Source:: A Map of Organized Climate Change Denial
NYT, October 2, 2011

Category: UnScience

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

89 Responses to “A Map of Organized Climate Change Denial”

  1. JimRino says:

    Makes Pravda look like the NY Post, on comparison to this propaganda effort.

  2. jaymaster says:

    Al Gore must need a few more dollars.

  3. stonedwino says:

    Right on BR. Maybe we should be building the ark instead of drinking even more conservative cool-aid. Global warming and climate change are fact and we all know that conservatives have serious issues with facts.

  4. philipat says:

    1. Sorry, I thought the NYT WAS Pravda?

    2.Where is the corresponding chart for the Proponents of climate change. It’s impossible to have a balanced debate without this.

    3.In fairness, the “For” debate was winning until it became known that scientists had “Tweaked” (Think Bush/Blair and Iraq) the data to make their case. Such scientists and, to a certain extent, the whole movement hit a brick wall after these revelations. Rightly so.

  5. hankest says:

    “In fairness, the “For” debate was winning until it became known that scientists had “Tweaked” (Think Bush/Blair and Iraq) the data to make their case.”

    In fairness, what exactly are you referring to..?

  6. swmnguy says:

    The beauty of this is that everyone in the flowchart gets what they need in the short term. It’s a beautiful mutually beneficial cycle. The long term is a little more troublesome, but nobody in this cycle has ever been too concerned about the long term.

  7. A7L-B says:

    ‘Human induced climate change’: exempt from “The Folly Of Prediction”?

  8. Through the Looking Glass says:

    Pollution is bad- bad and a large percent of it in California is from China.

    Another huge % is from Cow Farts: http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html

    And then there are termites:

    So what does it all mean Mr Natural?
    ” As a planet we are doomed unless we reduce the population by 40% . Theres you’re problem folks ,too many people using up diminishing resources causing problems but alas we wont be going back to more stuff than people Skippy so sleep tight , we are all going to die”
    Now gimme a bight of that reality sandwich……Mr Natural.

  9. TerryC says:

    Beautiful one-sided poster. Now for it’s mirror image of the hucksters making money on the other side.

  10. philipat says:


    They have this new thing called “Google”.

  11. TerryC says:

    Philipat, tell Hankest to Google “sea level change 1900-2000″. (I’ll even give him a hint, it’s 14 inches). Then tell him to Google “sea level change 2000-2100″ and include the IPCC report (I’ll give him another hint, most scholarly articles think it will be…..drum roll, please…..about a foot). I think civilization can get out of the way of a one foot sea level rise in 100 years (unless you build your expensive beach house in the tidal zone).

  12. whskyjack says:

    What is really amazing is how few of the ” hucksters” climate scientist partake of that incredible flow of cash. out of the top 1000 climate scientist out there, only about 5 of them don’t support AGW. Those 5 are all on big energy payroll. I’m sure if all those climate scientist are really hucksters that big energy would be very happy to put as many as they can on the pay roll.
    I guess that means that academia pays well(tongue firmly in cheek)
    btw, for those of you playing at being a skeptic, David Brin lays out what it takes to be an honest skeptic.

    This subject matter is also his post for today


  13. Factualist says:

    Facts show the temperature is rising. But, is mankind the cause? Does it really matter either way? Energy use should follow a balanced portfolio approach (just like what you do with investing) as no technology is perfect; and prudence supports mankind leaving a smaller footprint than a larger one, from either a religious or scientific perspective. R&D and its implementation must not be singularly focused on emissions’ mitigation, but also on our adaptation. How are we going to get along if the water is rising, irrespective of the reason for the temperature rise? What are we going to eat? Where should we live? Should we really rebuild New Orleans? Should so many folks live on Long Island? The questions and answers are profound. In fact, addressing this issue is actually our century’s “moonshot” economic development program staring us in the face, and a good way to begin to get out of this jobs’ depression too. Randy P

  14. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    How many times does the conservative propaganda machine have to fuck things up beyond salvation before even they understand how goddamned stupid and dangerous they are?

    The war in Iraq will pay for itself.

    WMDs are a slam dunk.

    Trickle down will make us all rich.

    Grandma will be subject to a death panel if healthcare reform passes.

    Teri Schiavo is a vital human being whose husband wants insurance money an/or to get remarried (and a special session of Congress to make the point).

    9-11 first resonders are the embodiment of the Great American Hero (until they need help with healthcare costs).

    The US was founded on Judeo/Christian principles.

    There is a war on Christmas.

    Tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy.

    Creationism is science.

    Obama not calling for gun control legislation is a very subtle plan to legislate gun control.

    Liberalism is inherently Anti-american.

    Waterboarding a person isn’t actually torture.

    A government that spies on its citizens is doing so to protect the citizenry.

    The private sector is faster, more efficient, and less costly than government, all the time, every time.

    The Saudis and Israel are our allies.

    The CRA caused the mortgage crisis.

    The mortgage crisis is because of and/or confined to sub-prime lending.

    Foreigners hate us because of our freedoms.

    Republicans/conservatives are businessmen and make better leaders (despite blatant mismanagement and huge debt being piled up every time they are elected).

    Stem cell research is unconscionable.

    The top 1% are job creators.

    Corporations are people.

    Constitutionally, Presidential power cannot be checked by the other branches of government.

    Lying about a blowjob rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

    Being gay is a choice.

    “Abstinence only” reduces teen pregnancies.

