Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Looks like I’m going on FoxNews again, thanks to Inhofe

By Joe Romm on February 23, 2010 at 1:51 pm

"Looks like I’m going on FoxNews again, thanks to Inhofe"

Share:

google plus icon

Decadal

The NOAA chart FoxNews put up is discussed here.

In January I went on Neil Cavuto’s show because it was cold outside.  Today — barring a last-minute cancellation (which happened last week) — I’ll be going on again around 4:05 thanks to the Senator even the Washington Post mocked as “the last flat-earther.”

UPDATE:  Yes, Cavuto kept me on about twice as long as usual, but then proceeded to cut me off repeatedly, which I confess I wasn’t prepared for because he hadn’t done this before.  Next time I’ll have a different strategy.  I’ll let the comments from the Fox crowd run since it is important to get that perspective every once in a while — and it also helps you see what you’re missing on all those other blogs that have been taken over by the anti-science crowd!

The news “hook,” I think, is that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL) has a new report out (click here if you must) — mostly a tired rehashing of the email story in an attempt to give it a second wind and tie it to the IPCC story.

If he can rehash his disinformation, I can rehash actual information from scientist (see below).

I’d be most interested in any suggestions for snappy soundbites.  I may even have a surprise!

Related Posts:

‹ PREVIOUS
USGS reports dramatic retreat of ice shelves in southern Antarctic Peninsula

NEXT ›
Sen. Merkley: ‘We’re Going To Create Jobs By Cleaning Up Carbon Dioxide Pollution’

192 Responses to Looks like I’m going on FoxNews again, thanks to Inhofe

  1. MarkB says:

    One guaranteed element to expect is the “it’s cold here” argument. If you can, show a global map of temperature anomalies for January.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    or the last 30 days (a different base period is used here).

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_30b.rnl.html

  2. paulm says:

    I recommend totally ignoring the topics they bring up and bring it round to the top 3 critical issues you think the American people need to know.

  3. Rockfish says:

    Here’s one:
    “Senator, If I look out the window and it’s dark outside, I don’t assume the sun doesn’t exist.”

  4. Dennis says:

    Be sure to remind the viewers that Inhofe’s defintion of a scientist include TV weathermen, and open up his old report of “skeptical scientists” for visual evidence.

  5. Wit's End says:

    Turn the tables on the email thing and glacier mistake and sea level rise, as others have suggested, and point out it simply proves that though there are mistakes made in science, scientists correct them!

  6. You might also push the “double-standard” issue mentioned in an earlier post about Chu — these people can spout any piece of nonsense and never get called on it; but when scientists point out that things are actually going to be much worse (the sea level rise issue, e.g.) then they are dismissed for being “wrong”.

  7. dhogaza says:

    Bring a flat disk cut from plywood painted with a map of the earth … :)

    I’m sure that “trick to hide the decline” will come up. Perhaps appeal to non-scientists by talking about “tricks of the trade”, those little shortcuts skilled craftspeople have that oh, allow a carpenter to build a plumb and square wall 5 times faster than you or I can?

    Make sure people understand that Jones doesn’t make FOI decisions, if that come up, and that it is the compliance officer’s JOB to reject inappropriate FOI requests. If “CRU hides the data” comes up, point out that most of the data CRU uses is already available at GHCN, and that a FOI request in the UK can be denied if the data’s available elsewhere. Point out other data is proprietary and CRU can’t release it – “if CRU buys a copy of windows, you can’t use a FOI request to force CRU to give become a pirate and give you windows for free”, that kind of thinking, perhaps?

    I haven’t studied Inhofe’s minority report, you should probably do so and try to predict what will come up, though I bet at least one of the two above will.

    Also … be succinct. In the last phone press conference you did, that you put up here, you rambled too much. Of course, this is TV and you won’t even have the opportunity to ramble, but keep it simple and terse, please! :)

    Oh, the subversion of peer review bit … point out that the paper being discussed was so bad that van Storch? (I think) who is a borderline skeptic resigned because the paper was so bad, and he wasn’t allowed to run an editorial saying it stunk. Position van Storch(?) as being essentially on the same side as those who wrote the paper, and yet he resigned, and people think Jones was wrong to complain about the process at that journal?

  8. Prokaryote says:

    Sen Inhofe claims climate change is a hoax. He base his conclusion on media reports and is cherry picking out of context quotes. He is using unreliable sources and unscientific claims to challange the science.

    The word hoax is said to have come from the common magic incantation hocus pocus.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

    This would be my approach and correspond with Sen Boxer’s arguments aswell, as seen on todays EPA hearing.

    His arguments are exactly outlined here:
    Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

    I would gather statements from scientist and evidence that climate change is infact real and happening. Take those “quotes” which Inhofe uses and challenge them with FACTS and evidence of empirical data. Read it to him!
    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

    Than i would challenge him with teh growing threat of national security and chinas advantage on RE.

    Challenge him on his ilussionary arguments and point out that he infact is hoaxing.

  9. Lewis says:

    I suspect this ‘discussion’ to lean more to a straight credibility attack on scientists than any sort of attempt to discuss science. I humbly suggest being prepared for a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” style ambush over the sea level paper retraction.

    I’d also wonder if some sort of ‘riff’ on how warm it is at the Winter Olympics might ‘play.’

  10. drt says:

    Hmmm, suggestions for snappy soundbites, how about judicious use of any of “Get over it. Get a Life. You’ve lost. We’ve won,” .

  11. Larry Gilman says:

    Me advising you on this subject is like me coaching Eric Clapton on chord fingering, but I’ll say this because it seems key:

    Denialism is a mood, not a position. So shift the mood — but not with mockery or arrogance (e.g., “get a life”), which will blow back as elitism. No mockery doesn’t mean no humor, of course: in fact, humor is essential.

    All easier said than done.

    Go for it. We’re rooting for you. Your work is, not to turn your head or anything, global in importance.

    Larry

  12. Andy says:

    The graph from Record Highs Far Outpace Record Lows is a great opening to explain AGW to the public during a cold winter.

    Also, AGW has just started, the worst is yet to come, and once it is so bad that everyone, even the grandkids of Inhofe are screaming for relief; well then it won’t be getting any better for tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years.

    Do you want to bet against most of the world’s leading scientists? For something that will cost little now and in the long run save money?

  13. caerbannog says:

    If the CRU FOI business comes up, point out that the CRU had to sign intellectual property agreements in exchange for much of the temperature data it received, and it could not give out that data to 3rd parties without prior authorization.

    Here’s an excerpt from an IP agreement that the Spanish Meteorological Services requires you to sign (from a document downloaded from http://www.aemet.es/en/-m:c/servicios/publicos/sscc)


    The user compromises himself to:
    1.To guard and to use the information received from the AEMET exclusively in the project object of this request.
    2.The information given by the AEMET, in no case, will be delivered nor supply to any third party.
    3.Not to use the meteorological information to generate added value services (VAS).
    4.All the persons associated with the project must be informed about the stipulations and conditions, consequently these must be rigorously observed.

    To indemnify for any loss that the AEMET may suffer due to the breach of these obligations.

    Point out that property rights (including intellectual property rights) must be respected, and that’s something that libertarians/conservatives should not have to be reminded of.

  14. PSU Grad says:

    Please understand that this will be two against one. As someone else mentioned, this will be an attempt to attack the scientists, not an attempt to talk about the science.

    At the end of Inhofe’s rant he says something like “I was right”. Really? I think that’s your attack point. He thinks he “was right”. Show him he isn’t.

    No doubt a Fox News producer (or someone delegated) is following this blog. Which is fine, it’s a free country. But understand that they’ll most likely know everything that’s posted here.

    I like the point in post 3…..”just because it’s dark outside doesn’t mean the sun doesn’t exist.”

  15. Leif says:

    The measured 4% increase of water vapor in the earths atmosphere equates to 1.5 Lake Superiors floating around to condense as additional rain or even snow in the winter!

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/20/president-obama-explains-the-science-behind-climate-change-and-extreme-weather-climatologist-kevin-trenberth-and-meteorologist-jeff-masters-on-npr/#comments

    comments #3 & #14

  16. Anonymous says:

    mention that the much of the criticism of the IPCC (at least from legitimate sources) points out that they underestimate climate change, not exaggerate it.

  17. Chester says:

    “Here’s an analogy even a Republican can understand: day to day, temperatures go up and down, like the stock market. But over time, temperatures, like the market, are going up.”

  18. Rockfish says:

    On second thought, decline the interview all together. Ambush media is not the place for a discussion of facts. Your essentially being asked to fight Inhof in a pen for the amusement of the Emperor..er.. Murdoch and friends.
    The better man would walk away.

  19. Bill Waterhouse says:

    Take a blow-up of your recent simple (consider the audience) bar chart showing each decade’s average temp has been warmer than the preceding one. Stress we’re talking about long-term effects. But you can then say the the first seven weeks of this decade have been even warmer than the last decade’s average from both ground and satellite measurements. Focus on rebutting the no recent warming claim.

  20. toby says:

    The top finding of Inhofe’s committee is (drum roll):

    “The emails were written by the
    world’s top climate scientists, who
    work at the most prestigious and
    influential climate research
    institutions in the world. ”

    Real smart of those guys to figure that out.

  21. Leif says:

    Current US economic policy, encouraged by the GOP, is building sustainable infrastructure in China and else where with money that should be doing the same here. Generating cash, job, security and products here. It is called “value added energy.” Not “Deficit Spending!”

    Palm notes are acceptable.

  22. PSU Grad says:

    One other thing….these are supposed to be “fiscal conservatives”. How much did the production of this nonsense report cost? So why spend taxpayer’s money on this meaningless exercise?

