. And if they look too deeply into these questions, they turn away in fear. The dark philosopher does not fear, or he does but he looks anyway. That is his curse.

            My goal in this thread was to provide an answer to the greater question being raised: why don’t people care more about this, and why aren’t they willing to change their lives to become part of this Great Crusade? As the perceptive tarran pointed out, I was describing people and the world, not prescribing a course of action.

          3. “This generation should not have the right to decide that we are the last”.

            Are you against contraception? If current trends continue, we’ll soon simply stop reproducing. The Japanese and Italians are going the way of the dodo bird. Even the Iranians are follwing suit. I’d have thought you’d be in favor of that, as our carbon footprint would be significantly reduced.

      2. No, that’s the role of Planned Parenthood…

        1. Not really sure who’s next generation Planned Parenthood is advocates for?

      3. Tony, STFU

      4. Ooh, scary, evil corporations! Their trying to take your soul! Either that or provide you with a product or service that you are willing to pay more for than it costs them to provide.

        1. Oooh, scary, evil liberal scientists! They’re trying to take your soul!

          Actually, I agree. Most of the major energy/transportation companies are up front about their belief that this is an actual problem (even Exxon has said as much publicly). The larger ones are doing both short term and long term planning to respond to likely changes in the industry that will result from attempt to respond to the problem.

          1. Actually, this whole thing has rather baffled me. I always thought that the scientific approach was to be skeptical. Yet, in the realm of AGW, it has been for a while now that if you don’t toe the line, and ask government to spank us into fighting this barely supported theory, you were a denier, not a skeptic. All I ask is that they show me their data, their proofs, and for it to be very convincing. Is that really too much to ask?

            1. “I believe in that which can be proven by reason and experiment, and I want to see your logic and your lab notes.”

              1. Indeed.

                Of course, most of the raw data stuff is publicly available.



                1. Not raw data, how did they position those thermometers in the oceans so evenly?

  25. Who dresses you in the morning, Tony?

    1. Why are Tony’s socks brittle to the touch?

  26. Just today, I read an editorial from the Los Angeles Times warning that if we do not take action, the United States will become a threat to humanity.

    I wonder why not a single newspaper editorial pointed out that the United States can stop global warming simply by detonating its arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. Carl Sagan and four other scientists proved this to be true back in 1983.

  27. Most people don’t have any idea what the science says. They know what someone they trust has told them about the science. Most of the people the trust on these issues don’t have any idea what the science says.

    The NPR story just highlights the difference between the progress of scientific understanding and public perception.

    Another recent field that shows this split is research on Autism. More people are convinced that vaccinations have caused an Autism epidemic now than 10 years ago, even as the science has moved from testing this hypothesis because it was plausible, to showing it doesn’t hold up (no relationship, and no epidemic).

    Both topics include many who accuse the scientists of trying to hide the truth for their own gain.

    1. Both topics include many who accuse the scientists of trying to hide the truth for their own gain.

      The agenda behind this global warming campaign is to destroy Western industrial civilization.

      That has been the agenda since 1988.

    2. In this case, though, we have evidence of certain influential scientists doing just that: hiding the truth for their own gain.

      Just because most conspiracy theories are false doesn’t mean conspiracies never exist.

      1. Tulpa,

        That’s up for debate. You have stuff you want to claim is evidence. There is an inquiry into the claims underway. I think I will wait to hear the results before I jump to conclusions on that claim.

        I guess that makes me a CRUhack denialist.

        1. The inquiry will have to come up with a pretty amazing interpretation of the plain text of those emails to come to any other conclusion.

          In any case, there is far more evidence for this than there ever was for the idea that scientists were lying about vaccine safety. That you would compare the two speaks volumes about your own agenda in this matter.

          1. Please enlighten me.
            What is my agenda?

          2. far more evidence for this than there ever was for the idea that scientists were lying about vaccine safety

            Far more than zero?
            Okay, I guess, if you want to put the bar that low before we start screaming conspiracy, I guess we can say that this is a far more credible conspiracy theory than the moon landing hoax as well.

      2. Yeah, they were so clever that they “hid” the data in another journal, and cited it.

        How sneaky. They must have trained a ninja school or something.

  28. climate change is real, man-made, and catastrophic

    In order:

    Absolutely and not exactly an earth-shattering observation;
    Absolutely Not.

    “We just don’t want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it.”