    The poor pay no taxes.

    I could go on, but it’s tiring and infuriating.

  15. PJB says:

    AGW is so last century – get with the program – the new worry drama is the imminent ice age EXTRA, EXTRA (research funds, that is):


  16. river says:

    I hate to have to argue on the side of a bunch of god fearing simple minded idealogues, as I have a healthy respect for science and the scientific process, but I wonder where people like Dr. Hal Lewis and Dr. Ivar Giaever fit into that flow chart. These guys are well respected physicists that have quit the “American Physical Society” because of the organization’s stance on global warming.


    For my part, I imagine a world where scientists do science and policymakers make policy, yet we live in a world where scientists are trying to be policymakers and policymakers are trying to be scientists.

    Spiking oil prices hurt our economy, we go to war and support dictators in order to keep the oil spiggots open, and in the end we just pollute our air. I don’t know if the scientists are correct or not on global warming, but these three things create a broad based case to reduce our use of oil that 95% of Americans can agree to today. But instead we get the prescription to just quit using gasoline before any technology is developed and in place to replace it, and without homage being paid to the fact that our whole society is based on using oil. And we get into squabbles about e-mails that scientists write, and which scientists are getting paid how much by whom. And we get agreements like Kyoto accords that governments sign but then never actually enact any of the requirements. Scientists may in fact be right, but they make horrible policy.

    I won’t even get into how Al Gore does as a scientist.

  17. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    philipat Says:

    “3.In fairness, the “For” debate was winning until it became known that scientists had “Tweaked” (Think Bush/Blair and Iraq) the data to make their case. Such scientists and, to a certain extent, the whole movement hit a brick wall after these revelations. Rightly so.”

    Why trot out old propaganda, even when it’s been disproved? As you said to Hankest, “They have this new thing called “Google”.


  18. wunsacon says:

    “Libertarian” think tanks are mislabeled. They start with their funders’ position(s) and try to drum up the statistics to argue it. They descend from Edward Bernays, who used the concept of “liberty” to market cigarettes (“torches of freedom”) to women. Cui bono? Plutocrats call the tunes. (E.g., once employed by the elder Koch, Hayek shifted harder towards laissez faire.) The pipers then set out to convince you that you benefit from, say, hedge fund owners’ paying 15% marginal rates. And anytime the rest of us see excessive exploitation or a person dying without medical care, these nihilist, self-serving propertarians proclaim “that’s what freedom is!”

    For decades now, propertarians have been spreading FUD to convince citizens that government is hopeless and helpless and should only be in the business of enforcing the plutocrats’ claims on the rest of society’s output. How convenient. Cui bono?

    I have to credit “Century of the Self” and “The Corporation” for helping me start seeing things in a different light. There really is a war for your mind. And the few propertarians I know personally are white males who were born on second base and claim they hit a double. Finding a philosophy that justifies your self-worth is oh-so-enticing.

  19. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Sea level change explained and put into context (including IPCC data):


    As if this is the only potential harmful aspect of climate change.

  20. Pantmaker says:

    I’ll leave this here-

    “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means.” — Barry Goldwater

  21. James Cameron says:

    Such scientists and, to a certain extent, the whole movement hit a brick wall after these revelations. Rightly so.

    I have no idea what tripe you’re reading or, for that matter, what you’re contesting, but in terms of that wall:

    “That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.”


  22. bmoseley says:

    this is great. thanks

  23. philipat says:

    @Petey Wheatstaw

    Media Matters? More left wing propoganda as a single quoted source?

    My point is that the record in totality shows that a deliberate attempt was made to distort scientific date by those who should have known better. The resultant lost credibility played into the hands of those in the above chart and it will take time to get over this. For the many (Including myself) who are agnostic on this issue, please just present the dat fairly and accurately so that we can make up our own minds. Corruption and political correctness should not be distorting a scientific debate which should be based on hypothesis supported by data.

  24. whskyjack says:


    They are talking about a hacking of emails that got emails where climate scientist discussed the subject matter between them selves. Of course being totally ignorant of science or statistical analysis( and wearing their tinfoil hat) they are positive they have found proof of a conspiracy.
    Here is a discussion on the hacking just after it happened.


    BTW, realclimate.org is a very good science based AGW website


  25. whskyjack says:

    ” that a deliberate attempt was made to distort scientific date by those who should have known better.”

    Prove it

  26. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    This all reminds me of the “controversy” regarding the “science” for and against cigarettes causing lung cancer. Look how many scientists who came to the conclusion that smoking does cause lung cancer got rich off of their liberal benefactors. Not that anyone dies a painful and needless death because the science wasn’t good enough.

    Science still can’t prove a causal relationship between the two, but what the fuck? Smoke ’em if ya’ got ’em.

  27. TerryC says:

    Petey Wheatstraw Says:
    October 13th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
    Sea level change explained and put into context (including IPCC data):


    Wow, Petey, nice to see you do at least a little research (that last line you added being just BS of course, as well as your entire long rant above it-scientifically speaking, of course).

  28. raholco says:

    A Liberterian is a Republican who wants to legally smoke pot, but lacks the cajones to actually introduce legislation to de-criminalize it-and in the event he does introduce legislation, can’t get the rest of the GOP behind him for FSM-only knows what reasons.

  29. Francois says:

    To all who are looking for a “map of the OTHER side”…When someone show a map of organized crime, who’s the idiot who will demand to see a map of Law Enforcement in the name of “fairness”?