    Again, their point is to attack scientists and try to discredit them. It didn’t used to be this way in this country. Scientists and the scientific method may not have been revered, but they were at least respected. Now we attack scientists and cherry pick emails when their conclusions don’t conform to what our financial backers want (and we all know what that means when it comes to politicians).

    That may be too strong for this interview format. But why did they spend our tax dollars on this?

  23. Jeff Huggins says:

    I saw Stephen Schneider, of Stanford and the IPCC and the Peace Prize and etc. (and also a MacArthur “Genius” Grant winner, I believe), speak at Stanford recently. He had a good deal to say about the way the press has misunderstood and incorrectly conveyed the recent e-mail issue and others, and how the press is doing an incredible disservice to the public — and to democracy — given the poor and confusing coverage of climate change.

    I’d suggest to Fox (or anyone else) that they ought to talk to him.

    You too, Joe, should talk to him a lot, if you haven’t already. The two of you — along with others, of course — could accomplish a great deal together.

    He is, in my view, a genius, and he understands how “far off” the media coverage of climate change has been, in most cases and ways.

    (Although I can’t speak for him, based on what he said at the talk, I think it’s quite likely that he’s not very fond of what Fox News is doing.)

    Definitely, and for the sake of the record, please suggest to Fox that they interview Stephen. That way, you can at least say that you did. Then, we can see if they call him and invite him.

    Cheers and Good Luck,

    Jeff

  24. SecularAnimist says:

    Cut to the chase. Mention the thousands and thousands of dollars in “campaign contributions” that the fossil fuel corporations have paid Inhofe to deny, delay and obstruct action to phase out the use of their products.

    E.g. “With all due respect, Senator, you are a bought-and-paid-for tool of ExxonMobil, and as such you lie for money.”

  25. Leif says:

    Is FOX monitoring this site to see what your talking points might be and working up rebuttals as we speak?

    Here is one for you FOX. Your continued campaign against the scientifically proven concepts and the obvious long term ramifications of continued neglect are detrimental to the fiscal and social well-being of the Nation. IMO, your actions are nothing short of treason, not only to the American people but humanity the world over.

  26. Prokaryote says:

    A list of all science bodys confirming the scientific consensus that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gases is handy.

    Further point out that beside science, the military, cia, cdc, envrionmental groups, the vatican – the pope, the majority of the US people, several agencys, most democrats and some republicans acknowledge the growing threat of climate change.

    Further point out that even countrys like israel or saudi arabia starting to phase out fossil energys – a list would be handy.

    Point out that the IPCC is often underestimating – would be nice to summarize the main findings, specialy the MIT model projections and similar.

    Have in mind that you speak to the tv crowed not inhofe. Don’t forget to mention your website.

  27. Dave says:

    Be careful out there… especially if they decide they’re going to make you debate a denier. The media, Fox News especially, likes to manufacture debate. They had Bill Nye debate Joe Bastardi on O’Reilly last night and Joe Bastardi wouldn’t even admit carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas. So sometimes the deniers like to make up their own facts and go with them.

  28. Prokaryote says:

    Point out that greenhouse gases such as methane not yet covered by the IPCC!

    Climate change could be accelerated by ‘methane time bomb’
    Climate change could be accelerated dramatically by rising levels of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere, scientists will warn today.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7289698/Climate-change-could-be-accelerated-by-methane-time-bomb.html

  29. Anon says:

    “Saying a 3,000 word report is discredited because of three minor errors is like saying your house is uninhabitable because the numbers on the mailbox were transposed.” I think I made that up, but it’s possible someone beat me to it.

  30. Prokaryote says:

    Inhofe calls for investigation of researcher Michael Mann
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/23/inhofe-calls-for-investigation-of-researcher-michael-mann/

    James Inhofe to EPA Chief: ‘I Really Like You,’ but Global Warming Is a ‘Hoax’
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/23/james-inhofe-to-epa-chief-i-really-like-you-but-global-warm/

  31. Leif says:

    Try to Shame FOX into playing a video of the Military point of view posted earlier.
    At least watch it on there own time if company policy prohibits on the job porn, science and military perspective.

  32. Joe,

    Late, sorry.

    Conspicuously display a stack of Tobacco Industry studies & reports & testimonies with you.

    Seriously, if you don’t compare the Exxom denial campaign to the Tobbacco cancer denial campaign at least 3 times, you won’t get your message out.

    Hmmmm… How about a comparison to the investment bankers?

    Good luck. –IANVS

  33. Icarus says:

    I think you need to go on the offensive: Ridicule the stunt with the igloo; ask (rhetorically) how someone who clearly doesn’t even understand the weather can possibly think he knows anything at all about climate; point out some of the absurd things that Inhofe and his ilk have said which can be swiftly debunked – make him look the idiot that he is. Point out the dishonesty such as when Inhofe misrepresented the WMO report in December. Ask the audience whether they want to trust Inhofe given that your national security service identify global warming as a major risk to the future of your country. Echo Bill Nye’s point that lying about global warming isn’t just dishonest, it’s unpatriotic because it puts your country’s future at risk. Show how Inhofe and other deniers are making monkeys out of the public who don’t know enough to be able to see the truth for themselves. It’s an insult to their intelligence.

    You can’t expect to win this encounter with a dispassionate discussion of scientific facts – go on the attack. If you can succinctly put across the gross incompetence and cynical dishonesty of the anti-science crowd that you write about so well here, you’ll have done a good job.

  34. Greg L. Gorman says:

    You should take the opportunity to point out some of the related issues:

    A. Release of CO2 into the atmosphere and subsequent acidification of ocean affecting our fisheries and corral reefs.
    B. Diversification and growth of our energy sources for renewable energy brings jobs and investment to US.
    C. Energy Security.

  35. Dennis says:

    “Ask the audience whether they want to trust Inhofe given that your national security service identify global warming as a major risk to the future of your country.”

    This raises an excellent point. Inhofe said that the military who are calling climate change a national security issue represent just a few of the brass. But he throws that logic out the window when addressing the science of climate change.

  36. D Miller says:

    Focus on jobs and the economy.

    The largest industry in the 21st century global economy will be clean energy and we have to decide right now whether we’re going to lead or become a 2nd-rate power. And the only way we’re going to be able to unleash American innovation and lead is by putting a price on carbon.

    There are many studies out there (including my own) that show how the right energy policy will create millions of jobs and generate enormous economic growth (and the core of the right policy is putting a price on carbon with 100% auction, using the funds for energy efficiency, etc.)

  37. max says:

    You don’t go to a plumber to have a cancer removed, you go to a cancer surgeon, and you don’t go to a politician for his knowledge of climate science, you go to a climate scientist.

    Deniers seem to argue that we can’t predict the future but we buy insurance all the time to protect us from possible occurrences in the future. Adopting clean energy and carbon pollution policies is insurance we buy to protect the future and that have immense ancillary benefits-like not subsidizing unfriendly oil-rich regimes and preparing us for diminishing amounts of this resource in the not distant future.

  38. Jay Turner says:

    The distinguished senator from Oklahoma is fond of twisting traditional Christian views to serve his own ends. If Senator Inhofe mocks predictions of sea level rise, you could point out that God never promised to prevent us from melting glaciers and causing a few feet of sea level rise. We reap what we sow. World War II is an example of self-inflicted pain on a global scale. We can’t blame God for what we do to ourselves. Major climate disruption might be analogous to the fall of Rome–a huge, painful setback to civilization. Humanity will survive, so it won’t be “the end of the world”, but it will be the end of OUR world (i.e., society as we know it).

  39. Dan Carroll says:

    Climate change is a fraud and you know it. In November, we will restore the Republic and the people pushing this fraud must be put on trial and be held accountable for the biggest fraud in history. Bernie Madoff has nothing on you.

  40. MacKenzie says:

    I just want you to know that Inhofe promotes oil because OKLAHOMA MAKES ITS MONEY FROM OIL!! Its not promoting dirty air its promoting making money so oklahomans arent over taxed. and as for your “global warming crap” its not gettin any warmer where im from its getting colder and that includes in the summer also! so just leave it alone. weather and climate are natural things just like oil. so can you tell me how you can change the weather? if you can will you please make it warmer?

  41. Helen K says:

    I watched you on Neil Cavuto. You are obviously a true believer but I am not buying what your selling. I think this is a bigger scam than Bernie Madoff. I have called my congressman and I want charges brought against anyone that cost me a single dollar w/ this phoney baloney science.

  42. Joseph H says:

    You guys are the epitome of “sky is falling” silliness.
    Too bad there is not a Nobel for “wrongness” Anyway, enjoy a world of socialism if you are successful.

  43. Keegs says:

    Wow. You seem just like another conspiracy theorist. You as well shun the idea that there doesn’t need to be further evidence. You seriously need to get down to earth and stop being radical. You all should stop using scare tactics to get funding to support your greedy pockets.

  44. Rules says:

    This whole global warming issue is a bunch of BS!!! Global warming as just a way for you progessives to control our lives and make yourselves rich!!

  45. Brandon says:

    You are making a mockery of the climate movement. There is plenty of real data available, no need to use faulty data. Please stop embarrassing us.

    [JR: Yes, NOAA has faulty data! Not.]

  46. Not an Idiot says:

    Idiots…you’re all idiots.

  47. mike says:

    Well, the idiots are out in force, it’s pretty clear your segment has aired.

    [JR: And these are just the printable comments!]

  48. Brian says:

    You better quit using straw man arguments. Senator Inofe nor anyone else I know wants dirty air.

    [JR: Then why does he vote against clean energy and vote to gut the Clean Air Act?]