    When it comes to an issue like the impending Social Security imnplosion, which requires a little bit of attention and ability to do basic math I buy that explanation. When it comes to climate change it appears to be a foregone conclusion drawn by a sociologist who is completely oblivious to all of the positions antithetical to her hysterical hyperbole and whose observations on denial seem to consist of a year’s immersion in Norwegian culture and a conclusion conceived in an echo chamber.

  29. Yet another reason to ignore NPR or abolish public broadcasting altogether.

    1. Hear, Hear!

      Course, I’d argue that that goes as well for the NEA

      1. And the NHL!

  30. Game over, gentlemen. The absolute dictators at the EPA have decided.

    WASHINGTON ? The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

    The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

    The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants ? mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels ? should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    Oh well. Modern civilization was nice while it lasted.

    1. “Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will set the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions population.”


      1. Surely someone will take these little eichmanns to court? Right?

        1. Actually if all it is is a PR move by the Obamoids to look good in front of their pals in the international communismity, I won’t be too terribly upset. If they actually start putting some teeth into it there are definitely going to be lawsuits, but the SCOTUS has already indicated that the law gives the EPA this discretion. And the SCOTUS is only going to get worse as long as The Hopey One remains in office.

  31. I think the article has it right. People are very skeptical of anything coming from pols or the MSM that appears to back a particular political faction…as AGW clearly supports the larger agenda of the Left. We’ve been through these Chicken Little fear-mongering campaigns sooooo many times before, that our initial response is skepticism. And when the call to action requires a $650B energy tax during a horrible recession…well…only a member of the Church of the Environment could buy into it.

  32. The real sad comment is that there is more free flow–open conversation on this topic that there was or is by the so-called scientists and their MSM enablers.

    Hey MSM it is REAL simple: Replace every ref to the CRU with ExxonMobil and every “scientists'” name with an Oil Exec and tell me you would not be screaming Bloody Murder.

    People have common a Common Sense that media types don’t. These scientists and their MSM allied LIED and were caught in it. Until they clean house-BIG TIME- no one will trust them-period.

  33. From the war to climate change, today’s Morning Edition was a complete joke. Even Cokie Roberts was worse than usual, and that’s saying something.

    I know it’s NPR, but come on…has a “public” radio station ever been that out of touch with the public?

  34. Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz says that scientists are now beginning to dissect the 15,000 lines of programming code that was also hacked along with the East Angla emails. Evidently, it shows that data was deliberately distorted to fit the desired outcome! So the fundamental science seems to be flawed, which would explain why Jones and Mann were so eager to collaborate in silencing dissent. Whatever happened to free inquiry as the cornerstone of modern science? It’s been buried under political orthodoxy. http://www.FreeingTibet.com

  35. How about this?
    1.) Complete review of the science. By an independent entity. (Not the IPCC.)
    2.) If AGW still appears to be of great concern, how about the US agreeing to transition to clean energy through revenue-neutral Carbon taxation, and diversification (nuclear, natural gas, etc.) This could satisfy the AGW crowd along with those (rational) folks who believe we should be less reliant on fossil fuels.

  36. If you think NPR is an ostrich buried neck deep, look at the Holdren, Obama, Boxer, and the king of the intellectually challenged, Rep. Markey. Green Jobs, yeah right. Green jobs are jobs that are overhead on energy generation that is cost ineffective, subsidized by higher energy prices and taxes levied to subsidize something of lesser value.

    Green Jobs are simply better trained welfare recipients doing make work tasks on something which has less value to society at the present.

  37. It’s the endorsement by NPR that’s rendering the public apathetic; it’s the kiss of death for any theory. Suddenly it becomes painfully apparent it’s liberal nonsense.

  38. The only pollution is being emitted from Barack Obamas mouth.

  39. A better title

    “Poor, dumb, John Q. Public”

    Perfect demonstration on how liberals (NPR) find fellow liberals to back up their claims that the public is “too stupid for their own good.”

    No, we can’t process climategate…we can’t process suppressing scientific thought…we can’t process $800 b for $685b in “benefits”….

    Liberalism is truly a mental disease. Footnote: NPR

  40. Climate change is happening, whether you “believe” it is or not. Just because you don’t care doesn’t give the corporations the right to fuck up my planet. It’s the same reason why I can’t run over your sister with my truck and then say “I don’t believe she’s actually hurt.”
    I think I understand why people get so into these watch your response columns. Instant ego.
    Just so you trolls know, I won’t be back to check this.