  30. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    MY point is that the political goal of refuting the science, by any means necessary — honest or not — has been utterly disproved.

    If you want to stick your head in the sand or keep it up your ass is your own business. Just stop spreading dishonest, politically driven bullshit.

    As for the Media matters link, it’s SOURCED. Only an ignoramus would question a sourced article based solely on the name or political slant of the reporting publication. Dude — that is a seriously fucked up response.

    I recently asked an uber conservative acquaintance of mine if he knew how many pounds of CO2 were released by burning a gallon of gasoline (roughly 20 lbs.). When he googled it, the first response was Salon. He closed the window on his browser, slammed his keyboard, and said that he would never trust anything published by a liberal rag like Salon. He completely ignored the scientific FACT behind the article (this is a fact of chemistry, not an opinion), as well as the other 769,000 results of his Google query.

    Must be a conservative trait. Maybe you can find a better answer to the question in your Bible.

    Here’s some more really well sourced and reasoned info on CO2 (warning: it’s science, so you might want to put on your long johns, if you are a Mormon).


    the bona fides:

    “The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is an organization within the United States Department of Energy that has the primary responsibility for providing the US government and research community with global warming data and analysis as it pertains to energy issues. The CDIAC, and its subsidiary the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, focus on obtaining, evaluating and distributing data related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

    CDIAC was founded in 1982. Its present offices are located within the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The current director is Thomas A. Boden.”

  31. Moss says:

    It would be interesting to understand to what extent denial exists in other developed nations.

  32. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    Where’s your research for this gem of wingnuttery:

    Beautiful one-sided poster. Now for it’s mirror image of the hucksters making money on the other side.

  33. TerryC says:

    Petey Wheatstraw Says:
    October 13th, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Where’s your research for this gem of wingnuttery:

    Beautiful one-sided poster. Now for it’s mirror image of the hucksters making money on the other side.

    This doesn’t require anywhere nearly as much research as your hot-air blather you spew on here regularly with absolutely nothing to back it up except your spittle.

  34. PJB says:

    I used to be a warmist – but I lost the faith; I really don’t know of anyone else who has changed their mind about this; I think I have caused a few people to have some doubts, but they had no firm conviction to begin with – anyone who had, that I have discussed AGW with, I have not been able to make the slightest imperfection in the surface of their faith – nor has my scepticism been affected in the least. So I’d say that arguing on-line is a complete waste of electrons – but it’s still hard to resist wanting to make a few points!
    I’m an engineer, I work in energy conservation and “green” energy, I’d love to get with the program and believe in the benefit of carbon reduction and the evils of fossil fuels – but…I simply don’t! However, there are several really smart, informed people whom I admire and respect – and can’t understand how they can continue to believe in AGW!
    So – I think we just have to wait – I believe that what I think of as the AGW hysteria will fade away if we have a series of increasingly more severe winters – as Ireland and the British isles have been experiencing – and/or as the current Depression descends into international conflicts, bringing more immediate, pressing concerns – like survival – to the fore. The old good new/bad news situation. My $.02.

  35. trainreq says:

    Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse.


  36. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    Posted this once, but it didn’t take, so it might post twice (the first version was much more lengthy and full of good insults).

    MY point is that the politically-driven hit job on climate change science has been disproved. Your reply is seriously fucked up.

    The article in Media Matters is SOURCED. Only an ignoramus would ignore a sourced article based solely on the name or political leanings of the publication presenting the article.

    Maybe it’s a conservative trait.

    I recently asked an uber conservative acquaintance of mine if he knew how many pounds of CO2 were released by burning one gallon of gasoline. When I told him it was approximately 20 pounds, he didn’t believe me, and decided to Google it. The first article appearing in his Google search results was from Salon. As soon as he saw that, he closed his browser, slammed his keyboard, and said that he would never believe anything a liberal rag like Salon would publish — completely ignoring that his search had over 700K results and that the answer was scientific FACT, regardless of who published it.


    Here’s some more science:


    The bona fides:

    “The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is an organization within the United States Department of Energy that has the primary responsibility for providing the US government and research community with global warming data and analysis as it pertains to energy issues. The CDIAC, and its subsidiary the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, focus on obtaining, evaluating and distributing data related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

    CDIAC was founded in 1982. Its present offices are located within the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The current director is Thomas A. Boden.”

    You might think the link is REALLY bad, as it’s both science and done by a government agency (those losers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory).

  37. whskyjack says:


    The dow was up today, is that a trend up or a trend down?
    We had a cold winter last winter, trend up or trend down?
    Don’t confuse weather for climate.

    ( btw, philipat still waiting on that proof)

    More on the climategate sillyness
    I think this is the third link saying “climate scientists fudging the data” is stupid crap



  38. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    Does this mean you don’t like me? If so, I’m crushed.

    I source mostly everything that isn’t opinion, so quit being dishonest (BTW: That ain’t spittle — enjoy!).

  39. rhkaplan says:

    Climate change will happen whether humans inhabit the earth or not. Dr. Christopher Scotese (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm), Dr. Robert Berner and many others have compiled information showing over the past 600 million years that the earth experiences average temperature minima approximately every 150 million years. Currently the earth is experiencing an average temperature minimum of ~ 12C. Their research shows that the average maximum is 22C. Yes, the earth will get warming and humans can do nothing about it. It is conjectured that humans have existed on earth for 100, 000 to 500, 000 years. How do the human induced global warming fanatics explain historical changes in the earth’s temperature when humans didn’t exist?
    I am continually amazed that there is even discussion about human induced global warming.