    For you to say our arguments against global warming is for a dirty planet just shows that you are a person that believes what he believes and don’t confuse you with facts. And by the way, Phil Jones did say that there hasn’t been any significant warming since 1995, and that the medieval warm period was actually warmer than it is now.

    [JR: He didn't say either of those things. Try again.]

  49. Chris H says:

    Freezing here in the coldest winter maybe ever. Record snow in the south. Global warming? Bah. When Al Gore sells a couple of his jets, maybe two or three of his mansions and donates it all to some charity, tells all his blue-lipped Kool Aide swilling followers to do the same (and they actually do) then maybe I’ll take it serious. In the meantime, it’s “do as I say, not as I do.” You people are just looking for a nice place to park your Volvo. When the Dems are kicked out in Nov, maybe the first order of business should be to send Gore and his ilk to prison under RICO statutes.

  50. Don says:

    Unfortunately, you did not make your case on Cavuto (Fox News). Of course, I think the whole climate change initative is a hoax and you just validated my belief. In the utility industry, we use a sixty year weather cycle to predict profitability and, guess what, it is generally accuarate. There are warm periods and cold periods and they follow a normal cycle. Al Gore and company are in this for the money. Check it out!!

  51. Russ H says:

    Well done with the TV appearance and the plug at the end for your blog. Keep up with the good work!

  52. saintknowitall says:

    How much money do you receive each year to “find” global warming is a “fact”? Ooops. Sorry to expose the capitalist underbelly of the Global Warming Industry.

    Pure science takes all perspectives in mind and CONTINUALLY re-evaluates theories and conclusions. I don’t see the skeptical attitude of a true scientist in your TV appearance. I see someone who is married to the idea of human caused global warming, and NOTHING will change your mind. Therefore, you are not a true scientist.

  53. Yeah just watched you and Inhofe, and you really look and sound ignorant, I mean to say, you cannot expect people to believe algore and your science fiction with all the date manipulation going on, your in the big pockets its clear to see, show us who it is thats funding your publications and well find out who is really pushing this crap on the American people, why don’t you go to Norway or the UK if you are so damn worried about people giving up their livelyhood for a fake drastically ignorant idea like climate change, or better yet why don’t you get all the lawyers up on earth and see if you can sue the sun for climategate change, you people are LOSING, we are winning, you never talk about the Keyote Treaty and how the us has eclipsed expectations of that loser treaty, look I know this is probably something you have devo banksters ted your life to but your not as important as the rest of the population of this or any other planet, go ahead and hate against me for telling the truth I don’t care the main thing is you look stupid! You people will not be satisfied until the masses are walking down the freeways or riding horses which even in those times you will call for elimination of horses due to the emissions off of their horse crap, you people are nuts!

  54. Barry Bin Inhalin says:

    WOW, I agree with Dan, you folks need to get some air.

    I just watched the Cavuto interview and must say I think Joe is very well intentioned, but a nut nonetheless. Newsflash (in everything but the WaPo): there is no such thing as man-made global warming. Period. Now exhale. Good, much better.

    Can any of the soccer moms here explain the MCO (in more than one sentance)?

  55. Johnny says:

    I find myself watching all different sorts of news channels and I was watching Fox for a bit today. I’m so glad that you were on Neil’s show. At the end of Inhofe’s comments, I almost had to vomit. Literally, his lack of understanding for what climate crisis actually involves, it was making me nauseated. So thank you. Thank you, thank you. I can’t believe that people can try to say things like “Global warming is disputed by climate scientists.” You answered perfectly when you said “No, that’s not disputed.” Anyways, it probably wasn’t the easiest, but I appreciated it. So for a last time, thank you.

  56. D Miller says:

    Nice job.

    I don’t think I’d be able to hold my composure so well after listening to Inhofe and the Fox News host…

  57. Brian says:

    Just saw one of your Corrupt Climate Clowns on Cavuto. Is this the site where all the fraud originates from? Where are you, in your mom’s basement? Why don’t you all get a real job that actually benefits your country freakin nut jobs. THE SKY IS FALLING!!! HA HA HA HA HA

  58. Dl says:

    I could not believe my ears. Who does Neil Cavuto think he is to question a great mind like yours. I am not a very educated person. I am in college now, but to me it sounded like you knew what you were talking about scientifically. Although, I did have a little trouble
    following you. I have listened over the years about global warming, so
    here is the problem I can not wrap my un-educated mind around. All these years we were preached to about G.W and all of a sudden when it
    is snowing all over and the worst winter in years all of you are saying the warmth is creating extra moisture that comes down as snow. Now I say that is possible except (now heres where I get confused) if global warming existed it would just fall as rain, but it seems to me that it is cold therefore, it falls as snow. Come on, its time to get out and get a real job and quit making your millions on the fear of some of the people who won’t even be here in 30 – 40 years. Way to go Neil.

  59. Lore says:

    Great job Joe…

    You must have had an effect. You’ve upset and brought out the denial loonies with their usual round of bogus points.

    Poor James, Captain Queeg, Inhofe.

  60. smiley says:

    Watermelons.

    [JR: Fruits!]

  61. I am convinced that Global Warming is a government marketing scheme. I watched you say that the senator “wants dirty air”, and that he “wants to continue our oil addiction”. Now, your an educated man. Why would anyone want that? I want oil to be drilled domestically to bring down prices to buy us time to develop green technologies. Instead the Government gets 50% of oil companys profits. Oil companies jack the prices and intelligent entrepreneurs/inventors or researchers either have to get a 9-5 or go work for the government. Now tell me what the feds have done right as far as new developements. I can dispell any of it. Now I never went to college but I can tell you that on my own research I know for a fact that any evidence you give of Global Warming is easily discredited. If you wanna get a lesson from a 27 yr old Rapper. I will be glad to give it to ya! I want my environment to be clean. I don’t want mercury filled light bulbs in my home. I want my tax money back so I can design my own green technology. And I don’t trust my government so I don’t trust any scientist that works for them or the media.

  62. Prokaryote says:

    The burning heat of Lagos
    If you’re currently in Lagos and reading this, then you belong to one of two groups of people. The people who are trapped beneath the sweltering heat of Lagos or those who are sitting in air conditioned rooms who simply refuse to go outside. I don’t blame the latter. I’ve been outside, got my sunburns and I totally agree.

    Lagos is hot

    I don’t mean the soft basking warmth of the sun like you would expect to encounter in the Caribbean. This is heat as the sun originally intended it to be: Pure unadulterated warmth. The kind of heat that encourages people to volunteer overtime in their air conditioned office. The kind of heat that forces people who sell “pure water” to break their rules and drink-up all their water. The kind of heat that forces a journalist to wake up at 2 in the morning; grab his laptop and type this article whilst sitting in front of his open fridge.

    That kind of heat.

    Lagos seems to be melting and it’s hard to place why.

    The problem with the current heat wave is that I do not recall Lagos being so warm.
    http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/News/Metro/5530282-182/story.csp

    Heatwave conditions at Soundwave
    About 40,000 youths and middle-aged music lovers dropped like flies under a scorching 30 degree sun at the Eastern Creek Raceway where little to no shade was available.

    It was a surreal scene as lines at the St Johns Ambulance tent were at least 10 times those at any of the large number of bars as youths pleaded for sun screen only to be turned back into the burning sweating masses.
    http://mt-druitt-standard.whereilive.com.au/news/story/heatwave-conditions-at-soundwave/

  63. Joe Geshel says:

    I just watched your appearance on the Neil Cavuto Program. I must say that you are still “in denial” that the recent revelations by the primary source of climate information isn’t alarming. It’s director is not a scientist but a railroad engineer. The vaunted “peer review process” that scientist adhere to was completely disregarded by the IPCC and especially CRU. The tree ring data has been shown to be of dubious value. The temperature collections by NOAA, NASA, and anybody else has built in bias and the locations are always locally changing. The intentional misuse of data collected and the direct lies of what it shows doesn’t bother you. The destruction of data or temperature collection records doesn’t seem to affect your belief in this “scientific research”. That is an awful position to take. Surely, a reasonable man, would now have some doubt that there is such a thing as anthropogenic golbal warming.

    In addition, the graph that was shown during the interrview clearly contradicts the stated facts that there has not been any temperature rise in the last 15 years. Just who can you, or me for that matter, believe? There is doubt all over the place now, and you seem to be the lead spokesperson for the “NEW DENIERES”. Now you know!

  64. Gary M says:

    We are just out of a “mini” ice age ending about 1850. I hope to warm a little. Look up information on the Mini Ice Age. Find out what it did to Europe and the Vikings. We have been warming slightly since then, thank God.

  65. Jay Turner says:

    On his senate website, Senator Inhofe has an impressive-looking petition signed by a bunch of scientists, but when you look closely, you’ll see a lot of familiar names–like Fred Singer and Pat Michaels, and a whole bunch of geologists–and not many actual climate scientists.

    It’s not reasonable to expect geologists to be subject-matter experts on climate science. And there was a poll reported on January 20, 2009 by MSNBC that said that about half of geologists questioned the scientific consensus on AGW but only a few percent of real climate scientists did. Given the professional bias of geologists in favor of the extractive industries, it’s easy to see why they might be more likely to see eye-to-eye with the fossil fuel industries.

    My take on it is that the more you know about the actual research that’s been done on AGW the more likely you are to agree with the consensus.

    It makes more sense to rely on the views of actual climate scientists rather than people who have interests to defend, whether the interest is financial, professional, or ideological.

  66. BT says:

    I saw the interview and thought Neil was very fair to you. I find it interesting that many suggested that you “ask how someone who clearly doesn’t even understand the weather can possibly think he knows anything at all about climate” when many of the so called experts can’t predict the weather from day to day.

