Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Glenn Beck: “There arent enough knives” for “dishonored” climate scientists to kill themselves.

By Climate Guest Contributor on February 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm

"Glenn Beck: “There arent enough knives” for “dishonored” climate scientists to kill themselves."

Share:

google plus icon

Sarah Palin calls global warming studies “snake oil science.”

The anti-science hatemongers have redoubled their efforts, as guest blogger Brad Johnson reports in this pair of ThinkProgress reposts.

On his radio show yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck argued that the world’s climate scientists should commit suicide because they “have so dishonored themselves.” After repeating exaggerated and false smears about the work of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific and governmental body tasked with assessing the threat of global warming, Beck said “there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occured,” referring to the form of ritual suicide used by Japanese samurai:

There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists.

Listen here:

Beck’s hateful attack is part of a larger campaign to demonize the thousands of climate scientists involved in the IPCC and discredit their consensus that manmade pollution is destabilizing the global climate. Their latest effort paints a wild picture of a global conspiracy to defraud the public, based on a handful of inaccurate or poorly sourced but valid claims buried in the 3,000-page report. Unfortunately, Beck is not the first to tell climate realists to commit suicide. Last year, hate-talk host Rush Limbaugh told New York Times climate reporter Andrew Revkin to “just go kill yourself.”

And here’s Sarah “fiddle while Nome burns” Palin whom the Washington Post itself gave her its highest (which is to say lowest) rating of “Four Pinocchios” for continuing to “to peddle bogus [energy] statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers.”

Fox News contributor Sarah Palin has claimed that studies showing polar bears are threatened by global warming are “snake oil science.” Speaking in Redding, CA, at the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, Palin argued that the science of climate change is really just a plot to hurt oil companies. “Those promoting polar bear listing really want to shut down oil and gas leasing in Arctic coastal waters off Alaska,” Palin argued:

We knew the bottom line . . . was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development. And it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.

In reality, the 2006 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a “product of research by 300 scientists from northern countries, warned that the Arctic is warming at a rate much faster than the rest of the Earth.” Arctic ice is now at historically low levels. In 2008, George Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall testified that there was no significant scientific uncertainty in the endangerment posed by global warming to polar bears, based on numerous scientific studies. In contrast, when Palin petitioned to overturn the endangerment finding, she cited a paper funded by Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries. Now that’s snake oil science.

‹ PREVIOUS
Rachel Maddow Interviews Scientist Bill Nye on Climate Change and the Blizzard

NEXT ›
Energy and Global Warming News for February 11th: Utilities continue to pursue economywide bill to cut global warming pollution sharply

39 Responses to Glenn Beck: “There arent enough knives” for “dishonored” climate scientists to kill themselves.

  1. Stuart says:

    They really live in an alternative reality, don’t they? How a former Governor of Alaska; where villages have fallen into the sea, millions of trees have been killed by beetles, and methane fires can be lit on frozen lakes can deny climate change with a straight face is beyond me.

    Beck knows how to fire up the wingnut fury, and I bet he is laughing at the fools who actually think he is sincere. Hey rubes! he is playing you for suckers. WWE + Faux = Beck.

  2. Andy says:

    It’s all about maintaining power. Science and logic care nothing for political affiliation or class when coming to conclusions. What we are seeing is an all out attack on science. An era of anti-enlightment. Hopefully it will be short-lived.

  3. Richard Brenne says:

    That’s a really cute, fun comment by Beck.

    First of all, I’m no statistician, but I’m guessing there probably are enough knives on Earth for all climate scientists to commit suicide.

    And why drag deceased Chicago Cubs announcer Harry Caray into this?

    Lastly and most humorously, I lived in Russia where a high percentage of scientists and the intelligentsia were killed off for ideological and political reasons within the last century, and within the last 40 years the same thing happened in China and Cambodia.

    Sixteen years ago the commands came over the radio for Hutus to kill up to a million Tutsis in Rwanda with machetes, which are big knives.

    Glenn, if your pathetically ignorant hate-mongering ever contributes to even one incidence of anything similar, enjoy your dinner date with those who used similar tactics – my guess is that the food might lean toward the well-done.

  4. Chris Dudley says:

    What really, no wait…. I’ll be OK, sniff…. What really upsets me is, sniff, that Mr. Beck would side with Canadians against American Climate Scientists. I mean, I mean, doesn’t he know that American Climate Scientists are the best? Next he’ll be saying that he wants us to lose the Olympics. Why can’t he just be a patriot? Sniff. No, I just can’t write anymore.

