SOURCES are listed in the next video, because of space constraints. Predictable posts are answered here. Please spend your time and effort in addressing the evidence presented in the video:
“This is a straw man argument. Of course skeptics [sic] accept that CO2 warms the atmosphere,
We just don’t think the warming will be catastrophic.”
Answer: “Skeptics” have all kinds of positions on climate science, depending on their personal beliefs and feelings. This video addresses those critics who claim there is no evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature. Whether you want to call such changes “catastrophic” or benign, or terrible, or bad, or good is your feeling, and therefore outside the scope of the science.
“Correlation does not mean causation.”
Answer: It is still consistent with the theory. And where a mechanism has been shown that should produce a correlation, then the correlation is yet more confirmation that a theory is correct.
“Here’s a piece of evidence — there’s no hot spot”
Apart from the fact that this ‘no hot spot’ idea is another piece of Internet mythology, the idea of the ‘hot spot’ is based on a computer model. If you think computer models are all wrong, then the lack of a hot spot must be wrong.
And critics — please try to address the evidence shown in this video, rather than repeat myths that have been dealt with in my previous videos. If you’re not sure, check them out:
“Warming is due to galactic rays/cosmic rays/the sun”
See: 2. Climate Change — the objections
20 - Are cosmic rays causing global warming?
Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord?
1. Climate Change — the scientific debate
“There was a consensus about global cooling in the 1970s”
See: 3 - Climate Change — Anatomy of a myth
“There’s been no warming since 1998.”
See: 8. Climate Change — Has the Earth been cooling?
8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the ‘no warming for 15 years’
24 - Global warming has stopped? Again??
“The climate always changes”
See: 8. 5. Climate Change — isn’t it natural?
Climate Change — Has the Earth been cooling?
Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
“31,000 scientists disagree”
See: 9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists
“We’re headed for another ice age”
See: 10. Climate Change - An imminent ice age debunked
21 - “Earth facing mini-ice age!!” say the media. Now for the science….
“Global warming will cause more hurricanes”
See: 11. Climate Change — Hurricanes, atolls and coral
“A recent study found that warming will be just 1.64 degrees”
See: 12 - ‘Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming…’ or maybe not.
“Global warming is drowning islands “
See: 13 - Misleading media reports on sea level rise - a case study
11. Climate Change — Hurricanes, atolls and coral
“Global warming will bring an end to snow in the UK”
See: 14 - BP oil spills and an end to snow
“Greenland/arctic ice is not melting”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice
“There is very little amplification due to CO2 rise”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity
“There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past”
See: 5. Climate Change — isn’t it natural?
Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
“Himalayan glaciers are not melting.”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 4 — Quotes and misquotes
“It’s been shown that climate scientists engaged in fraud”
See: 22 — Climategate mark 2 — the quotes and the context
6. Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails
7. Climate Change - “Those” e-mails and science censorship
“The Medieval Warm Period proves….”
See: 23 — Medieval Warm Period — fact vs. fiction
“CO2 always lags temperature rise”
See: 25 - Climate Change — The “800-year lag” unravelled
“I don’t believe it”
See: 26 — Science vs. the Feelies
“Evidence never convinces me, I believe whatever I hear in my head.”
See: A psychiatrist
Andrew Kaczynski posted video today of Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) issuing the latest ridiculous right wing anti-science public statement, citing the Bible story of the Great Flood as evidence that climate change isn’t man-made.
“I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”
This is what’s behind a lot of the Republican aversion to science; the atavistic fear that science will destroy their religious beliefs. It’s bizarre to see Barton in America’s halls of power, talking about setting vital national policy based on his superstitious belief that an allegorical fantasy passed down by word of mouth from the Bronze Age actually happened in reality.
He’d be Britain’s most deranged and dishonest climate change denier if that title weren’t already owned by Christopher Monckton, but today’s article at The Telegraph by James Delingpole breaks new ground, even for him. As Joe Romm puts it at ClimateProgress, this really does amount to hate speech, an especially ugly and virulent form: Denier Delingpole Wishes for ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ for Climate Scientists!
If you ever needed (more) proof that the professional deniers are driven by a mindless rage devoid of any actual science, I urge you to read James Delingpole’s latest piece.
It will nauseate you — consider yourself warned. But I think it’s important to dissect this hate speech in detail because Delingpole seems to think that hate speech isn’t hate speech if you just use rhetoric — the figures of speech, like metaphor.