    BR: All it requires is a rudimentary understanding of physics and chemistry to conceptualize how 2 centuries of burning increasing amounts of wood, fossil fuels, coal, etc will impact the atmosphere.

    Of course natural cycles exist — but the cycles and the impact of fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive

  40. GrafSchweik says:

    philipat & others of that ilk–

    You failing clown[s] — go research what actually happened instead of swallowing the RW Noise Machine’s spin, spiced with memes that would make Goebbels pop a woody, and then coming here to proudly puke it out like a zombie troll.

    Was your last science class in 3rd grade? Or did you take Creationism to satisfy the ‘Sci3nce’ requirement at Rapture U? Did your graduate work at No Sci Tech? Or are you one of those expert idiots our business schools produce in such profusion these days? Fluent in PowerPoint, Excel and bereft of thought?Whatever—it’s plain you’ve never been in a science lab or know the first thing about how science functions…

    The reality is that the data on climate change is a helluva lot more solid and raw compared to the steamed/broiled/deep fried/roasted/boiled books kept by our big banks and corporations. Or the guano masquerading as the product of thought that our plutocracy dumps in the public square on a daily basis from their outhouses in DC…

    If you were paying attention you’d know that there two major investigations into what went on and established that the data had not been cooked—tweaking in the climatology community having to do with adjusting climate records across decades of differing measuring systems and changing instrumentation.

    There are several major lines of climate data out there, online and available for anyone to crunch and prove the consensus wrong. No one’s done it yet and for some reason the skeptics just can’t be bothered to try, so they cherry pick, whine, erect straw men and complain. So what if the trends are all running ahead of the consensus worst case scenario and have been for years?

    Well, good luck, wanker[s], because the paleo-climatologists are turning up data from earlier geologic eras that make current consensus estimates look like a teddy bears’ tea party.

    Depending on your age and whether or not you’ve been able to breed, your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will witness when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere passes 480ppm. [A decade ago it was thought we'd reach that around 2100; today the estimate is about 2080.] At that point the daytime sky will begin changing from blue to light green.

    I could go on and in a lot more detail but why bother?? It’s like explaining capital markets to a Maoist circa 1966… We’ll be a lot longer recovering from our national madness than the Chinese were from theirs.

  41. gman says:

    Petey…ON FIRE!

    OBTW the above chart need to have a spot for said funding entities PR efforts that have paid responders to troll blogs like this and sow the seeds of doubt. Some of the doubters here may be getting paid for the effort and provided with well crafted phrases and points to undermine the vast preponderance of science!

  42. whskyjack says:

    “with memes that would make Goebbels pop a woody”

    LOL, now there is some creativity, I’m tempted to steal it }:-)

  43. What the scientific journals say:



    Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    BTW, for anyone who’s still wondering: ‘Climategate’ was only about tarting up data to give the appearance of novelty to get a Nature publication (i.e. what enables academic scientists to get tenure). Nothing was fabricated. For the denialists, learn what a principal component analysis is (and how interpretations of significance may vary).

    -a former Nature editor

  44. brianinla says:

    Please. You want to talk about money? How about the billions the Al Gore’s of the world want to make in the carbon trading tax. His Generation Investment Management, which is run by six former GS employees, lost out when the Chicago Climate Exchange closed in 2010 when the Democrats lost the House (GIM and GS were major investors). They were salivating to get Congress to pass a carbon trading tax.

    Pigs at the trough. That’s all they want. That’s all they care about and they will not stop until they can tax the air you breathe. I’d say there’s much more $ incentive on the AGW side to keep pushing the AGW agenda then the other way around.

    Here’s a bigger question – has anyone done a study where an atmospheric scientist that didn’t conclude that global warming was caused by humans still retained research funding? If your job is dependent on funding wouldn’t you toe the party line (sound similar to a CNBC anchor or sell-side analyst)?



  45. HungryHoneyBadger says:

    When are we finally going to arrest and confiscate the wealth of the Koch brothers? They’ve done nothing for the world or this country except create billions of dollar of wealth for themselves and all the people that work for them. Bunch of jerks. If we could just take over their refining and oil assets, it would help alleviate our debt burden as a nation.

  46. thparadox says:

    I think both sides of this debate are overconfident. We have an idea of what global warming is, and it certainly seems like there is some effect from fossil fuels. However, we don’t actually know what will happen. (the computer models are very heavily based on assumptions)

    The big danger is that the earth general works in feedback effects. Once a pattern emerges it may cycle back on itself, exponentially increasing the initial effect. So I agree that we shouldn’t be changing the environment because the effects could be cataclysmic.

    The problem is, most of the pollution over the next decade is coming from developing nations. How do we take away there cheapest forms of energy? There is a tradeoff here for those developing nations in terms of standards of living. Some people would not be able to live at all without the cheapest fossil fuel sources. Are you willing to sacrifice those human lives?

    It’s easy to say that we “shouldn’t” be using fossil fuels. But we will continue to use them until there is an economically viable alternative.

  47. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Well, it appears that Starbucks is showing more leadership (yet again!) than nation states or international bodies.