  5. mike roddy says:

    No need for text here. Just look at the photos of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Maybe 30% of Americans think that they are thoughtful and intelligent patriots.

    The task is going to be reducing that percentage, or figuring out a way for the majority to make its wished expressed in Congress. These are big tasks.

  6. MapleLeaf says:

    This on the heels of Limbaugh calling for climate scientists to be “drawn and quartered”. Truly horrific stuff.

    And people wonder why scientists, climate scientists especially, are a little touchy nowadays? Threats by phone and email (death threats even), harassment, libel, eviscerated rats left on their porches. They do not deserve this, period.

    Someone on another thread was saying that Monckton is “always polite”. Well, no. Watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw

    Actually, Monckton has recently been c aught making fallacious claims about people’s finances in the public domain. That is malicious. They also miss the point, science is not always polite, for the most part it is, but advancing science means scientists debating. Now typically that is done through journal papers or at conference proceedings. Anyhow, I think that we owe it to the scientists to give them a little breathing room right now.

    Can someone please send a lawyer knocking on Limbaugh’s or Becks’ door. Surely they cannot incite people to commit acts of violence? There are people out there who will take them seriously, sad but true. Someone needs to hold them accountable.

  7. Lou Grinzo says:

    And don’t forget Monckton and his fellow members of the Psycho Clown Brigade lying about a favorite quote of the deniers:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

    ——————————

    There is no limit to how low these people will go. If some tactic that they perceive to be useful to them is legal, they’ll do it. If it’s illegal and they think they won’t get caught (like sending death threats to climate scientists), they’ll do it. If it’s illegal and they think they’ll get caught, but the penalty is an acceptable cost of doing business in their estimation, they’ll do it.

    Morals and ethics play precisely zero part on their scorched earth campaign. Before this is over, their actions would make General Sherman cringe and say, “Seriously, dude, that’s over the line.”

    And when will it end? When humanity gets a wake up call in the form of something massive, like a collapse of a major piece of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, a heat wave that makes Europe in 2003 look like a mild spring day, or a cat 5+ storm leveling a major coastal city. (Don’t bother telling me that the storm wouldn’t be a reasonable indication of CC–weather vs. climate, etc.–I know, but that’s how it would be perceived by the public.)

  8. Barry says:

    Don’t the Republicans understand their own roots to power?

    The Republican party emerged and gained multi-decade dominance of the nation’s politics by opposing a corrupt, immoral and dangerous energy system: slavery. They paired that brave, transformative vision with a broad progressive vision for modernizing the United States.

    The Democrats gave them this opening by splitting their party over no-compromise, die-hard (literally!) support for an energy system that had no future: enslaving people.

    The “Palin”s and “Beck”s of the GOP are tripping over themselves to steal a page from the disastrous Democratic Breckenridge playbook.

    They are blocking all attempts to move beyond the dirty, corrupt, immoral and very dangerous (95% likely!) energy systems of today. And they are relentlessly attacking the efforts to create a progressive clean future. A litmus test of prostration to fossil purity is emerging.

    Hello all you moderate, thoughtful Republicans out there. Do you really want to hitch your generational political future to voices forcing your party to side with what climate science says has only a 5% likelihood of not being a socially, economically — and thus politically — disastrous future? How many generations in the wilderness are you aiming for?

    The GOP sure seem to jumping off the high dive heading for a 1860-Democrat-style bellyflop. Go figure.

  9. Leif says:

    Barry, #7: Well put.

    Humanity First, Status Quo, No!

  10. Billy says:

    I don’t expect we’ll have much luck changing their minds; those distinguished leaders, thinkers, and experts with names like Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Inhofe, Cooney, Bachmann, Bush, Cheney, Mackey, Crichton, Lindzen, Michaels, Milloy, Hannity, O’Reilly, Stein, . . . . and countless others. But, I’m pretty sure that trucks are, at this moment, carrying snow to Vancouver (Olympics), where they are experiencing “the warmest January on record.” The evidence, unlike the snow in B.C., continues to pile up. Despite localized weather (not climate) events in Washington and NYC the climate is warming (you know it, I know it, the science knows it, the planet knows it), so let the games begin!

  11. PizKesch says:

    Enough. I call for a boycott of anyone quoting Glenn Beck without discrediting him, Boycott any product advertised during his show – even if its manufactured by Apple.

  12. Liz Robeen says:

    Are the lunies driving their no heater no defroster electric cars in the blizzard? No? The electric outlets under too much snow?
    This extreme left movement has sent a lot of rational viewers to watch fox. Keep it up.
    Too bad we don’t have Paling in washington. It would have saved us around 3 trillion dollars in debt. Who pays the debt if the lefties have their way and abort all the unborn?