Having spent a quarter century studying rhetoric and having just published a well-received book on this very subject — Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga — I think I can safely say that is bullshit, though most likely only metaphorical bullshit (see below).
You may recall Delingpole’s 2011 meltdown on the BBC, where they got him to admit he is a hand-waving know-nothing: “It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time…. I am an interpreter of interpretations.” This pieces makes that meltdown look like the height of lucidity.
The piece is worth examining in detail because I think it is indicative of how the deniers and disinformers really feel — and we’ll know if that’s true if none of them denounce it.
The headline is “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists.” Delingpole is going to lecture us plebes on our native tongue.
Under the headline is the photo above, which is one of the popular pictures of the post-WWII Nuremberg trials in which Nazis were tried for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” The Telegraph’s caption is simply, “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann….” That would be George Monbiot, Tim Flannery, and Michael Mann.
Deniers like Delingpole, who are fighting like cornered rats to keep humanity from doing anything at all to ameliorate the effects of climate change, are truly awful, awful people.
If Delingpole were alive during the Renaissance he’d have been one of the clergy, accusing Galileo of heresy and calling for his execution.
Sen. James Inhofe may be the leading Republican anti-science climate change-denying religious fanatic, and he’s proud of it.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) sees criticism of him in a recent documentary about climate change as a badge of honor.
He’s among the targets in “Greedy Lying Bastards,” a recent film that claims to document fossil fuel industry-backed efforts to sow doubt about climate science and thwart emissions curbs.
“I was not surprised to see myself front and center on the promotional material for this climate-change movie, and quite frankly, I’m proud of it,” Inhofe told Tulsa World.
Sen. Inhofe is an ongoing embarrassment to the United States — a demagogue in the pocket of the energy industry, actively working to keep Americans blind to the terrible threat of global warming. A truly awful person.
President Obama’s picks to head the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy are already provoking howls of outrage from the right wing and the energy industry shills who feed them talking points; they’re especially worked up about Gina McCarthy.
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday named two people to his cabinet who will be charged with making good on his threat to use the powers of the executive branch to tackle climate change and energy policy if Congress does not act quickly.
Mr. Obama nominated Gina McCarthy, a tough-talking native of Boston and an experienced clean air regulator, to take charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ernest J. Moniz, a physicist and strong advocate of natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner alternatives to coal, to run the Department of Energy.
The appointments, which require Senate confirmation, send an unmistakable signal that the president intends to mount a multifaceted campaign in his second term to tackle climate change by using all the executive branch tools at his disposal.
The energy industry mouthpieces at the Heartland Institute immediately pushed this paid announcement out on PR Newswire:
“Gina McCarthy has a long history of demonizing affordable energy and doing everything possible to shut it down. She also has a long history of making up fictitious facts to support her anti-energy ideology. McCarthy’s number-one priority at EPA will be enacting unprecedented restrictions on energy production and use that will further drive up energy prices. If Americans like dramatically rising gasoline prices and rapidly rising electricity prices, they are going to love Gina McCarthy.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
“During litigation on the EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health, the attorney for the EPA, introduced as the technical expert, falsely asserted to the Court that the climate models used are valid. The models have never been validated and are failing miserably. The Earth stopped warming over a decade ago, contradicting the models. The models are also contradicted by the characteristics of late twentieth-century warming.
“Under Ms. McCarthy we can expect further deterioration of American science as the EPA ignores scientific facts that do not support its political agenda.”
Executive Vice President
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
That’s what the pseudo-science wing says; now let’s go to Pat Robertson for the religious right view. Proving himself a master of the art of wingnut projectionism, old Pat went on a rant about Gina McCarthy today, denouncing environmentalists as “crazies” and “religious fanatics,” who are “unreasonable” and “doctrinaire.”
Sounds to me like Ms. McCarthy is a perfect choice for the position.
Here’s an absolutely classic case of lying with statistics, as George Will abuses his position as a columnist for the Washington Post to shamelessly mislead his readers and disseminate deceptive climate change denial propaganda.
Will’s latest column makes a claim that’s true in a literal sense, but when examined more closely is nothing less than journalistic malpractice.
[President Obama] says that “the threat of climate change” is apparent in “raging fires,” “crippling drought” and “more powerful storms.” Are fires raging now more than ever? (There were a third fewer U.S. wildfires in 2012 than in 2006.)
Does it seem odd that George Will cherry-picked an arbitrary year (2006) to compare to last year?