    One thing I would like to know, if the temperature has been increasing for so long and it is the warming temperatures that cause more water vapor to be in the air thus causing the greater snow and rain this past year, then why haven’t we had this type of record snow over the past ten years? Why haven’t we have been flooded every year in the summer? Why didn’t the blizzards that we had in the late 70s continue up until this year? The bottom line is it is folly to think that mankind can have that kind of affect on this planet, especially when the climate models don’t take into account water vapor and sun activity. You are all very foolish.

  67. oh, by the way my number is 484 366 4638

  68. Dennis Smith says:

    amazing that you actually mentioned global warming caused the olympics at Vancouver to be warmer than usual and having to bring in snow for the olympics… there is something called el nino that is warming up vancouver/washington state not global warming. duh!

    [JR: Who told you about el nino? I hope it wasn't scientists, because they can't be trusted!]

  69. PSU Grad says:

    Lore @59: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Joe must have scored and scored hugely, because they’re spitting all over themselves.

    And the similarity between #39 and #41 is amazing. I guess that’s the same individual under two different aliases, or the latest “script”.

  70. jim greiwe pilot says:

    does your body cool itself by sweating. answer yes

    if your body will not sweat what happens? answer heat stroke

    is body sweat condensation? answer yes

    does the earth cool itself through condensation ? yes

    how did the earth cool itself 1000′s of years ago when lava was forming the earth. answer condensation so condensation is the total answer to saving the world!!

  71. Daniel Rolea says:

    The people who embrace global warming have something in common:
    They are progressists;
    They are fanatics about that;
    They are atheists;
    They want to change people and people habits without changing theirs;
    They do not admit other opinions so they have a tendency of dictatorship;
    In their life at least once they considered logical to implement a kind of measure to reduce population because earth is overpopulated;
    they usually have a living in connection with this subject;
    Their secret goal is to implement the control over everything;

    Hey folks think about that and change your life first before trying to change others. Otherwise you are hypocrites, and looks like that is a newest job on the planet.

  72. Peter says:

    Think you’re an idiot. Inhofe is right. You’re an idiot

  73. Papatom says:

    You know it’s not enough that the junk science used to bolster the hoax of anthropogenic climate change is unsound, but then when the ‘consensus’ is shattered by half the world’s scientists, you attack them as stupid, as flat earthers, as deniers, etc.

    It makes you look like the childish bully control freaks that you are. Your precious computer models cannot duplicate past climate trends with known data, and you want us to believe you can use them to predict the future? Tie that to the fact that even if you do all the things you desire(which would destroy the economy…or is that the point here?), it would not make a dent in the CO2 in the atmosphere or reduce the global temperature. And by the way, how do you measure the temperature of the earth? You’re just not happy unless you are scaring the bejesus out of the folks.

    And finally, with regard to the whole unfriendly oil rich regimes we are supposedly financing…..perhaps you ought to look at the list of top 15 oil importing countries to the US. The top 5 are Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. OK, you could make an argument for Chavez, but let’s get real here, there are no terror friendly countries on the list.

  74. Alan says:

    I would ask the senator how his opinion on the reality of global warming would change, if at all, if he were to wake up one morning to find that every key player in the “debate” has reversed their position. No matter what he answers I would ask him to explain his reasons.

  75. Peter says:

    Rot in hell

  76. Nick Agostino says:

    Sorry,although it used to be intuitive that we were resonsible for Global Climate Change,I no longer believe we are resonsible for the majority of change. The whole Solar System is warming and it’s been warmer with more CO2 in the past.Many of us are now convinced Global Warming Syndrome is being used to gaused to gain Legal and Financial control by The Progressives and we just won’t allow it. There’s no longer any Credibility in that Camp. Sorry. We no longer have short memories about those who get caught lying.

  77. Daniel Rolea says:

    In hell is global warming and Peter is the security there.

  78. Joe,

    Did not play well.

    Cavuto allowed Inhofe to clearly hit all his denial talking points, but kept misdirecting you with misleading questions & interrupting your explanations with patronizing sound-bites. Suggest you ditch FOX NEWS for more rational venues. Why give Rupert’s Denial Machine any hint of credibility?

    In addition, out here in SoCal on Cox HD Cable, while you explained the difference between climate & weather, the HD broadcast froze up at least half a dozen times. Watts up with that?

    [JR: Someone's gonna do it. I mainly do it for the practice. Cavuto treated me differently than in the past, so I wasn't prepared for that. Next time, I will be.]

  79. Dan says:

    What caused the last Ice Age? Is it possible that the Earth goes through climate cycles? Why are some scientist finding through ice core samples that CO2 levels actually follow Temperature levels, and not the opposite?

    I’m all for cleaner energy and reducing (or eliminating) the use of foreign oil. I want GM out of business for killing the EV1, purchasing Hummer, and sleeping with “big oil” for many years. However, using Mother Nature as a platform to push a Socialist agenda is wrong. I’d have much more respect if you just had the balls to say want you really want.

  80. Gilroy says:

    The earth has been warming and cooling for eons without any help from man. There weren’t any SUVs 1000 years ago. Mother Nature is going to do what she is going to do without any help from us… thankyouverymuch. To think that we have usurped her, or ever could, is arrogance to the empth degree. I’m old enough to remember the Time Magazine cover in the 70′s declaring “The Coming Ice Age.” When are we going to stop this nonsense? Man-made climate change is the biggest con in the history of science. This world-wide hoax is simply a power grab by Socialist-leaning politicians, and a money-maker for the likes of Al Gore and his Band of Merry Environmentalists. To think that so many people are naive enough to fall for this scam just sickens me. Shame on us. But ya’ gotta see the humor in both Al Gore and Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Need we know anything more as proof that this game is rigged?

  81. Joe Geshel says:

    I get a kick out of people who believe that we can get “clean energy” from renewable resources. It takes a lot of dirty energy to produce the renewables. The net difference is a dirtier planet. Scientiffically, it can’t be done. People of the earth should not waste their time trying. Science teaches this fact. But the neo-scientists deny it. Now you know.

  82. Daniel Rolea says:

    Yes, let the machine to brain wash you so you will be controlled.

  83. Prokaryote says:

    I suggest to delete the fabricated entrys from the organized “deniers”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

    Pretty obvious if you ask me.

  84. co2isnotevil says:

    Joe,

    I just watched the interview and Cavuto made you look foolish. It’s very clear that your agenda, and not the science, is behind your convictions. We will be done with oil eventually and you should trust market forces to point us in the right direction to prepare and accommodate for this eventuality. History shows us that government intervention is always sub optimal and usually more harmful than doing nothing at all.

    You inappropriately attempt to tie not wanting to regulate CO2 with not wanting to regulate harmful pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant, let alone a harmful one. It’s the primary raw ingredient for all life on Earth. Of course, we should do whatever it takes to reduce harmful pollutants, which we are doing quite well. Anecdotally, new cars are so clean, you can no longer commit suicide by running your car in the garage with the door closed.

    You claimed that Vancouver’s relative warmth caused them to import snow. This is incorrect. It’s the fact that El Nino has moved the storm track south and they are getting little precipitation which is why they must import snow. Where I ski in California, it’s been an exceptional snow year with colder than average temperatures. Notice how cooler temperatures during storms affect the average?

    You said that warmth evaporates more water vapor which create more storms. In fact, evaporating water vapor cools by 3 distinct mechanisms. First is the latent heat of evaporation. Second is when the evaporated water falls as rain, it is almost always cooler than the surface it falls on. Third is when rain falls as snow, more solar energy is reflected and cooler temperatures result. The other effect is clouds, which both reflect energy and trap surface energy, which mostly offset each other.

    In other words, the climate system is dominated by negative feedback driven by evaporation, which means the intrinsic 0.66C rise that would be caused by doubling CO2 is not amplified to between 1.5C and 4.5C (per the IPCC), but attenuated to a value smaller than 0.66C.

    George

  85. Papatom says:

    I just found out you guys are part of center for american progress!!!!

    Now it is all clear. You are really a bunch of america hating progressive socialist loons who will do anything to destroy capitalism and the constitution and form your own little utopia.

    You will not succeed.

  86. Steve E says:

    Every time I see and hear someone that avoids Question and will not respond with out avoiding the question there is something wrong. How can we believe anything that comes out of that persons Mouth.

  87. Bill Waterhouse says:

    Joe – Good job!  You got the NOAA bar chart up there on Fox for almost 15 seconds (it looked like it made Cavuto’s head hurt to have to look at it) and you also got in the warm January data. Good explanation of more moisture in the air leading to precipitation. Noticing the quality of postings since the broadcast, there are positives and negatives from broadcasting the website’s name.

    [JR: Thanks. If I had known that I would be kept on so long, I would have tried for a second chart. Comments tend to bring out the extremists, but the thing about FoxNews is that they actually have all lot of independents watching.]

  88. Joe,

    We second Prokaryote’s motion: flush all the WattsUpHisBeckers.

    WOOOSSSHHH!!!

  89. Ron East says:

    I have determined that just because someone has a big degree doesn’t always mean they are smart. global warming is not happening it is a way for liberals to get richer and many so called scientist. It reminds me of the evolution theory that says we evolved from apes and others who say we came out of the ooze of the earth what kind of idiots do you people think we are. I guess what gripes me the worst is how they prey on ignorant, gullible people for their own personal gain. You cannot fool those of us that are actually informed on the truth but you keep using your intelligents or lack there of to fool as many as you can but I have found that the truth will come out in end.
    Ron East

  90. Zach H says:

    Joe, you were great! But what a farse, Cavuto clearly doesn’t want to discuss the facts and get down to the bottom line as he claimed. The comments put here by the ignorant are truly scary and my faith in humanity is shaken by them. Please people, read the literature and get the facts before you decide to libel Joe and the rest of us who want a clean (and prosperous) future for our progeny.