    “Starbucks concerned world coffee supply is threatened by climate change
    Starbucks sustainability chief Jim Hanna says the coffee giant has been pushing the Obama administration to little result…

    …In a telephone interview with the Guardian, Jim Hanna, the company’s sustainability director, said its farmers were already seeing the effects of a changing climate, with severe hurricanes and more resistant bugs reducing crop yields.”

    Glad to see that Starbuck’s is parking the ideology and facing up to what their coffee producers are telling them: trouble’s looming.

    And Starbuck’s isn’t the only corporate interest that I’ve heard fuming about the lack of action on climate change. Insurance companies are starting to pay attention to the issue.

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens as the insurers + coffee producers realize that Big Oil, Big Coal, and Cheap Energy are messing with their business plans.

  48. GrafSchweik,

    you may do well to ponder, some of, the following..

    from .. http://cryptogon.com/?p=876

    DrFix Says:
    June 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
    C’mon Larry. No noise needed because this shows they already have more than they can rationally analyze so all they’re going to do is what all regimes do when they feel exposed and threatened: round up everyone! When you’re being “processed” through their fancy detention centers I’m sure that “evidence” in the form of communications, etc. will magically appear to instill fear, backstabbing, spying and compliance amongst the complicitly ignorant, while convicting anyone else of harboring freedom loving “thought-crimes”. God!… Not even Goering had it so good.

    DrFix Says:
    June 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
    Ha!… Got my Nazis mixed up… That should be Goebbles. But in parting let me leave you a Goering quote.

    “”Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.That is understood.

    But it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along to fight a war, … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

    All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

    “…Someone sent me an email asking me which candidate I’d like to see win the next U.S. Presidential Election.

    I’m not sure if the person was serious, just taking the piss or trying to insult my intelligence, but here was my response:

    “Are you out of your f*@*^%$ mind? Have you been paying attention to ANYTHING I’ve been posting here for the LAST FIVE F&@&%$! YEARS!?

    Run for your life.

    If you get cornered by zombies, aim for their heads.


    Don’t get taken in by the zombie mind trick which tempts you to engage in worthless political debates. If I catch myself reading or viewing corporate propaganda and starting to think in terms of a political solution to this shit we’re in, this mantra helps me get through it:

    You are a zombie. You are undead. I will not join you.

    It’s weird, but it works well. Try it, the next time you’re thinking about mainstream politics in the U.S.

    I don’t know what you’re going to be eating in the meantime, but if you keep the zombie scripts out of your mind, eventually you’ll figure out how to grow your own food.

    Via: San Jose Mercury News:

    Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical. Frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics. Scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria. Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

    These were among the 107 food imports from China the Food and Drug Administration detained at U.S. ports just last month, agency documents reveal, along with more than 1,000 shipments of tainted Chinese dietary supplements, toxic Chinese cosmetics and counterfeit Chinese medicines….”

    you know, when you begin to *Think that “GHG-induced AGW” is the be-all, and end-all, ‘Line in the Sand’..

  49. txshad0 says:

    Climate changes – check. Man contributes to change – check. What to do about it? Lets have politicians and financiers create a climate police state and markets trading pollution, ‘green’ fantasy – I mean energy, and other crap. Climate continues to change.

  50. There is no scientific debate. The only debate is between scientists and denialists.

  51. V says:


    Thanks for that link. Some fascinating insight into the human condition.

  52. Neildsmith says:

    Sure – all true. But few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to deal with the problem. I assume climate change is real, but I also assume prevention or even modest mitigation is impossible. It’s just not in our human nature to effectively deal with problems like this. The growth in world population alone will swamp any effort at reducing an individual’s carbon foot print. I guess we can be thankful that China had a one child policy for so many years and were so impoverished by Mao they didn’t contribute anything toward the problem until very recently. Does anyone really think that 3 billion people in Asia are going to sacrifice development for future generations? Heck – Americans won’t even sacrifice for a few million of their currently living fellow citizens.

  53. scottsabol says:

    I am a meteorologist–4 yr degree with all of the math and physics (not the tv degrees that most other tv mets have received)–who has read much on the subject. What bothers me about the coverage of climate change is that all we hear is global warming is the cause of all of the extreme weather events. While I am not debating the existence of human induced warming, I am more concerned with a balanced approach in explaining weather events.

    Before I continue, let me make something perfectly clear before someone cries “conservative bias” on me: I am not Mr. conservative-right-winger by any stretch. I am a scientist who strives for an objective and COMPLETE approach in climate coverage by all networks. That is, a complete explanation of weather events INCLUDING the natural climate cycles are never mentioned as drivers of some of our extreme events. For example:

    East coast landfall hurricanes are shown to occur much more during the warm mode of The AMO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

    The QBO, Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the stratosphere has been shown to be a driver of the AO, the Arctic Oscillation in the winter months which governs arctic air outbreaks across the eastern US.

    The PDO, Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation is in a cold mode recently which enhanced the trough in the west shifting the ridge of heat further east this past summer

    Weaker La Nina summers historically have produced drought like condition in Texas and in the Great Plains.

    My point isn’t to discredit AGW but to add the natural drivers into the equation which the media fails to mention. I really want OBJECTIVE AND COMPLETE reporting when extreme weather events occur.

    Maybe the public doesn’t want to hear science as scientists are looked at as either geeky and/or elitist. The psychology involved in how the public perceives this issue like all other issues as Barry has pointed out might be stronger than the science!