    1. felcher,

      Exactly, climate change has been happening for nearly 4.6 Billion years.

    2. OK

    3. Is it the same reason I cannot kick your door in and shoot you because “I believe you are going to back over my sister with your truck 50 years from now! I even have a computer model that shows how it will happen.” – is it?

  41. Let’s be serious, people. With the EPA ruling, the new class elite can in theory anyhow now do anything to us it wants to do. The Beattles only imagined them taxing our feet. Now they can tax our breath. And these people are truly and frighteningly irrational on this issue, as the NPR puzzlement shows. So what do you we do about it? A lot could be at stake, you realize. A lot.

  42. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    if you think that NPR isn’t the most objective news outfit out there….

    1. Dumb song. Assertions aren’t an argument. Besides, musically it sucks.

      1. actually, assertions are arguments. QED,

    2. Dumb song. Assertions aren’t an argument. Besides, musically it sucks.

  43. I’m old enough to remember the fear of the next ice age in the 70s
    This too shall pass. We are far more likely to get wiped out by an asteroid than drown from the rising tides caused by global warming

    1. No, you’re not. Because it never happened. You’re letting RushBillHanityBeck rewrite your memories.

      1. You’re wrong, you cunty cunt.

  44. Al Gore wanted us to believe the Aral Sea dried up from global warming; I find it difficult to believe Al wasn’t aware the Soviets dammed the rivers feeding the Aral sea. I find it difficult to believe Al didn’t know that the Soviets diverted the Amu Darya 850 miles across the desert to Ashgabat in Turkmenistan. I find it difficult to believe Al wasn’t aware that the source of the water was glaciers melting in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, so global warming actually helps fill the Aral Sea.
    We know the “hockey stick” was a fraud, and anyone who had the opportunity to download the CO2 versus temperature chart from the US Government website before the chart was replaced with a chart compressed in the time scale could see that temperature LED CO2 by 400 years on average. Anyone with a keen eye who downloaded a chart of the same data from the UK website would have noticed that the CO2 overlay had been biased downward.
    Any person familiar with efficiency laughed when Al said the Third World made more efficient cars than we do, and put up a chart of corporate average fuel economies to prove it. Economy is not the same as efficiency; of course Third World cars use less gas, they are tiny tin cans for narrow streets and people who cannot afford larger and better cars. Anyone who has ever been in a Soviet Lada sedan would know it was not efficient! Some of the Third World cars even have smoggy two cycle engines where you have to mix the oil with the gas!
    Al showed pictures of receding glaciers; news flash, Al, glaciers have been melting since the middle of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, so what’s new! I have hiked the valley to the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand, and the valley is marked at intervals with signs indicating the inexorable recession since long before the Maori reached the islands- and Al wants us to believe that glaciers have just suddenly started melting?
    Climate changes; take a drill down through the Appalachians and count how many times you cut through different layer of coal and limestone, each layer representing an epoch with a totally different climate. Ice ages have come and gone long before man was ever an influence.
    And it’s not like alternative theories do not exist; sunspot records go back over a thousand years and correlate well with short-term climate change. Milankovitch cycles explain long-term climate changes remarkably well.
    We know that massive swings in temperature have occurred in the past; the Nile FROZE in 1010 AD!
    If you recovered and burned every bit of fossil fuel anywhere on the planet and burned it to put it back in the atmosphere in a cynical plot to destroy the atmosphere and environment, you would never come close to putting all of the CO2 back, for you would have missed putting back all of carbon bound in carbonate rocks- limestone, marble, chalk, travertine and other carbon bearing rocks like shales and mudstones. If eons ago the forests were thriving and destined to become coal, and the ocean life was thriving and destined to become limestone deposits with massive amounts of CO2 in the air, what’s the worry?
    So Al gave us a bunch of obvious lies and distortions that people with broad engineering or geological educations were splitting a gut laughing over. The press didn’t bother to fact check anything, shame on you. When nearly everything Al said is a lie or a distortion, you expect us to believe the portion we can’t check- a CO2 computer model which has not been made publically accessible. Some consensus says we should believe tree ring studies because a peer who also believes in tree ring studies reviewed it. How about a peer review by an expert in larch trees? Was the tree damaged by late Spring freezes? Was its forest location undisturbed? (cutting down an adjacent tree would cause a growth spurt because of the increased sunlight) How did the increased CO2 in the air accounted for in the interpretation of the width of the tree rings? (Trees breath CO2, remember?) I consider tree ring science to be junk science.
    Then there are the Vostok ice cores- no attempt was made to keep them from being contaminated by ambient air. We know several kinds of bacteria and other life forms survive in ice- did anyone calculate what effect these life forms have on CO2 levels in ice over time? How much of the CO2 is converted in carbonic acid over time? (Conversion to carbonic acid is so rapid our own body uses carbonic acid levels in the blood as the panic signal to breath when we hold our breath!) When I pick up a study and don’t see any correction factors or adjustments for some of these obvious aspects, all I can do is roll my eyes and wonder where the education system failed.

