Loading...
ActivismGlobal Warming

HOT Author Mark Hertsgaard & Others Interrogating Climate Cranks this Week [VIDEO]

Mark Hertsgaard, author of one of the books we’ll soon be giving away, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, talks about climate change, climate cranks, the threats facing “generation hot,” and what we need to do today in the video above. Worth the quick watch.

I also got word recently that Hertsgaard and a number of other climate activists are going to interrogate the climate cranks on Capitol Hill, at FOX News, at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other places this week. Looks like a fun and useful idea.

Other than watching and sharing the video above, the crew working on this is encouraging people to:

1) Visit the Facebook page for Generation Hot, post suggestions for which cranks to target, questions to ask, and ways to transform the climate conversation in this country.

2) Post questions and crank suggestions via Twitter, using the hashtag #climatecranks.

Additionally, you can join in if you wish.

The Nation, which will be joining the crew as well, has more:

For years, climate “skeptics” have denied the near-unanimous scientific consensus around global warming in an effort to delay action.

But, they’re not really “skeptics”—they’re cranks and hacks, and it’s time to unmask those who are holding our nation’s climate policy hostage.

The Nation is partnering in a new initiative, galvanized by the magazine’s environmental correspondent and my friend Mark Hertsgaard, to name and shame the climate cranks sabotaging our nation’s response to climate change. The coalition includes theSierra Club350.orgKids vs. Global Warming, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and Grist.

On Tuesday, February 15, Mark (author of the new book HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth) and supporters will head to Capitol Hill, the Fox TV bureau, the Chamber of Commerce and other hotbeds of climate denial. The goal? Put the climate cranks on the spot and make them explain—on camera and in front of kids—why they have condemned the young people of “Generation Hot” (as Mark calls them), to spending the rest of their lives coping with the hottest climate in human history.

As Mark explained in a recent Nation excerpt of his book:

On the ground in Washington I will be joined by local young people—activist members of Generation Hot. Our plan is to confront the climate cranks face to face, on camera, and call them to account for the dangers they have set in motion. We will highlight the ludicrousness of their antiscientific views, which alone should discredit them from further influence over US climate policies. And we will show how our nation could still change course—for example, if the federal government were to use its vast purchasing power to kick-start a green energy revolution that would create jobs and prosperity across the land. We welcome your help and constructive suggestions for how to achieve these goals and invite you to join us.

Note that, yes, this article has been featured on a leading global warming denier website and so we’ve got all manner of ridiculous comments and claims below as a result. Our apologies. There’s a price to pay for getting the word out.

h/t Climate Denial Crock of the Week




156 comments
  1. Robin Guenier

    Zach:

    So, once again, you’re promoting a story that, at its core, is based on: “the near-unanimous scientific consensus around global warming” (your quote from “the Nation”). And you reiterate this despite my observation (on the “climate B.S of the Year Award”) that “Scientific issues are resolved by observation – not by models, consensus or authority. Refusing to accept this … is the true bad science. ”

    No, science is not done by consensus – to think otherwise is BS. That’s the key issue.

    But, even if we ignore that just for a moment, where’s the evidence for The Nation’s claim of a “near-unanimous consensus” or for your assertion that “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming”? I don’t believe there is any such evidence.

    Rob

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Rob, we’ve gone over these points at length, in dozens if not hundreds of comments. I’m not going to waste time going through all the same points again. If you want a leading, non-climate scientist’s perspective on it, check out the feature on BBC by the head of the UK’s (and one of the world’s) most prestigious scientific organizations. This Nobel-prize-winner discusses the issue in one hour much better than i can do in comments repeatedly (without wasting all of my time):

      http://planetsave.com/2011/02/04/science-under-attack-videos/

      1. Robin Guenier

        I asked you a simple question. Here it is again:

        Where’s the evidence for The Nation’s claim of a “near-unanimous consensus” or for your assertion that “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming”?

        I look forward to your response. Thanks.