    [JR: I was okay -- better in the first half than the second where he just kept cutting me off and I hadn't mentally prepared for that. Practice, practice, practice, I say!]

  91. SecularAnimist says:

    Wow, it’s the Ditto-Head parade here today.

    I think this comment page constitutes scientific proof that watching and listening to the so-called “conservative” media causes brain damage.

    Rush Limbaugh, Fox News et al don’t just make these people ignorant by withholding facts and feeding them lies — they actually make them stupid by degrading their cognitive capabilities.

  92. PSU Grad says:

    I say keep all the posts out here. If you remove them, that’s simply more fodder for their endless “conspiracy” theories. Not to mention it preserves the collective denier insanity as a historical record. Might be useful someday when a future generation finds something else to deny.

    And I’ll bet all those posts came with IP addresses attached. Might not be a bad idea for an intern to track ‘em down, at least to discern any geographical distribution.

  93. Lore says:

    #79 The Devils Chaplain:

    This is Neil Cavuto’s modus operandi. Act the wide eyed humble noob when backed up and if your opponent’s points become too salient, quickly move to change the question while letting your advocate on the opposite side have full rein. Step beyond his ability to roll over you with the mic and he will cut yours.

    You are right, Cavuto is just another minor organ for Rupert’s media propaganda machine, but then where would conservative deniers get their talking points out? Certainly there are better venues for reasonable arguments and discussion.

  94. Pete Dunkelberg says:

    Wow, those in psychological denial of climate change are really showing off their problem!

  95. co2isnotevil says:

    Joe,

    The reason Cavuto treated you differently this time, was that in the past, he was somewhat neutral on the science, although he was certainly opposed to stupid regulation. Climategate caused him to interview many climate scientists on both sides the debate (yes, this is a debate and the science is not settled). As a journalist, I’m sure his experience would give him the ability to see past deception and all of the deceit is from the warmist side of the debate.

    George

  96. Prokaryote says:

    Guys read this article comments
    ____
    40,000 youths and middle-aged music lovers dropped like flies

    “I threw up from heat stroke an hour after getting in the door after going to 3 different bars trying to get under a tent.

    I ended up hiding behind a port-a-loo trying to escape. ”
    http://mt-druitt-standard.whereilive.com.au/news/story/heatwave-conditions-at-soundwave/

  97. _Flin_ says:

    Next time please it might be interesting to ask Sen. Inhofe why he wants to keep importing oil from Saudi Arabia instead of creating new clean energy jobs in Oklahoma.

  98. Michael T says:

    #95 Pete Dunkelbeg

    Absolutely! That is the best comment so far.

    I didn’t watch the interview, but it’s good to hear that Joe showed the decadal graph and the global temperature data for January.

  99. raleigh Latham says:

    Give em Hell and High Water Joe!!!!

  100. Reggie King says:

    You sir are a disgrace to the American way of life, you paint nature as an effect of man and therefore advocate a change of man’s activity for the purpose of establishing governmental control. You produce a disservice to the future of America, may your ability to continue to communicate your nonsense soon come to a total end.

  101. Carbon cartel says:

    Peabody coal is taking the EPA to court. It will force the EPA to show their own science and not what Greenpeace articles claim. I suspect people will no longer be able to hide behind friendly or unfriendly interview. We know combustion of carbon with Oxygen creates CO2. That is where agreement diverges. The EPA will not be able to use hearsy as evidence. I see this taking years.

  102. not-a-faux-news-viewer says:


    #

    I didn’t watch the interview, but it’s good to hear that Joe showed the decadal graph and the global temperature data for January.
    #

    From what I’ve seen of the faux-news viewer comments here so far, I’m inclined to think that he may as well have shown that graph to a bunch of barnyard animals.

  103. MarkB says:

    “From what I’ve seen of the faux-news viewer comments here so far, I’m inclined to think that he may as well have shown that graph to a bunch of barnyard animals.”

    I was going to comment on the level of discourse displayed by the denial fanatics here but now I’m laughing too much. It’s too close to the truth.

  104. Lore @94:

    re: “modus operandi”

    And Sean Hannity et al. And Glenn Beck is Jimmy Swaggart reincarnate. The devil made us do it.

    Although Bill O’Reilly (reminds us of dad) did give Bill Nye a fair & balanced shake vs Joe Bastardi yesterday in the No Spin Zone. The Science Guy needs practice too, & some bigger charts.

    Hey Joe, have you tried the No Spin Zone?

  105. RyanT says:

    Along the lines of comment 38, there may be an opportunity to remind Inhofe that our level of stewardship is an expression of free will, and our respect for Earth’s life-sustaining systems. Right now, we’re acting like spoiled brats, taking everything for granted.

    Another thing that might be needed again is the fact that we’re talking about accelerated change in the global averages, and effects on weather extremes. Regional winter snowstorms (in which moisture availability plays a key role) are not inconsistent with that.

  106. Richard L says:

    Joe,

    I missed the segment (Fox news is blocked from my TV service by the parental controls!). Will you be able to post a clip?

    By the comments, you certainly ‘reached’ a broad audience. Cheers to you!

  107. vicki countz says:

    Cavuto has a great mind too, it’s called common sense. In 1978 while
    in college I learned about “global warming”, not in science classes, not
    in geology, but in ECON 101! The children 41 and younger (I started college late)now have been exposed to this concept without debate or lecture but by trustful parents. The “science” would have to be unwound in our youth and then reinstated.
    However, this is a pollution and trash issue, not a climate issue. The USdoes not have 200 billion to jumpstart a new (global) bureacracy. Let’s just waste less and begin (slowly) unwinding the pollution levels as we can afford it. Am I the only one that realizes America is BROKE?

  108. Joe,

    Smell a skunk in the kitty litter @85 & 96.

  109. Mark says:

    A couple of times the last weeks, John Stossel said on highly-rated national TV programs that ‘according to the National Research Council Battery Electric Vehicles are just as polluting as gasoline vehicles (mentioning coal plants), and maybe more polluting than natural gas vehicles.’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0hZNaZ-Y70
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-1b0ym-WU

    Seems to me this claim/info is easily debated, and Joe Romm may be the most qualified person.
    I believe Stossel & Fox News will retract and qualify the statements if confronted with other facts.
    As for Stossel’s main point about warped Fed subsidies, I agree with him. But the large and long term value of electrifying transportation shouldn’t take a blindside blow by warped facts.

    An opportunity to get a Plug-In America spokesperson on one or both of the shows? Who is America’s best known and credentialed person who’s perceived as a nonpartisan leader?

    Last week I emailed an alert about this to Plug-In-America (they don’t do phones) and no response.

    I personally think that everyone should drop the phrases “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” because they are divisive. I’d prefer we all focus on solutions, and in general what Americans agree on. Most agree that we should reduce pollution and lower our dependence on oil (foreign oil first).

  110. RyanT says:

    Wow, I guess it’s already done. Talk about opening the floodgates of de-nial. :-)

    Have some of these people considered that climate is a confluence of both natural cycles (which during the holocene have tended to be short-term and of modest magnitude) and the cumulative human influence on the carbon cycle and greenhouse effect? Hmmm…

    Short-term fluctuation vs. longer-term climate trend anyone?:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

  111. Prokaryote says:

    PETALING JAYA: The current “long, hot summer-like” climate has brought many Malaysians much discomfort, with many ranting about being drenched in sweat.

    However, if you think the heatwave is bad, spare a thought for the people of Batu Arang, Selangor.

    The small town, located just after Rawang, derives its name from the many coal mines there.

    A major coal-mining town during British rule, Batu Arang has long since become a sleepy hollow.

    However, there is still coal beneath the ground, and the heat from the coal is giving the 12,000-odd residents something extra to sweat about.

    Temperatures of 41 degrees Celsius in the afternoons is a regular feature there. Richard Tang, who has lived in Batu Arang all his life, said there are several reasons the temperature in Batu Arang is higher than many other areas in the country.

    But the current heatwave is now wreaking havoc on the town, as it is heating up the coal beneath, making life extremely uncomfortable for residents.

    Tang believes that there is another reason for the extreme heat, and that is the deforestation several years ago.

    Most residents, Tang said, stayed indoors during the day taking several more cold showers to counter the heat.
    http://www.mmail.com.my/content/28177-its-hotter-batu-arang

  112. dhogaza says:

    Devil’s Chaplain says:

    Smell a skunk in the kitty litter @85 & 96.

    Chasing the link, I smell a powerful overdose of Dunning-Kruger effect.

  113. JasonW says:

    You certainly got them riled up, Joe. Good on you! Maybe you actually managed to reach a few dozen. Just maybe they’ll question what Fox is spoon-feeding them. I’m glad over here in Europe you can’t get the channel.

  114. Will says:

    The weirdest denier argument is that we are being “SO ARROGANT” to think man can change the climate and affect “mother nature”. I’ve seen it so many times it makes my eyes hurt. YOU CAN SEE MAN’S INFLUENCE FROM SPACE. We have DRAMATICALLY changed the face of this planet, physically, chemically, in every way. I simply will never understand how those people think.

    Joe I missed the segment, please post the video when available. I’m sure you did a great job as always.

  115. climate undergrad says:

    These responses are hysterical – Joe, pretty incredible that you and Al Gore made up this conspiracy theory out of your moms basement!

    But seriously – any chance you can post the video here?? I was unfortunate enough to tune in at 4 central and hear Glenn Beck compare the Global Warming “lie” to Nixons/Clintons lies.

    People who can’t discern the real conspiracy theory frighten me.