  45. You miss the essential point. NPR people are smarter than you and I. NPR people accept the global warming scam as gospel and cannot understand how anyone could not see what is as plain as the nose on their face! NPR people are like the reporterette Andrea Mitchell who explained opposition to Obamacare by saying that we just don’t know what is good for us. Poor us!!!

  46. You guys are a hoot. Just got booted from Huffington Post and have been posting on Real Clear Politics and the WSJ. Seems those three sites don’t enjoy a little humour. I will lurk for a week or two and hope to add some worth. Gald I found this site.

    1. GMT-
      I too find this site very entertaining. Lots of ranting out there from the extremes of the left and right at other sites (Politico, The Hill, FOX).

      The comments here are civil, educational, humorous and vastly entertaining.

      1. Er, no, they’re not any of those things. Except for that part about vastly entertaining; some of them are that…

  47. The masses do not care about climate change, especially in our current economic climate. But another reason they do not pay much attention to it is because it is not tangible. I have talked to 80 years olds that say the summers are just as hot the winters are just as cold and the air they breath is just as refreshing. People talk about climate change but there is no tangible evidence that people can see or feel. Climate change is going to end up the biggest hoax of the 21st century, especially in 10 years when things are still the same and very little has been done…the scare tactics will only go so far and I think people are already starting to see through them.

  48. “We just don’t want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it.”

    I think pychologists call this phenomenon “transference” because it sounds a lot like how the “climate science” community is responding to ClimateGate.

  49. OK, here is the deal….

    The MESSENGERS are not trusted.
    There are several movements afoot here.

    1) The America is Bad movement that puts guilt into everything we do or have done. We should feel ashamed for our success and should be punished by wealth redistribution and forced into a Spartan lifestyle.
    2) Crazy Environmentalists who have learned that they can inflate their influence by inflammatory actions and by screaming louder. These people are totalitarian in their belief that We MUST be like THEM.
    3) A News Media desperate for viewership in a cutthroat competition who can garner attention with scaremongering. (Y2K anyone?)
    4) Intellectual Vanity – By blindly accepting the word of the so called experts, people get to believe they are smarter than most. This movement also fuels Atheism. (“I’m smart enough to admit it” even though THEY REALLY have NO idea one way or the other.)

    Remember, a Scam isnt a Scam until money changes hands. As SOON as they brought in taxes, carbon credits and wealth transfer to 3rd party countries, it became a scam rather than a scientific debate.

  50. As one who was indoctrinated in the “Global Cooling Scam” back in the 70’s, I am indeed a skeptic of “Global Warming”. To be otherwise would make me a fool and I say, “Won’t get fooled again”

  51. The population is street smart. They can see and smell BS from the ozone layer, and they see and smell it now. The problem for the warmers is that, once the masses turn, they turn with a vengeance.

  52. CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is the most friendly gas in our atmosphere. CO2 remains as a trace gas because photosynthesis converts it to O2 (Oxygen) almost immediately. We need mega-tons of CO2 to be put into our atmosphere daily to grow our food for an expanding population of the world. Our food supply depends on the CO2 emissions of SUVs, Volcanoes, Fires, and Plant-rot, to supply this essential greenhouse gas at sufficient levels to ward off famine. By the way, current levels of CO2 have been measured at 385 p.p.m., yet a good greenhouse requires 4 to 5 times that level to get a decent green plant production. To avoid a famine the government regulators better hope they don’t lower the atmospheric level of CO2 from current levels, in fact, they should hope CO2 levels will rise to accommodate the increasing global food supply requirement, otherwise, world-wide anthropogenic famine!

    1. WC Anderson,

      Wouldn’t this be incredible if warming was the natural evolution of the planet? This might be the simple natural answer to Malthus’ question of population sustainability.