There’s a reason for Will’s seemingly arbitrary choice, of course; when you look at the data from the National Interagency Fire Center over a longer timeframe, a very different picture emerges. David Appell graphed the data back to 1960, exposing the deception behind this denier’s claim:
As you can see, the trend is obvious: a severe increase in acreage burned over the last 20 years, and it’s accelerating dramatically. And it’s also obvious why George Will picked 2006 for his misleading comparison.
In the past, the Washington Post has refused to hold Will accountable for distortions just as egregious as this one, so I wouldn’t hold out hope for a correction or retraction.
The new Senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, is promising to do something about one of America’s most intractable issues: New Hawaii Senator Pledges to Tackle Climate Change.
Sen. Schatz is about to find out how determined and irrational the climate change denial movement is in Washington DC, but he has our support. Give ‘em hell, Senator.
The replacement for the late Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye (D) said Wednesday that climate change is at the top of his legislative agenda.
“For me, personally, I believe global climate change is real and it is the most urgent challenge of our generation,” Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D), whom Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) tapped for the seat, said in brief comments Wednesday.
Schatz is expected to be sworn in Thursday afternoon. He will serve until 2014, and plans to run for the special election to fill the remaining two years of Inouye’s term. Schatz also said he would run for a full term in 2016.
Schatz will serve with incoming Sen. Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who is replacing retiring Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii).
Hirono and Schatz likely will both champion climate change.
Here’s some excellent news from Louisiana, where a state judge has ruled that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s outrageous school voucher program giving state funding to private religious schools that teach creationism and climate change denial is unconstitutional. Damn right.
One of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature accomplishments, a private school tuition voucher program, was ruled unconstitutional by a Louisiana judge Friday, the Associated Press reports:
State Judge Tim Kelley said Friday that the program improperly diverts money allocated through Louisiana’s public school funding formula to private schools. He also said it unconstitutionally diverts local tax dollars to private schools.
Kelley ruled in a lawsuit backed by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.
Jindal (R-La.), who is frequently touted as a potential contender in the 2016 Republican presidential race, pushed the legislation through the state’s legislature in April. Two statewide teachers’ associations and a group of school boards filed legal challenges shortly thereafter.
Jindal said in a statement Friday afternoon that he would appeal the ruling.
In addition to the lawsuits, the program was criticized for letting students attend religious schools that teach Young Earth Creationism — the belief that the universe is no older than 10,000 years.
Jindal’s response to this setback for his religious fundamentalist agenda:
‘Today’s ruling is wrong-headed and a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education,’ Jindal said. ‘This ruling changes nothing for the students currently in the program. All along, we expected this to be decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.’
Make no mistake — the underlying cause behind Gov. Jindal’s voucher program is to erase the boundary between church and state, especially (but not limited to) the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution. He may be trying to position himself as a “moderate Republican” lately, but Jindal has been more successful than any other Republican politician at blurring the lines and legitimizing the long range anti-science educational agenda of the religious right.
For the last 6 years, the head of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has been Rep. Ralph Hall, a right wing religious fundamentalist who denies the science of climate change. Now it’s time for Hall to step down, and to replace this anti-science nutjob, the Republican Party has picked … another anti-science nutjob.
On Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that the Republican Steering Committee had recommended Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) as the new chairman. The full House GOP caucus will vote on all chairmanships Wednesday and is expected to ratify the steering panel’s choices.
Smith, like many of his Republican colleagues, has expressed doubt that global warming is caused by human behavior. In 2009, he criticized the media for not airing enough “dissenting opinions” about climate change.
“The [ABC, NBC and CBS television] networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change,” Smith said in a statement at the time. “During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study. The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.”
He also referred to environmentalists and others who warn about the seriousness of the issue as “global warming alarmists.”
I haven’t found any statements from Lamar Smith on the subject of evolution, but chances are very good that he’s a young earth creationist as well. Because that’s just how the GOP rolls.
One of the most bizarre rationalizations the right uses to justify denying the reality of climate change is the whacked out fantasy that humans can’t do anything to change the climate because God wouldn’t let it happen. There actually used to be some commenters at LGF who used this line, back in the day.
This audio clip from Right Wing Watch features religious fanatic Cal Beisner of the “Cornwall Alliance” appearing on the American Family Association’s radio show, explaining that if you believe the scientists who tell you climate change is a real, dangerous thing, you are “insulting God” and helping to bring about tyranny.
It’s so off the wall it almost seems funny, but they’re deadly serious about this — and it’s not just on fringe radio shows. There are people right now in Congress who believe this stuff.