  2. Bill Mulga

    Don’t worry about what is happening just about who is coming.

    You have seen the symptoms now meet the solution.

    Jesus said before he comes

    “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
    Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken”. Luke 21.

    This is nothing to do with religion because Jesus is outside religion. He is Climate change. He is the paradigm shift. He is the boss whether we like it or not. Get ready for big change. Those that do not see it his way will get to see the highway.

    Jesus is coming. Look busy doing good.

  3. jeff

    You guys are a piece of work. I thought global warming or climate change or whatever you call it now (to “explain” the snow storms) was putting more water in the atmosphere vs previous statements it would cause widespread drought. Which is it? What happened to the hurricanes? Pretty sick using your daughter as a prop. Real sick.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      increased drought will occur in specific areas where there aren’t significant bodies of water nearby to build enough moisture in the atmosphere for more precipitation, as we are already seeing. but globally, and especially along coastlines, there will be more precipitation

  4. Michael Moon

    Munich Re looks back to 1996, not much of a statistical universe, and they are only looking at damage to property anyway. There is a lot more property in the world year after year. They include the Haiti earthquake as a natural disaster, which it was, but probably not attributable to CO2. Nurse really does not provide any new information in the video, justs mentions the consensus, and attempts to prove that the sun isn’t creating change. Why did NASA-GISS alter archived data showing 1934 as hotter than 1998 and 2010? Why would any scientist ever alter archived data?

    Once again, some proof? Just explain to me one simple thing: CO2 going up for thirty years from 40’s to 70’s, temperatures going down? And another: we put in 3% C to the atmosphere, Mother Nature puts in 97% with huge variability year-to-year? And another: the oceans hold hundreds of times more C than the atmosphere, and absorb and/or spew based on ocean temperatures, which the Argo floats clearly show are going DOWN.

    I ask for proof one final time, and would appreciate an actual answer containing proof. Climate always changes. Models prove nothing. Is cloud cover warming or cooling the Earth? Nobody knows.

    Soot, though, now there is a problem. Diesels, woodfires, and un-bag-housed coal plants put soot in the atmosphere, and if it plates out on ice, bad for the ice.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Michael Moon, Munich Re specifically noted that “property values and extent of property” aside, there was clearly more extreme weather and disasters and it was connected very explicitly to the predictions of climate scientists that you love so much to say are wrong. inconvenient, yes. but doesn’t change the fact.

      Nurse is not supposed to be adding anything! he’s a geneticist. he is clearly explaining the state of the science, the stance and approach of “deniers,” and why despite having uncertainties the science is extremely well-understood and we can make policy decisions based on it.

    2. Zachary Shahan

      ocean temperatures have been increasing as well. i’m sorry if you missed that info somewhere on your global warming denier sites.

      you’ve got a ton of cherry picking here, Michael Moon. i don’t think you’re interested in a comprehensive look at the issues. you get your info from one or two sources (blogs) and not from the scientific literature at all.

      don’t trust the scientists, Michael, no worries. if you have a serious heart disease, don’t trust the heart specialists and don’t trust the overarching scientific communities that vindicate them repeatedly. no worries, it will all be ok

  5. tom jeff

    Hey whatever happened TO THE WARMER, WETTER WINTERS we where all supposed to suffer through? Snow would be a thing of the past. The northern hemisphere would feel the warmer winter effects first. Instead we get if its warm, its AGW, its norm, its AGW, and if its cold, its AGW. You guys have the feel of a Nigerian scam.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          BigWaveDave: looking at it from a global and historical perspective, it has not been an unusually cold winter at all. certain normally stable climatic patterns have shifted the cold from the Arctic to other areas a bit. but Americans wouldn’t recognize that, since the world ends at our borders, right?