  116. Barry says:

    If the vast majority of the climate science is actually correct, future Americans will be suffering from an overheated, beyond-their-control climate.

    Ask him (and FOX anchor) who he thinks these 95%-likely-to-be-suffering Americans will hold responsible for delaying the fight against the climate threat while there was still time to avoid the worst of it.

    How many years in the political wilderness is the Republican Party willing to gamble on Inhofe & Co’s demands that Americans not act on a 95% probability of serious harm?

    At least Breckenridge had Cuba to flee to in his row boat. Somehow I don’t think any of those island nations will be willing to take in a ringleader of “delay” this time. Maybe somewhere else will take them…like…uh…hmmm…well…

  117. Liz Aitken says:

    wow Joe, you really brought some hatred and vitriole out of the woodwork!

    Can I just make the point to some of the climate change deniers getting nasty in the comments, that North America is NOT the “Globe” from Global warming, and while you guys are having your “snowgate” or whatever you call it, we are broiling in a really bad heatwave down in Australia….

    perspective please!

    This is a problem for the whole world – not just a problem for the US, so people in other countries are affected by the decisions made by you.

    Joe, as we do not receive the show you were on (thankfully by the sound of it…) could you please post a link. Thx

  118. dhogaza @112,

    re: “Dunning-Kruger effect”

    Bertrand Russell must’ve caught Neil Cavuto’s show, too.

    “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

    .

  119. Astounded Lurker says:

    Never in all my years had I imagined that I would live to see us enter another period so hostile to reason as that which Galileo Galilei faced. And yet here we are. It is a dark day for civilization when so many actively turn their backs on science and reduce all debate and dialogue to vapid childish responses of “no u”

    And these idiots are risking all our futures and that of their progeny because they are too lazy, too proud, too incurious and too zealous to even learn. I bet not a single one ever made it past Calc II, much less into nonlinear dynamics. And not a one has ever been involved actively in research beyond experiments done in high school lab classes. Unfortunately, my perception that one should actually have a modicum of understanding of a topic before weighing in so heavily will probably have me labeled an “elitist” and “unAmerican” by these quasi-populist buffoons being lead astray by their oligarchs…

    …but whatever.

    It can’t go on much longer this way. It just can’t. With this sort of cultural crisis favoring the willful rejection of science we face collapse. I just hope that we get a second chance when whatever it is that will wake some of these morons up actually happens.

  120. co2isnotevil says:

    Devil,

    Your ad hominem attacks don’t affect me. In fact, I find it amusing that warmists like yourself must resort to such tactics as their primary line of defense. If you have issues with my web site (besides the fact that I get an answer you don’t like), feel free to ask questions. My only purpose here is to enlighten you with the science. I recognize that you are woefully misinformed and I can help guide you through the fog.

    George

  121. Sam says:

    I wonder if all these morons will be still be in the “We won, you lost” mentality when, in a few decades or so, the USA remains utterly dependent on fossil energy, still purchasing most of its renewable energy capital goods from China/Germany/Japan.

  122. Prokaryote says:

    How is a paid denier reflecting his actions on attacking the science?

    Scenario 1
    So great i get 10$ per post? Or i get 100$ per day, while posting those transcript.
    Yeah it is just for a few weeks, month or years, doesn’t matter – does it?

    Scenario 2
    I work for this copmpany and surfing the internets while posting some comments is much more fun.
    It is not my decision! If someone will held accountable it will be my boss, not me!

  123. Michael T says:

    I read a study that found that people who are the most angry (i.e. conservatives), tend to be the least educated. Listening to some of these comments, I tend to agree with it.

  124. Zach H says:

    Joe, thinking back to the interview, I think Cavuto’s repeated argument was it was going to cost the US billions of dollars to implement these changes and that we’d have to cover the costs of other nations as well. I think that this misconception needs to be taken head-on (I guess that assumes he doesn’t cut you off before you get through the points):
    1. It’s far cheaper to address AGW now than it will be to engineer ourselves out of it later,
    2. We have the technology now to make a huge difference in the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere,
    3. We can make these changes to our energy economy and actually come out ahead of where we’ll be with the status quo (jobs, money & international competition)

  125. JasonW says:

    George, Blog Science is not what counts. Where’s that paper of yours demolishing AGW? There’s a Nobel down the road if you can pull it off.

  126. Jody says:

    Michael at @123, that explains the bad grammar, spelling, sentence construction and all around ridiculousness of their posts.

    Thanks, Joe, for taking on Inhofe.

  127. Lore says:

    #107 vicki countz:

    Aside from your comment that “Cavuto has a great mind too, it’s called common sense.”, which I would quibble with you about, you do at least raise an interesting point. Yes, we are “broke”, we went bust a decade ago. Some would say, the reality was, decades earlier through a series of asset bubbles. This however does not negate all the converging problems that face America or the rest of planet. If you get sick do you sit there because you can’t afford the doctor or do you seek help and a cure?

    Since you obviously understand that we cannot pay for our current way of life, then you need to decide what you would sacrifice to preserve life in general, for your future or that of future generations. Do we continue to try to sustain the unsustainable, or do we come to an epiphany, that what it costs to prop up what is failing needs to be reinvested in preserving the lives we have and that of every other natural living thing around us. Lack of money is the poorest, no pun intended, of excuses for inaction.

    The global bureaucracy you’re worried about is just another stawman argument presented to you by persons looking to raise a bogyman in order to perpetuate the status-quo, ala Inhofe. Listen to yourself, your own common sense should tell you that such a grand conspiracy in what you consider a broke world would seem to be very unlikely.

  128. paulm says:

    Hey Joe keep going. Good job.

    Have a look at this guys, bill nye. His system works well.
    .Stick to basic principles
    .bring the debate round to your points
    .keep regurgitating them in different ways
    .be calm
    .make the point that this is an emergency!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/bill-nye-joe-bastardi-deb_n_473370.html

  129. co2isnotevil says:

    Sam,

    How can the ends justify the means, when the means involves distorting science and trying to circumvent market forces. You know that if we were able to cut oil use, the price of oil would drop and someone else will gain a significant competitive advantage over use. Yes we will be buying renewable energy capital from China, but they will be using fossil fuels to manufacture them inexpensively. Don’t you get how capitalism works?

    The same is true with natural gas. Do you really think Pickens motives were altruistic? If we started using NG for transportation, the price of NG would necessarily skyrocket and it would cost me a whole lot more to heat my house, moreover, much if my electricity is produced with NG, which is already among the most expensive in the country owing to all of the ‘renewables’ in the PGE portfolio.

    George

  130. Doug Bostrom says:

    “We will be done with oil eventually and you should trust market forces to point us in the right direction to prepare and accommodate for this eventuality.”

    Yeah, we’ll replace fossil fuels with granulated subprime loan documentation. More proof of how we can trust market forces.

  131. George @120,

    Hey, if your basic science & comprehension skills stink, that’s not our fault. Complain to mom or your H.S. principal. We see your kind of stealthy deception all the time — yea, we watch Faux News & run into Glenn Beckers & Rush Limbaugh dittoheads all over the blogosphere. Did we miss anybody? Oh yes, Steve McIntyre’s WattsUpHisB*tters.

    And it’s the Devil’s Chaplain. We listen to his sins, too. Go on, my son.

  132. Barry says:

    Don’t be fooled. A lot of the spelling and grammar mistakes in the denial comments are intentional fabrications by the denial spam machine.

    There are many reasons the denier machine does this:

    For one, it makes it appear as if lots of “regular folks” support the delay and anti-science talking points. They want to recruit people less confident in self-evaluating the science by making it seem that people like them think such and such. Message: “regular folks believe X”. Don’t make it easier for them.

    Secondly it baits the climate concerned folks into making “elitist” put downs proving the denialist meme that it is pointy-head liberals vs regular hard working down to earth folks. They want a class war on this. Don’t give it to them.

    Third, there aren’t many even pseudo-scientific arguments left to refute the clearly warming climate data. The few strongholds of denier “science” like watt’s and spencer’s stuff is falling apart. The denial machine is plenty smart enough to know that record heat is coming, and will keep coming. The signal is emerging more and more from the noise. What is left to big fossil is a narrative of “us vs them”. The ever popular “silent majority” thang. They don’t need or want calm, well-reasoned, polite, scientific voices in this stage of the battle. They want emotional class war.

    As you read these denier comments everywhere, remember that many of them are part of this fictional narrative created by big fossil to drive a big enough wedge between Americans to hold off climate progress a while longer.

    The best rebuttal is to join the “kitchen table dialog” with these (often fake) voices, just as you would with your family and friends and neighbours. Be respectful and make your points with their best interests at heart. After all that is what we all have at stake in this. The best interests of each other.

  133. co2isnotevil says:

    Doug,

    It seems to be that the sub prime loan crisis was caused by attempting to subvert market forces by compelling the GSE’s to make a market for loans that no bank in their right mind would make. If market forces were permitted to prevail, none of those loans would have been made in the first place. See what we get for trying to be altruistic and make housing available to those who can’t afford it? It’s not that this is surprising either, as many of the opponents of legislation targeted at ‘fair housing’ touted banking collapse as a possible consequence.

    George

  134. MapleLeaf says:

    The thread started off OK, but now it seems the Faux news acolytes have descended. Oh dear. Then again, reason also seems to be holding its own here quite well. Thanks for doing this Joe!

  135. David B. Benson says:

    I’m flabergasted.

  136. Lore says:

    Joe…

    I was waiting to see if your pair up with Inhofe would show up over on MediaMatters.org. They always have a watchful eye out for Cavuto.