      Warming would extend growing degree days, result in more fertile land for crop production, and increase moisture (precipitation) in northern latitudes.

      1. Precipitous warming would seriously mess up many fragile ecosystems and weather patterns, and melting ice caps would submerge previously arable land underwater.

        I’m not convinced of AGW by any stretch, but if indeed the planet is warming more quickly than it has during past climate changes, that’s a big problem.

  53. Global warming is the new cold fusion.

  54. As a long time passive observer of blogs, the wit, wisdom, and humor here have stimulated me to participate. Right now I am speechless, but will jump in when I feel witty, wise, or funny.

  55. Questions: what is the optimal temperature of the earth? Hasn’t the earth warmed and cooled over time?

    I’m tired of global warming activists promoting an agenda that is, if anything, facetious: they couch the argument in terms of what is “good for the earth” (Earth day is a prime example) but what they seem to really be arguing is the sustainability of the planet for humanity’s survival. Now, whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming and thus its own demise is probably true, though there is data to suggest otherwise. The bottom line: sometimes planets don’t cooperate with the species that live on it. I’m not a misanthrope, not in the least, but let’s face the fact that we’re temporary guests on an amazing world–let’s do what is both good for Earth and for humanity for as long as we can. And, in doing so, let’s be honest about our intentions. What I see is a power grab by the international left–the ideology that is bound up with global warming has already been deployed and largely (and stupidly) accepted. The right is no better: it promotes free market conditions at the expense of the world we live on. Let’s invoke a bit of Aristotle here: moderation.

    1. As I said above, not all warming is created equal. If climate change occurs too quickly it can be quite destructive.

  56. You lost me at NPR, an overrated mess. Last time I listened to them was when they gathered 4 experts to talk about Steve Jobs 2009 absence from Apple affairs. They had no data, no connections to Apple, no dialogue with Jobs, but filled 30+ minutes of space with speculation about medical conditions and market responses about which none of them were qualified to talk. Brilliantly not brilliant. And Chevron is/was one of their biggest contributors, so they fail the integrity test.

  57. As a press agent for thirty years, let me tell you from experience that journalists can easily be lead by the nose. Plus, they travel in massive packs infected by groupthink. Also, they don’t like to do technical research, and will trust any supposed authoritative-seeming expert so long as that expert’s “findings” support their pack’s preferred storyline.

    In my profession, these are principles known to be true and acted upon every day.

    Thus, the hoax that is global warming.

    How many journalists do you think have done the following really easy, really basic piece of research? Look up the percentage of Earth’s atmosphere, by volume, that is the sum total of all greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.), excluding water vapor. Then look up what percentage of THAT fraction is MAN-MADE.

    I won’t tell you the answers. But I will tell you that if you subscribe to Al Gore’s inconvenient truths your beliefs will be deeply challenged by finding those very simple and accessible facts.

  58. It is a matter of blind faith (not to mention absolutely necessary for their fragile egos) for leftists to believe that they are the smartest, most compassionate and visionary individuals who have ever existed – or will ever exist. All those who come after today’s generation of leftists will strive in vain to achieve what they have accomplished. Or so goes the pleasant myth they worship.

    In truth, leftists are a fairly ignorant and bigoted lot – far more than the average Southern Baptist the routinely look down upon and demonize. Leftists are usually very well educated, which is *not* the same thing as being intelligent.

    If NPR were to announce that a “consensus” of scientists has determined that 2+2=5, leftists would announce that the debate about 2+2 is over, and that only an ignorant evil “denier” would claim that it is equal to 4.

    Reasoning with leftists will not work, just as it did not work with true-blue Nazis, Communists and KKKers, since they possess no intellect to reason with. All they have is an inhuman ideology.

  59. Btw, guys…more bad science news (for humanity and you) today.


    A challenge to the crackpots:

    List the five scientific articles released in 2009 that most strongly indicate that AGW is not a problem, or less of a problem than we thought.

    Good luck. I suspect this will be hard for most of you, because you haven’t paid any actual attention to the science.

    1. It’s also hard when influential climatologists are working hard to suppress any research that goes against AGW.

    2. So, Chad, you’ve paid the $32 to read the article you link to, and actually read it? Could you tell us more about what it says?