    1. Zachary Shahan

      i don’t know who this is directed at? Mark, me, or one of the others involved in this campaign? i have an environmental studies and a sociology degree from Florida’s honors college. i also have a Master’s in city and regional planning from the top school in the nation for my specialization (i wanted to work on solutions to the environmental problems we are facing). and, unlike the large majority of people who comment on global warming, i have been reading the scientific literature on the topic for quite awhile now. can’t say the same for the fossil fuel industry CEOs who spread climate change disinformation and all their hopeless followers who are basically just scared of big government

  6. Michael Moon

    “it’s undeniable that the climate is going haywire.” This statement is deniable. Storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes and blizzards have been around for a long time. Just exactly how many were there before, and just exacty how many are there now? Numbers are required to answer these questions, not anecdotes, not “Seems to me we’re getting more ‘fill-in-the-blank-here’ these days!”

    1. Zachary Shahan

      no, it’s not deniable. “Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events…. it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.”

      1. joseph

        The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project ,a study recently done @ University of Colorado has shown no evidence of intensifying weather patterns.Data are from 1871 to present. Get off this extreme weather caused by AGW nonsense.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          i love it, you find a claim of this on wattsupwiththat (originally published on the WSJ) and all of a sudden the world is fine. i’m sorry, but numerous studies have shown clearly that extreme weather events, especially related to precipitation (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/ClimateChangeWaterCycle-rev.pdf), are increasing. will have to cover this one in a full post since there are so many things and tons of studies to discuss there — not worth writing a full article in a comment, eh?

  7. Michael Moon

    Global warmng is NOT a cause! Intelligent people who lack technical training listen to activists masquerading as scientists and are convinced despite the lack of hard evidence. Science does not proceed on “consensus,” it proceeds on PROOF! How many AGW campaigners are aware that there is no proof? Probably very few. How many “scientists” are aware of this? ALL of them. The lack of proof is the source of their ardent insistence on consensus.
    Read Lindzen from MIT, most sophisticated scientist telling the truth in this controversy.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      2010 was the hottest year on record. January was actually a fairly warm January. in fact, January was above average globally and the 11th-warmest January on record according to NASA and 17th warmest according to NOAA. yes, look beyond your region, the world is warming. large parts of the U.S. were colder as large parts of Canada and the Arctic were exceptionally warmer and wind patterns shifted. believe it or not, it is colder in Winter than in Summer, but looking at things from a larger perspective, the world is warming considerably

      1. goodspkr

        Errr, Zach, a couple of questions. One how significant a number was 2010 warmer than any other year?

        And where was the weather warmer than normal to cause that to happen. And how many temperature stations did they have in the warmer areas? LOL. If you follow this you know the answer and it isn’t very pretty.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          goodspkr, i love it. do you expect the world to catch on fire overnight? the temperature was warmer GLOBALLY, especially near the north and south poles, which is what climate scientists have predicted. i’m sorry, your leader’s uhi theory is not the reason for it, not even close.

  8. Myk Taylor

    Deniers exist on the fringe of both sides ofthis debate.
    On the one side there are those who claim there has been no modern warming of the climate, and on the other there are those who think that demonstrating that the climate has warmed recently is proof that it is caused by man, as though that without fossil fuels the climate wouldn’t be warming, desite he fact that the warming started at the end of the little ice age, long before any significant use of fossil fuels. Both groups coud be called climate cranks

  9. Myk Taylor

    Deniers exist on the fringe of both sides ofthis debate.
    On the one side there are those who claim there has been no modern warming of the climate, and on the other there are those who think that demonstrating that the climate has warmed recently is proof that it is caused by man, as though that without fossil fuels the climate wouldn’t be warming, desite he fact that the warming started at the end of the little ice age, long before any significant use of fossil fuels. Both groups coud be called climate cranks

    1. Zachary Shahan

      there’s a bit of difference here, though. the first group has basically no sound science to back it up, and the second group has been vindicated repeatedly by independent scientific inquiry and the leading overarching scientific bodies in the world

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Wow, can we get another claim opposite to the truth please. 2010 was the hottest year on record (tied for it with 2005). “the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year.” … “It was the 34th-consecutive year that the global temperature was above average, according to the data center.”

      http://planetsave.com/2011/01/18/2010-hottest-year-on-record-more-datasets-confirm/

      http://planetsave.com/2011/01/14/nasa-confirms-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-on-record/

      http://planetsave.com/2011/01/12/noaa-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-on-record/

  10. Charles Higley

    “The Nation, . . . has more: . . . “they’re not really “skeptics”—they’re cranks and hacks”.