  54. mathman says:




    i’ve given up trying to convince anyone who doesn’t see what’s right in front of them. The earth doesn’t give a shit about what we (hubris filled, daft) humans think – it just reacts to the chemistry we’re
    doing. Adding the ridiculous amounts of CO2 and now methane (which is far worse) to the atmosphere will not make ideal weather conditions for us or all the species that we depend on for food, pollination, raw materials etc. i personally think it’s too late to do anything about it now (we should have begun in the 1970′s at the latest) – especially since we aren’t even addressing POPULATION, which is a root cause of our predicament. We’re going to pay a high price whether we “believe” it or not – it’s (drought conditions like Texas, all the flooding this year, intensity and number of tornadoes & hurricanes, now even earthquakes in addition to sea-level rise due to glacial melting) going to happen more and more frequently and ever more intensively as the years progress. Stay tuned.


  55. scottsabol says:

    Again mathman, look at the natural trends that go along with the AGW. Both are responsible not just one side.

  56. Grego says:

    Start with calling them what they are:

    Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

  57. AtlasRocked says:

    Petey Wheatstraw:

    You should teach PHD level classes in Strawmanning. Your first post is a litany of strawmanning. A strawman argument is a lie told about your opponent, than attacked as if it were a real fact, making it both a lie and a deception.

    If you are to have credibility in supporting your cause, you should abandon this practice, you completely lose your credibility at that point, if you boldly state you are willing to lie.

    If this were a courtroom, you would be called out on this, for it is considered a practice unworthy of presentation in front of an audience trying to make a decision.

    From WIKI:
    The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
    Person A has position X.
    Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
    Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
    Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
    Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
    Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
    Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
    Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

  58. rd says:

    I am an engineer.

    Some of the key requirements for usccessfully engineered systems is reliability, robustness and redundancy (which is why almost no “financial engineering” bears any resemblence to real engineering).

    It is possible (and probably required) to largely ignore the causes of global warming but still design, construct, and operate reliable systems that will survive climate change (warming or cooling). Real sustainable engineering requires a lot more than just monitoring greenhouse gas emissions. We need to focus on a myriad of issues, such as development in floodplain and along coastlines (the recent US floods and the tsunami in Japan should highlight the non-climate change reasons for that), restoring wetlands and bio-diversity, conserving aquatic resources for future generations, and lots of other things.

    Minor changes, that don’t cost money (might even be lower cost), can make very large changes across large ecosystems. Simple actions by typical suburban homeowners include planting native species instead of non-native, not using fertilizers and pesticides on their lawns, and reducing the use of gas powered lawn equipment (very bad for air quality). See Doug Tallamy’s “Bringing Nature Home” for discussion on these small moves. These types of small moves at the household level, if executed by a large percentage of the population, could actually do much to offset the potentially deleterious effects of global warming in much of the country. Unfortunately, this does not get discussed in the media – instead it is all focused on major international conflict over greenhouse gas emissions.

    Unfortunately, we that requires the system as a whole focuses on a couple of decades from now as being as important as today and that an individual’s actions can make a difference. That type of thinking seems to be in short supply globally.

  59. arogersb says:

    Why you should not worry by Richard Lindzen (a scientist)

  60. arogersb says:

    An more on why you should not worry by CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research)

  61. arogersb says:

    More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


    U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


  62. Patrick Neid says:

    The worst thing that happened to a intelligent discussion of AGW and possible remedial courses of action was Al Gore. Once he showed up, all his political baggage landed on top of the discussion. While many of the commentators here may have voted for him, equal numbers did not. And there lies the dilemma with the global warming discussion. Scientific proofs are irrelevant when politics get involved. If you previously, vehemently, did not agree with a person’s view/solutions on a political level it is virtually impossible to then embrace their views on other major issues. It’s that simple. Humans cannot transit that gulch. They will look for excuses. It is no accident that it has been said that only a liberal can enact conservative ideas and a conservative, liberal ideas. Partisans cannot move. Opposition to AGW was just a matter of time after Gore’s movie came out. Imagine if you will George W. Bush had made that movie. Save the snark about he couldn’t. Unlike Gore, the Bush ranch was green before it was fashionable. My point being, if Bush had embraced Enron’s cap and trade scheme, the left and right would be switched on this issue–science be damned.

    AGW has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. Despite these negatives there is some benefit. The push back prevents some of the hair brained ideas from becoming reality. At some point down the road a conservative elected official will propose a remedial course of action that everyone will embrace. My guess it will be somewhere in Bjorn Lomborg’s area.

  63. and, really, to “rd”‘s Point..

    We should wonder why this .. http://www.cospp.com is, still, *thought of as a “niche” Application..

    Cogeneration & On-Site Power Production

    further..(as well)… http://www.distributedenergy.com/

  64. JimRino says:

    The funny thing is 30 years ago 90% of Scientists did not believe in Global Warming.
    What happened?

    Facts anyone with an open mind can now see with their own eyes.
    Global Glacier Melt.

    The Scientists Al Gore quoted in his Inconvenient Truth made some predictions.
    Global Floods and Droughts, all these predictions came true.

    The “other side” made predictions too: It’s not happening, it won’t affect us for 100 years.
    Proven False.

    Didn’t Mitt Romney, and George Bush admit that climate change is occurring?
    Yet, the “right” still CULT like, Demands they rescind their opinions.

    Well Look At Texas:
    The Republican CULT of FAILURE will Bankrupt you.
    Just like most of their other policies.

    US Drought Monitor

    Global Drought Monitor

  65. JimRino says:

    This isn’t a “Black Swan”.
    This is a 1000 car Freight Train Baring down on YOU.