    Your video is posted there with comment. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002230035

  137. Dean says:

    Joe – if you’re still reading – try this one:

    If an El Nino, which is about one degree of warming in a small part of the Pacific Ocean thousands of miles away, can affect things so much, think of what a few degrees globally could do.

    And this one:

    The IPCC has an error rate close to Encyclopedia Britannica. [I did look on their website, and they listed 3 errors for one report]

  138. John Hollenberg says:

    Joe,

    Good job! You are bringing some new people to the web site who might be the slightest bit curious to read about the actual science–and what better place to do that than climateprogress.

  139. The Wonderer says:

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Okay, a little of both.
    Good work Joe, and keep using your intelligents!

  140. mike roddy says:

    There were a bunch of us on Dot Earth who tried reasoned arguments with the sort of deniers who have showed up here today. Most of us couldn’t take it any more after a while.

    My advice to regular posters here is to not try to reason or argue with them, since it leads nowhere. When all else fails, they either talk about Gore or Mann or make up a statistic. Rational thought is not their strength. Cite the data if you feel like it and then send the children to their rooms: I normally steer them to wattsupwiththat or climateaudit, where their rants will be met by “sing it, brother!” from that bewildering crowd.

  141. Zach H says:

    George,

    Your argument that market forces will take care of it rings hollow. You haven’t figured in that we’re running out of oil, so even if we cut consumption we’ll still see prices rise due to lower supply. To compound issues, the cheap and accessible oil quickly running out, and the cost of extraction will continue to increase, i.e. Alberta tar sands.

  142. Dana says:

    Wow, you must have ruffled some feathers to get so many Cavuto-watching ignoramuses commenting here. Nice job Joe. At least you’ll have some nice site traffic stats today!

  143. Jeff Huggins says:

    I agree with Mike Roddy (Comment 141) …

    I too started over at Dot Earth, in its very early days, and over time, way too many ridiculous and (often) anonymous comments started cluttering things up and detracting from the (potential) usefulness and sanity of the whole thing. Most of the people making such comments were not interested, at all, in factual arguments or in learning of any sort. So, I don’t think it’s worth bothering with them. It’s a waste of time, unless you think someone has a sincere question, poses it sincerely, and seems very interested in learning from the get-go.

    We need a better educational system here in the U.S., period.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  144. Garden tips says:

    Great site. I look forward to reading more.

  145. Leif says:

    This kind of “free for all” is difficult to discuss and answer questions that have been answered time and again in the past, on this site and others. I doubt that if we took the time to address any, that there would be sincere follow up. On the other hand it might be good to pick a number of the longer, (more rational?) A-S posts and link to debunk sources. It could be a Q & A page to go to.

    Reading thru the above posts, it was stunning to see the different comments before and after your appearance Joe. It might be interesting to do a list of questions collected from “real live” Anti-Science folks and answered by real live commentators that you get every day on this site. Maybe a Press tutorial or something. Hand out for home printing???

  146. ken levenson says:

    wow…
    to all rational new comers, welcome!
    to all the anti-evolution, anti-gravity, anti-AGW nut jobs – don’t let the door hit you….

  147. Ghost Hunter says:

    Let’s presume you have sciene on your side. Okay, fine. Let’s add a second presumption that the real purpose behind your movement is that you all are really caring and compassionate people who just want to save humanity. Or maybe you could give a !%#$?! about humans and want to save the earth FROM humanity. And let’s add a third presumption that you have really big brains packed full of massive amounts of intelligence that far surpasses the rest of us knuckle draggers. Isn’t it far better (and far smarter) to use the “truth” and “compassion” and “superior brain power” to win this battle instead of mockery and degradation? No, the vast majority of your supporting posters can’t control themselves. If you are so friggin’ smart, why do you act so “stupidly?” Your elitism has already seriously damaged your movement and will ultimately be your undoing. I guess you’re all a bunch of dumb-asses like the rest of us.

  148. Brewster says:

    It might be interesting to do a study to see how many facts have to be thrown at Faux News before all the nuts begin falling out of the trees.

  149. Jeff McLeod says:

    The bible belt deniers crawl out of their holes and into climateprogress.org! Who knows, maybe they’ll read some posts and learn something new.

  150. John Hollenberg says:

    Re: #147

    If we presume that science is on our side (or rather, that we are on the side of science), lets get to the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem. The rest of your post is a diversion.

  151. Ben Lieberman says:

    Very instructive comments section this time, but we already know from long experience what the global warming deniers will do to a comments section.

    In keeping with their logic the deniers have also signed a pledge to carry out the following actions:

    If someone in their family is unfortunate enough to get cancer they will solemnly swear to ignore the advice of 97 percent of all oncologists.

    If their brakes are broken they will ignore the advice of 97 percent of all mechanics and just keep driving down the highway.

    So if you get heart disease or your house has a crumbling foundation should you ignore the advice of 97 percent of all cardiologists and structural engineers just because Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck tell you everything is going to be ok>

  152. Ghost Hunter says:

    Re: #150

    Your statement that the rest of my post is just a diversion is only your opinion. I guess in your elistist world that means its a settled fact. Arrogance confirmed. I rest my case, your honor.

  153. Ghost Hunter says:

    Re: #151

    So what you are saying is that scientific “facts” are confirmed by consensus, huh? So I guess that means the consesus from the middle ages proves that the world is flat, right? To compare science to medicine, auto mechanics and construction is just a little bitty light year off the mark.

  154. Prokaryote says:

    Top10 ways to handle a smear campaign

    Think Through Your “Media Strategy” before You Go Public. If you are an academic taking on a “third rail” issue for the first time, you are likely to face a level of public and media scrutiny that you have never experienced before. It is therefore a good idea to think through your basic approach to the media before the firestorm hits. Are you willing to go on TV or radio to defend your views? Are there media outlets that you hope to cultivate, as well as some you should avoid?
    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/22/on_grabbing_the_third_rail

    Think this was an incredible job here with the fox/inhofe case today. Do not get distracted by the denialist puppets.

  155. David B. Benson says:

    Ghost Hunter (147 & 152) — It is difficult to know how to treat the sillfully ignorant, who can’t be bothered to read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    for example.

  156. Sorry, but with all the loonies from Faux posting here right now, I figure “How OT could I possibly be?”

    http://verydemotivational.com/2010/02/23/demotivational-postersglobal-warming/

  157. RyanT says:

    “The vast majority, GH? Not sure about that, although the dismissive attitudes of the not-so-supportive posters is pretty clear, and may incite some reaction. I think the presumption that most proponents are “elitist” is itself a bit arrogant.

  158. Prokaryote says:

    From a scientific point of view it would be intresting to color the faux posts in red, analyze the timeframe they posted, the arguments (Are there any beside ad hominem attacks) and origins.

  159. Cugel says:

    Thank you Joe for taking this on, doing far better than most of us could, and for letting the anti-science irrationalists show their true worth here.

    I particularly liked the commmenter’s “when it’s snowing all over …”, which must be news to most of the world, particularly the Southern Hemisphere. It pretty much sums up the limited horizons of the deniers.

  160. dhogaza says:

    JasonW …

    You certainly got them riled up, Joe. Good on you! Maybe you actually managed to reach a few dozen. Just maybe they’ll question what Fox is spoon-feeding them. I’m glad over here in Europe you can’t get the channel.

    It’s available on satellite TV in Spain. A good friend there watches Glenn Beck at times. In her “how bleeping stupid can you americans be?” type moments.

  161. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    Definitely keep the antiscience comments on here. They are enlightening.

    Ghost hunter: Let’s presume we are all a bunch of dumb-asses. That doesn’t make us wrong now, does it? When future generations asked why you didn’t help stop global warming you can reply, “Because I don’t like science people–they’re too elitist”.

    There is a difference between intelligence and education. Just because some of us have decades of specialized training in one area does not make us more intelligent or elitist than someone who does not have that specialized training. My dad, now retired, was a mechanic. Not very good at book-learning, but a natural whiz with anything mechanical and electrical…maybe I should complain that he was elitist as he operated in a realm I couldn’t hope to occupy without decades of training.

    If I had told my dad a car problem wasn’t in the alternator but in the spark plugs–when I wouldn’t know how to find a spark plug without a manual and a flashlight–wouldn’t that make me rather arrogant (and silly) as those who have no background in science telling the varied array of scientists who have decades of experience that they are all wrong?

    Essentially, many of the comments here are on par with me telling my mechanic dad he’s got the basics of car mechanics all wrong. If I tried that with a mechanic other than my dad I’d also be mocked if I refused to change my mind when presented with evidence and a dozen mechanics all telling me the same thing.

    Incidentally, if our ‘elitism’ will be our undoing the bad news is that it will be your undoing as well–we’re all in a runaway truck together, and if we fail to work together to hit the brakes we’re in for a nasty ride.

  162. Daniel J. Andrews says:

    To compare science to medicine, auto mechanics and construction is just a little bitty light year off the mark.

    That is so elitist (to use your logic from a previous post). My dad started apprenticing in mechanics at age 14 in England. Over the years he has taken enough certifications to wallpaper several rooms. He studied diagrammatic manuals of everything from scooters to the Jarcoscoops (giant mining machines), and he was often flown to Colorado (from Canada) to repair those machines.

    You complain about elitism and then you turn around and infer the skill sets needed for one discipline are somehow ‘better’ than skill sets needed for another discipline?

  163. Paul Daniel Ash says:

    “To compare science to medicine…

    Self-pwn at February 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm. Nice one.

  164. Tyler Hamilton says:

    My head hurts.

    [JR: And these are only the "civil" comments.]

  165. Ben Lieberman says:

    It’s probably useless to ask again but deniers: if you were diagnosed with heart disease and 97 out of 100 cardiologists told you that you had severe blockages that required immediate surgery would you ignore their diagnosis because Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck told you everything was ok?