    Knowing the real science which clearly shows that CO2 does NOT drive the climate (it is plant food) and that, even if there was a bit of warming, all it would do is to ramp up the natural convectional cooling by the water cycle, it becomes clear that the only thing the warmists can to is call us names. We are skeptics, regardless, because the assumptions warmists make about CO2 are bogus and undefensible.

    Why else do you think that Al Gore refuses to debate the science – he has none? There is no such thing as consensus in science; there is real falsifiable science and junk, warmist science. There is actually no debate as debate suggests that the warmists have a defensible stand, which they do not.

    Calling skeptics names, makes the warmists the losers, the quacks, the nonscientists, and the scammers. It is not name calling if it is true.

    The other true indicator of having lost an argument, besides resorting to name calling, is to declare that the debate is over.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Charles, could you fit more inane statements into such a small space.

      The science and overarching scientific bodies of authority support the climate scientists. but i guess you wouldn’t get word of that on the blogs your read.

      why not debate scientific claims with no backing? because the deneirs use the Gish Gallup method http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/ which basically involves spewing nonsense as long as you want (very easy to do) and making the other side tediously explain why it is nonsense. it is easy for a “sceptic” to make some complex scientific topic seem dubious by spouting nonsense than walk everyone through the long scientific processes that prove these claims wrong (which is what scientific communities and overarching scientific bodies have already done with regards to this matter)

  11. Charles Higley

    “The Nation, . . . has more: . . . “they’re not really “skeptics”—they’re cranks and hacks”.

    Knowing the real science which clearly shows that CO2 does NOT drive the climate (it is plant food) and that, even if there was a bit of warming, all it would do is to ramp up the natural convectional cooling by the water cycle, it becomes clear that the only thing the warmists can to is call us names. We are skeptics, regardless, because the assumptions warmists make about CO2 are bogus and undefensible.

    Why else do you think that Al Gore refuses to debate the science – he has none? There is no such thing as consensus in science; there is real falsifiable science and junk, warmist science. There is actually no debate as debate suggests that the warmists have a defensible stand, which they do not.

    Calling skeptics names, makes the warmists the losers, the quacks, the nonscientists, and the scammers. It is not name calling if it is true.

    The other true indicator of having lost an argument, besides resorting to name calling, is to declare that the debate is over.

  12. Justa Joe

    I started refering to warmists as Klimate Kranks more than 6 months ago. This author probably trolls skeptical blogs and stole it. It’s more applicable to warmist because they’re the ones incessently fussing about the climate, which is something that they have no pwer to control.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Justa Joe, for sure, you invented a very easy-to-think-up phrase and someone stole it from you. humans can’t control the climate, yes, and we can’t control the makeup of our rivers and lakes, or the quality of our air, or any number of other things we don’t want to take responsibility for. nice try

  13. Justa Joe

    I started refering to warmists as Klimate Kranks more than 6 months ago. This author probably trolls skeptical blogs and stole it. It’s more applicable to warmist because they’re the ones incessently fussing about the climate, which is something that they have no pwer to control.

  14. Gary

    Good Grief… Don’t Global warmists ever read up to date papers?
    The AGW theory is dead… Has bee for a year now.

    Next crisis please……

    Perhaps one with some scientific credibility this time…?

      1. goodspkr

        Try this one Dave. It’s one among many. And for dessert here’s James Lovelock quote from last year.

        “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware HOW WEAK THEIR SCIENCE IS. If you talk to them privately THEY’RE SCARED STIFF of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

  15. Gary

    Good Grief… Don’t Global warmists ever read up to date papers?
    The AGW theory is dead… Has bee for a year now.