  13. Wes Rolley says:

    For all that mock Beck, and he is easily mocked, we might try to use his own technique on him. Just as Beck can not use the name Van Jone without prefacing it with the word Communist, I suggest that we never use the name Glenn Beck without the preface “drug addict”.

    Both are equally valid. After all, Beck ignores the manner in which Jones applies American Capitalist enterprise in his book Green Collar Economy.

    But then, Beck does not care as long as his ratings stay high… and they are currently high.

  14. Rockfish says:

    It’s time to realize we have entered a fact-free period of American discourse. Nobody cares about the science. Really, they don’t. It’s religion, belief, faith. Science and fact have nothing to do with it anymore. We say the world will end in hell and high water, they say it will end when some guy with long hair and a beard flys down from the sky. It’s a draw.
    Bush and Cheyney perfected the art of rhetoric with no relation to facts whatsoever, it got them 8 years of unchecked power, and that strategy is alive and well. Why is climate going to be any different from health care, fiscal policy, etc? The Right’s arguments about taxes and deficits defy SIMPLE MATH. If that doesn’t stop them, how could massively complex climate science?
    The conservative strategy is say it loud, say it often, and it becomes its own truth.
    We can sit here whining about “facts” all day long. Until we get a better message – clearer, simpler, and more powerful, we will lose the fact-less discourse by trying to rely on facts.

  15. MapleLeaf says:

    Rockfish, excellent points. OK, so what should the clear message be for AGW? I realise that this is not an easy question to answer, but you seem to have some insight into this, so please share if you have any ideas. Thanks.

  16. MapleLeaf says:

    Moderator, can you please consider removing comment #13 by Robeen? Or at least the second para.

  17. Doug Bostrom says:

    Liz Robeen says: February 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    “Lunies?”

    I’ve wondered to myself if the reason some of these folks seem so hostile is truly a reflection of political differences, as opposed to something more basic and personal. If I were Liz I’d become angry every time I set pen to paper; being confronted with one’s own incompetence with words must be deeply frustrating, same as not being able do simple arithmetic.

  18. PSU Grad says:

    Rockfish, be careful with the “they” and “we” stuff. It’s entirely possible to have both religious faith and an understanding of and respect for science. In fact, I’ve often found they’re mutually reinforcing, and can’t understand why some people of faith don’t see the same thing. However, I can’t prove a thing about my religious beliefs, that’s why they call it faith. And I understand those who don’t believe it. Who am I to say otherwise, since I’ve already noted I can’t prove it?

    But there are lots of religious people who also listen to scientific arguments, and it’s best not to automatically turn them off by resorting to “they” and “we”. They’re often the same people.

  19. “We say the world will end in hell and high water, they say it will end when some guy with long hair and a beard flys down from the sky.

    “It’s a draw.”

    I love it. And only too, too true.

    Quite a challenge, to speak truth to derangement. Let’s keep working on it!

    BTW, we’ve finally dropped Dot Earth from our blog center, following Revkin’s latest piece of (tone deaf?) doubt-mongering. The occasional fine piece doesn’t make up for the drip-drip of dissembling nonsense.

    Not in this climate.

  20. Michael Daxe says:

    “Anti-science hatemongers?”

    Nobody is anti-science. Many are simply anti-cook-science. There is a huge difference.

    “…consensus that manmade pollution is destabilizing the global climate” is merely that, a consensus. I could sit around and arrive at a consensus with a few thousand of my friends at the department of agriculture, claim a devastating man-made depletion of corn is upon us, and before you know it the United States Government and the United Nations would start throwing money at us hoping to avert the impending corn crisis. Those who have the most to gain from a “global warming crisis” are the ones whose opinion is trusted that a crisis in fact exists. There is what you might call a “conflict of interest”!

    Another problem is…where IS the science, the real, hard facts? There is none. It is all theory. Not only that, it’s been debunked by scientists who offer far more convincing evidence.

    And to top it all off, so called scientists are now revealing themselves to be frauds. They’re cooking the books. Can you say cabal? Can you say greed?

    Nobody is anti-science, we simply have NOT seen anything yet which can pass as science. We’d love to see it.