  66. NoKidding says:

    Thanks PJB,

    thats what I would say. I am also an engineer (radio/cell phone). Its hard not to join the “other guy is an idiot” rants. We will have our answer in 30 years.

    My one question to the warmers: What worst case scenario do you actually believe in? At what temperature change will Canada be unable to grow wheat? When will they be surfing in Denver?

    Even if my doubt is 100 percent arse backwards, I don’t see a big problem.

  67. riley says:

    If you want to know the truth about climate change, just follow the money. Who is making it and what is their position. Are the facts on either side of the debate real? I don’t know, but I see people on both sides making lots money pushing and defending their position. Makes me wonder if this is about climate change or business opportunities.

  68. Greg0658 says:

    I don’t get the pile’g on Petey .. besides calling out subversives for profit – big oil & old energy
    (maybe anti labor types for profit – my cash is doing just fine sitting there thank you)
    (maybe a double subversive – a J6P who doesn’t want to excersise his muscles – sits at a fire-put-out-desk)

    the wiki link points out other concepts to think about – such as ocean silt fill

    as far as the jist of this @TBP .. would like to see a world where the flip side of decision making happens in all fields .. that being > money is no object and labor complains the brains are just dreaming up busy work jabs for the fun of it

  69. GrafSchweik says:

    Mark Hoffer — normally, I’m with you, but email exchanges have nothing to do with the facts of chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics… that sort of thing… ya know?? You have to distinguish between the noise and the FACTS.

    As I said, if you can’t get your head around the science or don’t want to or don’t trust the messengers then check out the paleoclimatology.

    Peter Ward’s [paleontologist at U of Washington] ‘Under a Green Sky’, is an excellent and sobering survey of what has happened in the past.

    But I’m sure there will be lost souls on this thread who will deduce that he’s been bought by the carbon cap & trade lobby.

    What hope do we have as a society if a plurality of our ‘citizens’ cannot distinguish between causes and effects? Who think every question is an ideological one and only has an ideological answer????

  70. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    Did you search for exactly who these scientists are? Did you? No? Well, let me do it for you:


    Note: if you think you might have a serious illness like cancer, it would probably be wise to not rely on the opinion of a Psychiatrist (even though a Psychiatrist is, in fact, a doctor).




    “[real] experts have experience in their field, and they can provide answers that are consistent with the state of knowledge in that field

    And that:

    …a fake expert is usually somebody who is relied upon for their credentials rather than any real experience in the field at issue, who will promote arguments that are inconsistent with the literature, aren’t generally accepted by those who study the field in question, and/or whose theories aren’t consistent with established epistemological requirements for scientific inquiry.”

  71. louiswi says:

    Go Petey Wheatstraw! You nailed it today!!!!

  72. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    My first comment was about the ubiquitous propaganda by the right wing, and its failure/falsehood, as exposed after the fact. I made no other representation.

    If you disagree with my first comment, please rebut it on the merits.

    Are you saying I lied? Let’s say this was a courtroom: Show some evidence of a lie (keeping in mind that an opinion, by definition, cannot be a lie).

    If that’s all you got, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on dishonesty, credibility, or straw men.

  73. thetruthseeker says:



    While we are showing flowcharts, check out this one showing the funding behind climate alarmsism:

    CERN Particle Physics Labratory Experiment MIght Prove That (wait for it) Cosmic Rays (i.e. the Sun) are the main driver of climate change. Shocking!

    This list goes on and on, but let’s just briefly touch on the fact that most of the hype is based upon computer models which have failed time and time again in their projections.

    Seas levels will continue to rise
    Ooops. http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-lowest-decade

    Temperatures will continue to rise
    Oops. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

    Rainforests and polar bears are decreasing more and more.

  74. GrafSchweik,

    “…email exchanges have nothing to do with the facts of chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics… that sort of thing…”

    no doubt..

    and, to..”…What hope do we have as a society if a plurality of our ‘citizens’ cannot distinguish between causes and effects? Who think every question is an ideological one and only has an ideological answer?…”

    see some of.. http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus-ns-aaf&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=John+Taylor+Gatto+Dumbing+Us+Down

    what I was alluding to, in this Thread, above, is that ‘We’ve more serious “Fish to Fry”‘, and, really, getting ‘wrapped around the Axle’ of “Global”-anything, let alone a Topic (Climate) that Few, if any, truly understand(s), is worse than an ‘exercise in Futility’ ..

    further, there are, many, smaller/constituent ‘Steps’ that can be taken–but, curiously, are not– to address/alleviate/ameliorate some of these ‘Issues’ –those, if the ‘concerns’ were *Real, could be easily Championed, and, readily, undertaken..

    but, as it stands, and, toward your point, Ignorance and Propaganda abound..


  75. JimRino says:

    Here’s an example of Republican Screwball Politicians DISTORTING Science:

    Republicans should Leave Office.
    You’re Incompetent.

  76. JimRino says:

    Gee, what the Koch Brothers Spend on Propaganda, they could turn the US into the Number One Solar Panel Producer and Wind Farm Builder and Make REAL GREEN Money, instead of throwing it away.

    But, they’re “John Bircher’s” so they were born into a legacy of Failed Ideas.

  77. GrafSchweik says:

    Mark Hoffer, thanks for the links and making your thinking clearer. Cheers—

    Petey W & JimRino, many thanks for your posts, they’re much appreciated.

