Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

UPDATED WITH POST-MORTEM — Climate Progress on Fox News at 3:55 pm EST …

By Joe Romm  

"UPDATED WITH POST-MORTEM — Climate Progress on Fox News at 3:55 pm EST …"

Share:

google plus icon

… on the prospects for and impact of an ice-free North Pole. Or at least that is the plan!

Too bad Shepard Smith wasn’t hosting — he wouldn’t have wasted time on the global cooling nonsense!

Remember, Shepard thinks global warming deniers are a “little crazy” like some guy who got stuck in the toilet (see QUIZ: Who said, “People who deny the whole global warming thing. They’re just a little crazy.”)

I have previously debunked this absurd claim we have somehow cooled in the last year back to levels of a century ago (or even two decades ago), see Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming and Breaking News: The Great Ice Age of 2008 is finally over — next stop Venus!

For another perspective, News Hounds wrote up this encounter here, “To This Day, Fox is Feeding its Audience “Proof” That Global Warming Doesn’t Exist.” I may blog on this again.

Tags:

‹ Bush BLM: We don’t need no stinkin’ solar on federal lands

What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007? ›

14 Responses to UPDATED WITH POST-MORTEM — Climate Progress on Fox News at 3:55 pm EST …

  1. kenlevenson says:

    The influence of The Drudge Report on the MSM never ceases to amaze.
    Hopefully he’ll continue to push “breaking” climate news.

  2. OccamsAftershave says:

    When the FauxNewsman said “last year’s global cooling was enough to erase all the global warming for the last 100 years”, what was he thinking? The global ave temp was momentarily back to 1900 levels?

  3. Melanie says:

    Oops! I posted this link before I saw your update. I don’t mean to hog this but I do think it’s important for people to know that Fox “News” is a front-line global warming denier.

    And, with all due respect, I don’t think Shepard Smith’s presence would have made all that much difference. If he hadn’t followed up by bashing you, someone else probably would have. Fox covers its bases.

  4. Tony G. says:

    Yep. The proof is undeniable.

    We should start prosecutions against anyone who is a denier.

    Perhaps they can be sent to re-education camps.

  5. Joe says:

    Tony — Mock all you want, but the arrogance of the deniers will rain destruction on billions of people, and as that becomes increasingly clear in the next decade or two, my guess is many will be filled with a lasting sense of regret, while a smaller and smaller number clinging desperately to denial.

    BTW, there is no point in sending people to re-education camps who never got an education in science in the first place.

  6. Tony G. says:

    I’m willing to believe that climate change is happening.

    I’m also willing to change MY behavior to have slightly less effect in my emissions.

    But I refuse to do it at the detriment of my standard of living, or because somebody who belives themselves to be morally better, tries to enforce a “managed decline” to western civilization.

    Watch what will happen to “environmental concerns” when the electrical generation of power runs out of excess capacity in this country, because we can’t burn coal, too many people are scared of nuclear, wind power kills too many birds, and changes humidity patterns downwind, large-scale solar affects the surrounding ecosystems, etc.

    I’ll go out and shoot a polar bear just on principle.

    The fact that I still have to burn dead dinosaurs to get from A to B, (in this day and age) offends me slightly, though I am a fan of ICE’s. (Internal Combustion Engines)

    Stop blocking alternatives and saying we have to cut back on the ones that are working. Pursue technologies that may get us away from using dead dinosaurs, but keep our capacities in the current technologies, and expand them.

    Global warming is happening. but I’m not going to be sitting in an un- airconditioned block of high-density living quarters, taking mass transit to my job, in the off chance that it’s effects can be slowed down. I’ll take my chances in the world that will result.

    I’m sitting in my 1800 sq/ft house, on its 100X130′ lot, a/c at 78 F, 8 mi from my place of employment. Take that from me because you “think” you have the answer in artificially increasing the cost of living to force changes in my lifestyle, you’ve lost me (and others like me) to your point of view.

    BTW, I did get a science education. I have retained enough of it to realize regulatory restrictions against energy production will decrease my standard of living, and mandating the use of technologies that aren’t mature will not make them come faster.

  7. David B. Benson says:

    Tony G. — More birds killed by automoiles than windmills.

  8. It’s not true that global warming of the past century was “erased” this winter. It is true, however, that the global average temperature hasn’t changed much since 2002, and in fact a slight cooling trend might be discernable. As for the icecap melting, this mainly has to do with warm ocean currents. The result might well be increased snow fall over northern high lattitude regions this winter rather than a warm summer as many seem to expect. I like to discuss such issues on the global warming group on myspace, http://groups.myspace.com/globalwarmingdiscussions

  9. Tony G. says:

    David Benson – Good, they shouldn’t be flying that low anyway.

  10. Dano says:

    Shorter Tony G:

    I’m spending my children’s inheritance!

    Best,

    D

  11. Earl Killian says:

    Tony G, Climate Progress is not suggesting that Americans give up their comforts or decrease their standard of living. Joe’s solutions would also eventually reduce the cost to Americans such as yourself. For example, the first step is to promote efficient use of energy. The least efficient 40 states averaged 13,947 kWh per capita in 2005, while the 10 most efficient states averaged 7,774 kWh per capita. It took 30 years for the worst to get that way (we were all about 7,000 kWh per capita in the 1970s–some promoted efficiency and stayed constants, others bloated). If you use less electricity, gasoline, etc. your bills actually go down.

  12. Tony G. says:

    Yes Dano, I am spending my children’s inheritance.

    Financially, because I don’t make enough money to build a pile to give to my kid. He’ll just have to work for it like I did. But I’ll make sure he has the skills to do it.

    But that’s not what you meant.

    Misguided social engineering exercises have more capacity to harm future generations than my tendecies towards being less efficient.

    So there.

    And Earl, being more efficient isn’t going to save me a dime, as permits for new power plants are tied up in red tape, ditto for expanding oil production.

    The world population is expanding. Keeping energy supplies constricted, while there’s more people and more countries aspiring to get out of their grass huts, is just going to make my quality of life fall.

    I’ll keep that in mind when I pull the lever this November.

  13. Earl Killian says:

    Tony G, you misunderstood what I meant by efficiency; I don’t think you read more than the first few words. Efficiency means we can close 25% of our power plants (it would be 45% but for the expanding population).