      1. Hi,
        Since you don’t have access to a university subscription, here is the abstract.Article abstract

        Nature Geoscience
        Published online: 6 December 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo706

        Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data

        Daniel J. Lunt1,2, Alan M. Haywood3, Gavin A. Schmidt4, Ulrich Salzmann2,5, Paul J. Valdes1 & Harry J. Dowsett6


        Quantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere?ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30?50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

  60. Maybe if the dinosaurs had had AlGore as their advocate——-

    Oh, never mind.

  61. Can someone tell me who put Algore up to this global warming thing? I think he is not smart enough to come up with An Inconvenent Truth by himself. I also think that AIT brought AGW to the forefront because AIT was widely publicized by the MSM.

  62. A couple of others have noted that they too recall the warnings of climate “scientists” in the 70’s of the global cooling we would experience if we did not reduce the world’s population dramatically.

    Just FYI, Obama’s “science czar” Holdren published at least one book at the time (with noted Malthus acolyte, Paul Erlich) assuring us of our soon to be frozen doom. Well, we haven’t reduced the population and the glaciers have not reclaimed the Great Lakes.

    How can pinheads like this guy get a job after that kind of intellectual train wreck, let alone hold high government office.

  63. The North and South Poles are the only areas of warming. The rest of the world is cooling off and anyone with common sense knows it.

  64. Hey Nick!

    You refer to “Any number of bogus scientific discoveries”.

    How about naming a dozen, and state how long it took for them to be debunked by the scientific community itself.

  65. Is NPR the cutting edge of any news or information. Not so much. Does any government organization really have that much interaction with non-government?

    What “they” don’t get is pretty simple. People are not opposed to greening their enviroments. Many baby steps have been taken. BUT – and this is a big BUT – why are the changes being proposed a top down effort in a format similar to the Mortgage backed securities exchange? Science aside, WHY aren’t world governments providing a platform for the citizens to cost effectively green their individual enviroments to reduce their need to utilize the services of the big polluters? There is no trust of any government, nor do we believe they are truly interested in our welfare.

  66. The bozo writing this thing is clueless. Liberal Democrats have shoved this thing down people’s throats, squelched debate, demonized opponents, and ignored obvious evidence to the contrary…

    And, heheh… the “if you oppose me you are an idiot” attitude has not helped much either. So… again,


  67. Yeah buddy. We better be scared of it!


  68. “Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.”

  69. “Question Everything. Learn Something. Answer Nothing.”

  70. 10 years ago, it was a global ice age. Now it’s global warming. When the space scientists see climate change on the planets, what is the one common denominator. The Sun. Duh. If anyone thinks that we can make that big of a change and reverse what the sun puts upon us, does not understand the power of the sun. As to the effects; at the end of the day it is anyones guess. Global warming is a lot more about politics than science; and we all know how wise the politicians are. NOT.

    1. No, there was no research saying an ice age was coming—not ten years ago, not even thirty.

      The Sun is not “the one” common denominator; the system is much more complex than that.

      1. You lie!

  71. Phew !!! who has time to read all those comments. It does not matter . Mother Nature will let us know when to start panicking. That’s the way it is in all Hollywood films

  72. I think NPR is right in saying people can’t handle bad news. That is why people fall for “bread and circuses” to distract themselves. Sports. Gambling. TV personalities. Whatever, but not the real world!

  73. The reason the public doesn’t worry is that we were abnormally cool 10,000 years ago (avg temp 12 degrees C) during the ice age and are still warming up to the ‘normal’ earth temperature of 22 degrees C. We are currently ~9 degrees C cooler than during 75% of the world’s history according to a study by A. J. Boucot (U. of Oregon) with help from Chen Xu (Nanjing University). The world is warming regardless of human activity to the temperatures that it is normally at during 75% of the time over millions of years. Can anyone explain why we are abnormally cool?

    1. I always find this line of reasoning interesting. 10,000 years ago we didn’t have a city built in New Orleans, or New York or a state of Florida. “Normal” Earth temperature might be alright for some (particularly blue-green algae), but for the rest of us who prefer to have a bit of dry land, warming up to “normal” temperatures will be a disaster. As for it warming regardless of human activity, well perhaps it would, but it could take thousands or millions of years, not the century or less that will happen if we continue to argue over trivial things and do nothing in the mean time. You cite several sources but you stop whenever it comes time to cite where you found the evidence that humans don’t cause global warming. Strange.