    It is a sobering experience to witness what emerges from the woodwork when Barry posts something like this for discussion.

    Reading the posts I found myself getting a much better feel for what it must have been like for China’s academics and professionals as the Cultural Revolution broke over them in 1966.

    Ours has been longer in the making—well over 50 years—and began slowly, but it too was launched by oligarchs, albeit ones longing for lost power as opposed to Mao who was in danger of losing it. Its momentum really picked up when Ronnie Raygun reigned solar-free in the White House.

    Add Obama’s ancestry and his continuance of W’s coddling of Wall St and the Big Banks and its got nearly enough fuel to escape the historical/social/cultural gravity that has kept it a relatively restrained, mob-free, three-piece-suited affair.

    If they ever achieve orbit…

  78. Francois says:


    How much?

    As is “How much do they pay you to post?”

    Or are you free for the taking, driven by your totally self-unexamined belief system?

    BTW, why are you so scared of a concept like AGW? Is it a perceived “threat to the American Way of Life” thingie that gets under your skin?

    Is it possible that you are one of those numerous engineers (lots of engineers among climate science denialists; poor souls think they’re real scientists) who are just unable to make the difference between a computer model handling multivariate parameters with inherently wider measure of errors than a widget-makers with very narrow tolerance?

    Whatever it is, your capacity to debate honestly is nil: you never answer to the points brought in the discussion, you move the goal posts whenever a criticism you cannot answer hits you etc. etc.

    Pathetically dangerous demonstration of the limits of the First.

  79. philipat says:

    @BR: “All it requires is a rudimentary understanding of physics and chemistry to conceptualize how 2 centuries of burning increasing amounts of wood, fossil fuels, coal, etc will impact the atmosphere.

    Of course natural cycles exist — but the cycles and the impact of fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive”

    Barry, I guess that means you will be selling the SL Merc and buying a Volt?

  80. philipat says:

    The bottom line for me is that until it is convincingly and scientifically proven BEYOND DISPUTE, society should not commit to spending Billions on fixing a problem that maybe doesn’t exist. As a scientist by education, I respond particularly badly to “Tweaked” scientific data.

    Meanwhile, gas here in Bali is $1.50 a gallon and my house still sits on the beach.

  81. thales says:

    Yes, the global climate is warming. Most of the available paleoclimate evidence indicates that the global climate has been warming for about 20 thousand years.

    That means that it started warming about 19,800 years before the industrial revolution, and roughly 5000 to 10,000 years before the advent of agriculture.


    If you look at the time series at this link, which is one of the observations that got the whole AGW ball rolling, you will see that global warming happened four times in the last 400 thousand years. Each time, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased to levels comparable to those seen today. This occurred when there were no more than 5 or 10 million people on the entire planet, when there was no industry, nor even any agriculture.

    It has also been claimed, with high correlation, that the observed global warming events in this time series actually predate the increases in carbon dioxide concentration by a mean of 800 years.

    This all leads to what seem to me to be quite reasonable questions;

    1) If the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration we see today is, in fact, entirely or even largely anthropogenic, then who or what caused the increases in carbon dioxide 20 thousand, 140 thousand, 240 thousand, and 350 thousand years ago?

    2) How and why did global warming suddenly reverse into global cooling and glacial advance, with concomitant decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide, four times during the last 400 thousand years?

    3) If it is statistically likely that global temperature changes actually lead carbon dioxide changes in the time series, then how can it logically be claimed that anthropogenic carbon dioxide increases cause global warming rather than vice versa?

    4) If the computerized climatological models and simulations used to predict AGW cannot adequately and confidently explain climate variation over the last 400 thousand years, where we can actually observe evidence of what actually happened, then why would any rational person advocate the use of inadequately predictive climatological models to direct the expenditure of trillions of dollars in investment and opportunity costs and the disruption of the entire global economy in order to prevent an outcome that has not even been clearly shown to be reasonably likely?

    Oh. “The science is settled”!

    Well, 400 years ago the science was settled that the earth was the center of the universe. All of the politically correct authorities agreed. Not because they were competent in dealing with theory and evidence, but because they knew how to agree with their paymaster. Then Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus came along; a distinct minority. They demonstrated, with clear and logical explanations, based on clear and logical evidence, in opposition to “settled science”, that the earth actually revolved about the sun.

    Appeal to authority does not constitute a cogent, rational argument. Statements such as “all the climatologists agree…” are neither logical nor persuasive.

    So if you think that the science is settled and the climate skeptics are idiots, and if you cannot answer the foregoing questions, you are merely agreeing with authority and failing to examine the question logically.


    BR: Why do you believe that the two factors — global cycles AND human fossil fuel burning — are mutually exclusive?

  82. fred2 says:

    Since the Republicans are determined to be so stupid, why are they not easy targets for the Democrats? It should be shooting fish in a barrel time.
    Anyway, US domestic politics aside, your collective national stupidity on this matter is blocking global action. Thanks alot guys. You’re more responsible than any single nation, and you are shirking responsibility. I like Americans but I can’t say the same about America.

  83. thales says:

    “BR: Why do you believe that the two factors — global cycles AND human fossil fuel burning — are mutually exclusive?”

    I did not claim that.

    However, if a predictive model cannot be developed that accurately accounts for the previous warming/cooling/carbon dioxide cycles, then it is not rational to impute current climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gas.