  166. Jeff Green says:

    It was disappointing to see Neil Cavuto quite cooly work it. But then its quite telling on how Fox News wants to play the game.

  167. E.A. says:

    The Denier comments here are hilarious. Apparently, they have yet to discover Google. Note to people, it let’s you debunk nearly all of their scientifically illiterate comments in about 30 seconds of searching. Imagine that Cletus!

  168. Berbalang says:

    The deniers are out in force today I see.

    I wish I had known about the Cavuto show earlier, one of the few times I would willingly watch that channel. You had obviously hit a nerve, well done!

  169. Please convey my heartfelt contempt to Mr Inhofe.

  170. dhogaza says:

    It’s probably useless to ask again but deniers: if you were diagnosed with heart disease and 97 out of 100 cardiologists told you that you had severe blockages that required immediate surgery would you ignore their diagnosis because Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck told you everything was ok?

    No, they’d ask the advice of some Saudi oil sheik…

  171. Robert says:

    Oh Denier/Liars,

    I can’t resist to reach out to you , though I fear I’ll never reach your minds! After reading your commits to Joe,s attempt at educating you, I realize it’s hopeless. You’ll not listen or think and the world will pass you by so very sooooooon! Case in point, below is a ‘Cut& Paste’ for your benefit from New Energy News concerning the new extreme developments that are being rushed into service in the next few years. The caption below might wet you apatite … no, not really for you will never believe the message this article presents! http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/

    “The report calls for 40 percent of power to come from wind turbines. Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, with molten salt to store energy, would form the backbone of the scheme, providing 60 percent of total electricity…CSP uses mirrors instead of solar cells to collect sunlight to produce steam and drive turbines to produce power… A 50-square-kilometer area covered in solar mirrors could theoretically meet all of Australia’s electricity demand.
    The report claims that 20 percent of the proposed CSP systems could be installed in four years, from 2011 to 2015…12 sites with a capacity of 3,500 megawatts each have already been selected for the solar installations…Biomass co-firing would be needed to back up solar plants in the throws of winter. The plan would also require new transmission lines between the solar- and wind-intensive areas and population centers…It calls for the total elimination of natural gas, not just coal…and envisions 100 percent electric vehicles by 2020…”

    Ya think it won’t happen here in America … wrong, wrong and wrong! I could go on but I do know I’m just wasting my time with fossil’s fools!

    They claim, eyes that see
    and ears that hear
    yet a mind so closed,
    there’s much too fear!

    And Thank you Joe for giving them a chance! Now Give ‘em Hell & High Water!

  172. Tony F says:

    Fact, people want clean air, Fact, auto industry has bent over backwards placing smog control on our vehicles. Fact, Businesses are bailing out of America left and right and have been for the past decade because of higher taxes placed on them from the EPA. Fact, These companies have left America to countries that have child labor, they have gone to China, South East Asia, South America, and other countries with out an EPA. FACT America is wanting to spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars on something called Climate control now? We do not have the money people. We have have come a long way since the “Industrial Revolution”. Get out of my pocket. I do not know why people have failed to look back to their sciences classes from 7th and 8th grade and that was a very long time ago for some of us… Does anyone remember how many times the earth was frozen solid? does anyone remember how many times the continents were together and then apart? Man was not around then? This is proven over and over again from science to be cyclical. The continents are still moving around. Nothing has changed only the fact that people are NOW on the planet. The world used to be flat. That was proven wrong. The Sun moved around the earth, Wrong again. This is NATURAL. STOP Making a profit, and running companies out of America for the “good of mankind” when the companies are going to MEXICO and dumping their crap in the rivers, and letting the smoke from their factories role into the states. And for the #173 I would not leave America for a second OPINION on anything. Sounds like you are not an American.

  173. Tony F says:

    “Fact” a lot, though he obviously fails to grasp what that word might mean. He does not mention “grammar,” though he might consider paying some little, little bit of attention to it.

    For the record, not that Mr. “F” is ever going to come back here or could possibly grasp the notion if he did, but “facts” do no lay around like the last can of beer still in the plastic rings whose brand name you can’t even focus on well enough to read. Facts exist in systems of facts and it is only as we comprehend these relationally integrated systems of facts that we actually gain something like an understanding of the world. Odds and ends of winning responses to Trivial Pursuit games do not even qualify as facts; and the arbitrarily tossed out flotsam of data-points you so generously elected to share with everyone here do not even qualify as that.

    To understand the “facts” — to even begin to hope to understand what a “fact” is or might even be — requires understanding how it fits into that systematic whole. The aggressively ranted, cherry-picked trivialisms that get thrown around by deniers do not begin to rise to the level of something as uninteresting as “considered opinion,” to say nothing of established scientific facts.

  174. Anonymous says:

    The funny thing about this is that the VAST MAJORITY of the American people know you guys are just left wing nuts. You have lost all credibility. The American people are not stupid! You should save yourself the humility and SHUT DOWN THIS SITE! Most of this is a Govt. funded program to research something that is false, and you continue to get that funding because it clearly cannot be proven but you falsify the data so you can continue to get that funding, and continue to make a living off the hard working American peoples tax money. I agree with Tony F Get out of my pocket! Also please don’t go on FOX anymore and waste our time, go on MSNBC or CNN where they have no credibility and no viewership, you will fit right in!

  175. climateprogressive says:

    Wow!

    As someone from the UK I am astonished by the anti-science comments above. I sincerely hope they are not representative of the U.S. population in general because if that were the case it would be enough to give children nightmares! People from all over the world should see this page, so that they understand exactly what the scientists are up against. Pretty it ain’t.

  176. Jody says:

    Joe, it might be instructive to see an uncivil posts just for comparisons sake. There’s got to be -one- that raises incivility, ignorance and idiocy to an art. I could use a laugh, because the ignorance on display is sad. The window to do something meaningful to arrest AGW is rapidly closing. At this rate, our generation is going to remembered as being the one that for allowed it to.

  177. ChrisD says:

    @Jay Turner

    On his senate website, Senator Inhofe has an impressive-looking petition signed by a bunch of scientists, but when you look closely, you’ll see a lot of familiar names–like Fred Singer and Pat Michaels, and a whole bunch of geologists–and not many actual climate scientists.

    Yes. In fact, CFI (The Skeptical Inquirer people) did a detailed review of all the signers. The results were as expected: very little climate expertise.

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/

    It even includes a spreadsheet showing the individual qualifications of each signer.

  178. ChrisD says:

    @Ghost Hunter says:

    So what you are saying is that scientific “facts” are confirmed by consensus, huh? So I guess that means the consesus from the middle ages proves that the world is flat, right?

    Actually, it was non-scientists who thought that. Scientists and proto-scientists have known the Earth was round since ancient Greece. They just had trouble convincing the public that they were right.

    Sound familiar at all?

  179. Mike#22 says:

    NPR ATC ran a piece yesterday about “Cultural Cognition”. Here is the paper from the Yale Law School, “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus” http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/cultural-cognition-of-scientific-consensus.html

    Abstract: “Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The “cultural cognition of risk” refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals’ beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy-making are discussed”

  180. Steve O says:

    Joe,

    I did not see the show, so I don’t know what happened. However, if you think these opportunities will present themselves again, I strongly recommend you have ongoing media training. Have CAP bring in an organization that can train you and all your colleagues who deal with the media. Then work with them before and after the fact to improve your skills for the next opportunity. I found my media training (albeit 14 years ago now) to be hugely worthwhile and made me a far more effective spokesperson.

    Good luck!

  181. Steve O says:

    Oh, and you probably know this, but it might be useful in the future. Fox News is committed to being carbon neutral by the end of the year.
    http://www.newscorp.com/energy/
    Wonder how Cavuto feels about that?

  182. acon says:

    I just want to log on to Facebook!!!

  183. pauly says:

    Given the newfound enthusiasm for DIY stats ‘analysis’ from deniers, I’d love to see one of them post something about the relationship between the use of caps lock and the number of errors in a post.

  184. Lars Karlsson says:

    Wow, from comment #39 and onwards, the comment section becomes Denial Depot.

  185. George Ennis says:

    If you hear the comment its cold here. Just remind them that because you may have put ice in a glass does not mean the entire room or building is cold and/or has been getting colder.

  186. Jade in San Francisco says:

    Who let the smacktards out? Next time you go on Fixed News you should tell the smacktards to abstain from leaving comments on your blog. This is ridiculous.

  187. JasonW says:

    #189: Actually, I disagree. First, it’s a perfect illustration of mindset and aggression level of deniers. Second, it could leave ideas on how to turn denial into true skepticism; there might be the one or the other _not_ commenting who takes a look at other posts on this blog, or delves further into the blogs on the blogroll and linked literature and finds out what’s going on beyond the right-wing propaganda machine. Third, it at worst provides a little morbid entertainment.

  188. Ray Kondrasuk says:

    Barry #133: “After all that is what we all have at stake in this. The best interests of each other.”

    Barry, you must have read that theme oft-repeated in Van Jones’ “The Green Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems”.

    I’m just finishing it now, and lamenting that he was so smeared by the right that he resigned from Obama’s staff.

  189. Tony F says:

    Well Mr Logic Deferred, please excuse my grammar. I did not realize we were being graded. So, you are correct, there are many facts out there, 2+2=4 the sun is hot, water is wet. Point you failed to see is that people want clean air and water. People are tired of all this additional cost for additional crap. You can actually see the city of Los Angeles because of all the smog control. You could not see the city in the 70′s, I know, lived in Long Beach. If you sir, have money to spend, then spend it, I do not.