      1. Can you provide evidence that humans do not cause supernovae?

  74. Jameson, it is amazing that you actually think that we control the earths climate. We may have minor impacts within congested cities as far as air pollution. But to think that we can control this ever changing earth. research the suns expansion for awhile and add that into your equation, along with the volcanoes, cows, naturally emitting co2 gasses etc. Or lets start paying some fictitious tax to feds to renew vehicle registration and houses and everything else we chose to do that requires self contained energy. Comparing data from the 1800’s is preposterous since there is no accuracy in contained therein.

    1. Elect Cobra Commander in ’12 and fund the completion of his weather device. CC and Destro are our only salvation.

    2. You say this as if to imply that we are so small and insignificant that we could *never* have a global effect. You may want to go back and see how Earth got all its oxygen. Hint: critters MUCH smaller than us. And they killed themselves off in the process.

  75. Alright, so I’ll bite for those skeptics out there.

    Why do you doubt the majority of scientists? Why? Why do you associate this issue WITH politics? What all knowing source did you hear that climate change isn’t man-made that makes you so convinced it isn’t occuring?

    My problem with skeptics isn’t that they are skeptical. My problem is that they have little to no facts to back it up. It seems they are willing to listen to any Dick, Tom, Harry or Sally that will doubt Global Warming.

    And that is a huge issue. You shouldnt doubt something like this with nothing more than vicious rhetoric and snide remarks. It’s pretty pathetic that in this day and age, we are reduced to sniveling rats who refuse to acknowledge facts as facts. Whoever thought that there’d be a day people would side with oil companies on a public issue. “shrugs”

  76. What motive do people have to falsify climate change data? The best way that we could get famous (as scientists) is to DISPROVE anthropogenic climate change. We make less money than lobbyists, so it can’t be for the money. Maybe climatologists are highly inclined to be sadistic and want to scare you? This just sounds crazy.

    Climate change is happening, humans can and are affecting it, and it will be more efficient to mitigate climate change than react to it.

  77. Ignoring climate change in the quickest way to solve the problem, there needs to a few billion fewer people on the planet.

  78. You guys are a hoot. Just got booted from Huffington Post and have been posting on Real Clear Politics and the WSJ. Seems those three sites don’t enjoy a little humour. I will lurk for a week or two and hope to add some worth. Gald I found this site.

    WBR, kenny

  79. It is the very same people running the fear franchise of global warming just includes many of the same malthusians and even former ice-age promoters. Now they have a tree-ring circus that’s about to justify global tax (to the UN) on gdp and financial transactions, global authority superseding national sovereignty and bubble of multiple trillions of dollars of derivatives that will be inflated by used air.
    There are a lot of interest riding on this particular bandwagon.
    (Oh- now it’s also the pesky ozone hole that’s keeping us cooler than the models say we should be…)
    Remember they are modelers and their models apparently do not backcast nor forecast anything correctly ever.
    CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s an insignificant part of the atmosphere.
    I’m glad the glaciers receded because Iowa can grow corn and Kansas can grow wheat and we Canadians can frolic in the snow. I keep wishing for warmer weather. Meanwhile, it snows in Houston and Sacramento…
    I’m sure some of you must know the chapter called ‘Attila and the Witchdoctor’

    1. There were never any “ice-age promoters”. I just don’t see how this meme keeps going round and round! I lived through the 70’s—no ice age scares.

      To call CO2 “insignificant” shows a fundamental lack of physics. Remove all the and Earth becomes an ice ball.

      1. It keeps running around because there WERE plenty of AGC alarmists (such as that asswipe Holdren, for one) running around trying to raise a scare back then and you’re a lying bitch and we all know it. So STFU, you lying bitch.

  80. heh:

    I’ve grown accustomed to the fear.
    that I wake up with every day.
    I know with every UV ray
    that shreds my DNA
    The planet cries:

    I know that nature hates me now.
    I know that breathing is a sin.
    I was serenely independent and content before you said:
    the world would be a better place if everyone
    were dead.
    I’ve grown accustomed to disgrace.
    Accustomed to the shame.
    Accustomed to the fear.

  81. Every politician has a kind of bank-account for used car sale politics. It grows and shrinks, but there is a “quantity” to it.

    The Dems are slowly figuring out they blew their collective wad of such scare tactics in the first four months of Obama’s term. Everyone was souring on TARP, and then we get stimulated, GM enters union receivership, etc. All this was done because the sun was about to burn out, according to the Dems.

    Now their cookie jar of fear is empty i.e. people don’t believe them quite so much anymore. This is why health care has run out of gas for the most part, and cap n’tax is dead at the starting line.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.