  21. Rockfish says:

    PSU Grad: Thanks. I really didn’t mean to imply any attack on capital “F” faith whatsoever.
    I only meant to emphasize the extent to which this discussions, and most others going on in America right now, are past the point where an appeal to facts or science is effective. I would find it futile to take such an approach in dissuading someone from their religious beliefs, and somewhat analogously it seems to futile to approach the climate change discussion that way either, at this point.
    I believe that for along time it WAS important to argue the science. But this has always been a very complex and imprecise science, and it gets exponentially harder to persuade each incremental percentile of the public of the validity.
    We are now faced with “opponents” who have abandoned rational argument. And if it weren’t for their increasing traction with the public (and their seats in Congress!), we could ignore them as nut-jobs.
    I wish I knew how to craft a better message – I’d get and Oscar and a Nobel Prize like the last guy who made significant progress in that area! Another commenter here said we need to distill the whole discussion into a one page talking-point memo. That would be an awesome start. It should NOT include any reference to “2 deg C” or “350 ppm” either. That’s geek-speak (with all due respect to Bill McKibbon et al) and it doesn’t help the message. If you are trying to tell someone they have swine flue, you don’t tell them “you have fever and a mildly elevated white count that we need to get under control.” But we also need to BANISH “global warming” from the dialogue, and dump “climate change” while we are at it (too soft, though much better in encompassing the myriad of issues we face) We need something like “Climate Chaos” (see, I said I wasn’t any good at this!) so for every Katrina, for every Australian drought, for every Beltway Blizzard we can shout “See – chaos!” to everyone who will listen.

  22. MapleLeaf says:

    Michael Daxe,

    Here are some hard facts:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Note, it is form NASA. Don’t believe the thermometers? Ok, look at this:

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

    Also, go the the American Meteorological Society journals’ page. Also, read about Arrhenius.

    If you do not like consensus, how about consilience? That is, observational evidence and theory from many disciplines arriving at the same conclusion. Namely, the planet is warming, we have a large role in that warming, especially since 1950, and our contribution via anthro GHG forcing is going to continue increasing unless we start reducing our emissions.

    I’m sad to inform you that history will show the self proclaimed “skeptics” to be the real frauds. The real ‘skeptics’ are the scientists, those in denial about AGW have hi-jacked the term to try and add some credence to their rhetoric. That reminds me, were is the solid science from the “skeptics” which has stood the rigor of peer review and the advancement of science? PLease show us Michael. Do not send me to a blog, show me reputable science published in a high quality journal, which has not been refuted since publication. For example, don’t quote Lindzen and Choi (2009), their work has also been soundly refuted, along with just about every other skeptical science paper which claims to refute the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW.

    The real hypothesis being tested by you is that we can change the composition of out atmosphere by doubling CO2 (not to mention CH4 and N20), and for there to be no consequences. So far that hypothesis has failed miserably.

    The greed is in the court of those who willfully insist on continuing to consume at levels that are not sustainable, and who do not care for inter-generational equity.

    The science is there for all to see who are open and willing to see it. Therein lies the problem, b/c the science is telling you something you do not want to hear. Sorry, but we are not paid to hide the truth, no matter how inconvenient and unpleasant it is to hear and digest.

  23. MapleLeaf says:

    Michael, My response to your post is in moderation, probably because of the URL links I provided. You asked for facts, start here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com

    Here is my [slightly amended] post without links:

    “Michael Daxe,

    There are some hard facts at the NASA GISS website. Don’t believe the thermometers? Ok, go to the remss web site, satellite data. Go the the American Meteorological Society journals’ page. Also, read about Arrhenius.

    If you do not like consensus, how about consilience? That is, observational evidence and theory from many disciplines arriving at the same conclusion. Namely, the planet is warming, we have a large role in that warming, especially since 1950, and our contribution via anthro GHG forcing is going to continue increasing unless we start reducing our emissions.

    I’m sad to inform you that history will show the self proclaimed “skeptics” to be the real frauds. The real ’skeptics’ are the scientists, those in denial about AGW have hi-jacked the term to try and add some credence to their rhetoric. That reminds me, were is the solid science from the “skeptics” which has stood the rigor of peer review and the advancement of science? PLease show us Michael. Do not send me to a blog, show me reputable science published in a high quality journal, which has not been refuted since publication. For example, don’t quote Lindzen and Choi (2009), their work has also been soundly refuted, along with just about every other skeptical science paper which claims to refute the theory (not hypothesis) of AGW.

    The real hypothesis being tested by you is that we can change the composition of out atmosphere by doubling CO2 (not to mention CH4 and N20), and for there to be no consequences. So far that hypothesis has failed miserably.

    The greed is in the court of those who willfully insist on continuing to consume at levels that are not sustainable, and who do not care for inter-generational equity.

    The science is there for all to see who are open and willing to see it. Therein lies the problem, b/c the science is telling you something you do not want to hear. Sorry, but we are not paid to hide the truth, no matter how inconvenient and unpleasant it is to hear and digest.”

  24. Dano says:

    Maple Leaf et al:

    ignore the troll bots.

    Best,

    D

  25. Doug Bostrom says:

    Michael Daxe says: February 11, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    “It is all theory.”

    Drop a bowling ball on your big toe. No problem, gravitation is a theory.

    “Can you say cabal? Can you say greed?”

    Can you say “chump?”

    Have a long, hard think. Ask yourself, “How did I get here?”

  26. Michael Daxe says:

    Doug, your wit is astounding.

  27. Chris Dudley says:

    Billy #11,

    Pretty sure Crichton’s mind won’t change. At least 6 of the others are probably for sale.

  28. True Science says:

    Doug Bostrom said, “gravitation is a theory.”

    No, gravitation is a fact; what causes gravity is still a theory. This is just like global warming. It’s still a theory that it is man-made. Even the IPCC admits that all of the measured warming could still be from natural causes.

  29. MapleLeaf says:

    Jeez, the trolls are out in force today. And contrary to what their monikers might suggest regarding their understanding of science, it is sad they do not seem understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and a fact. One could get very philosophical about what constitutes a “fact”. Not to mention that in science we actually cannot prove anything, only disprove it. Oh well…

    Might I suggest Giere’s “Understanding Scientific Reasoning”.

  30. SecularAnimist says:

    Let’s see what’s going on on this blog today.

    Well, for starters, we have an arrogant, ignorant, rock-stupid, know-nothing Ditto-Head who calls himself “True Science”.

    Well, that’s par for the course. Funny how people who pride themselves on slavishly, unquestioningly, obediently believing every idiotic thing the so-called “right wing” media tells them, call themselves “skeptics”.

    Then there’s the topic of this post. Glenn Beck is calling for climate scientists to be killed. Well, OK, he is calling for them to kill themselves. Does that make it OK to call for Glenn Beck to be killed? I know it’s morally wrong. But it would so improve the world.

  31. Wit's End says:

    A History of Professional Denialism, and a Graph depicting the acceleration:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf
    found at Desdemona Despair dot blogspot dot com!

  32. SecularAnimist says:

    Michael Daxe wrote: “Another problem is…where IS the science, the real, hard facts? There is none. It is all theory.”

    You really don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You are just another arrogant, ignorant, clueless, rock-stupid Ditto-Head.

    Please realize that once you get outside of your so-called “right wing” echo chamber where everything revolves around hatred of “liberals” and ExxonMobil-funded, phony pseudoscience, people are not impressed by your ignorance.

    You may impress your weak-minded, ignorant, gullible Ditto-Head dupe friends with your ability to slavishly regurgitate the drivel that Rush Limbaugh spoon-feeds you, but real people are not impressed by that idiocy.

  33. Al says:

    Let’s face it. In the post-quantum mechanical world there is a finite probability that a kettle of water placed on a block of ice will come to a boil. The AGW deniers merely choose to live in that quantum space.
    I thought I had heard every possible denier justification. But today I read a very serious post from someone asserting that “real” science requires a proper control. Unless you have an alternate earth unpopulated of humans, you cannot prove that global warming is due to humans. QED

  34. Barry Powell says:

    Have a look at this clip from Australia’s ABC Media Watch programme. Populist media have been fawning over Lord Monkton despite his strong presentations being short on the truth. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

  35. Doug Bostrom says:

    True Science says: February 11, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    “No, gravitation is a fact; what causes gravity is still a theory.”

    There are some hypotheses for why there is gravitation, no theory.

    Other things we have theories for, robust models that explain with complete consistency and coherency such phenomena as the response of C02 to IR illumination.

  36. Dave E says:

    Barry (#9)
    I wasn’t aware that republicans were opposed to slavery. I was, however, struck by the film “Amazing Grace” and the similarity of the battle against slavery to the current need to move beyond fossil fuels. The same arguments were raised then (we can’t abandon slavery, our economy depends on it). We finally did move beyond slavery, and we will do the same, eventually, with fossil fuels–but will we do it in time?

  37. Marion Delgado says:

    If he gets his wish, one of them’ll probably want to at least take him with them. That’s why sane people don’t say things like that publicly.

  38. A complete Dufuss or looking for Career in Acting on Reality TV…

    I prey for you