    Next crisis please……

    Perhaps one with some scientific credibility this time…?

      1. goodspkr

        Actually Dave, I see you continually answering, but your comment doesn’t show much in the way of knowledge about AGW.

        Let’s go through the Hypothesis and see if you even know what the warmists say will happen.

        CO2 is a green house gas. Everytime you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere how much will the temperature increase? This is important because this is the part of the science both skeptics and warmists agree on.

        Answer that and we will go on.

  16. Webb

    They will fail. They will be destroyed by their lack of intelligent responses to real questions. They jus say what gpthey get money to say.

    You probably will not post this. That will only show me your bias and one way thinking.

    1. Webb

      Sorry about the mistake in spelling. I do not type well. However I still think straight and I am not convinced by the AGW clan that we are all doomed. Cannot wait til they destroy themselves on FOX and at the Chamber

      1. Zachary Shahan

        thank you. good to know that you are not convinced byt the scientific community or scientific research. we can get away from discussing things scientifically and just go into theological debates. guess that would suit you better

  17. Webb

    They will fail. They will be destroyed by their lack of intelligent responses to real questions. They jus say what gpthey get money to say.

    You probably will not post this. That will only show me your bias and one way thinking.

    1. Webb

      Sorry about the mistake in spelling. I do not type well. However I still think straight and I am not convinced by the AGW clan that we are all doomed. Cannot wait til they destroy themselves on FOX and at the Chamber

  18. Jerry

    Your only going to crank up the anti AGW understanding of people who think and do not follow blindly the real cranks being paid millions to spread the agw propaganda

    1. David Anderson

      The budgets for anti-AGW forces are much greater than the meager budgets of the little nonprofits pushing the ‘scam’ — those people intentionally give up better paying careers to advance what they see as an important good cause — moving to a low-carbon future where energy is created locally and the people control their own energy destinies rather than unaccountable corporations.

      1. Arthur

        Billions of dollars from the US government, hundreds of millions of dollars from environmental corporations and fossil fuel companies ( including $100 million to Stanford U from Exxon Mobil) to support the AGW proposition.

        Now tell us who is getting even a fraction to give the rational point of view. Name names. Show us the receipts. Who is the skeptical Al Gore?

        1. Zachary Shahan

          Arthur, seriously, if you think for a second that government-funded research is the same as Exxon or Koch-funded research, you need to go to the store and get a clue before we proceed. Yes, legitimate science has been attacked by fossil-fuel-funded science and non-scientific claims that can’t make it into actual academic journals bcs the quality of the work is so low. just as we saw “science” “disproving” smoking was dangerous for years, we see the same with “science” disproving” decades of research of climate scientists

          1. goodspkr

            Zach you said: “if you think for a second that government-funded research is the same as Exxon or Koch-funded research, you need to go to the store and get a clue before we proceed.”

            I’ve studied the basics of the AGW hypothesis. It’s very weak. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what James Lovelock said:

            “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware HOW WEAK THEIR SCIENCE IS. If you talk to them privately THEY’RE SCARED STIFF of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? THEY’VE EMPLOYED SCIENTISTS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.”

          2. Zachary Shahan

            the politicians are not running the climate science show, except partially in the U.S. where they have stalled any significant action to address the matter bcs of their claims that the science isn’t resolved enough.

      2. goodspkr

        What utter nonsense.

        FOLLOW THE MONEY

        Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million paid by Exxon over 10 years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. I wrote the Climate Money paper in July last year, and since then no one has claimed a larger figure. Big-Oil may well prefer it if emissions are not traded, but it’s not make-or-break for them. If all fossil fuels are in effect “taxed”, consumers will pay the tax anyhow, and past price rises in crude oil suggest consumers will not consume much less fuel, so profits won’t actually fall that much.

        But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on sceptics– even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research). Some will complain that Exxon is massive and their green commitment was a tiny part of their profits, but the point is, what they spent on sceptics was even less.

        Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 – to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it’s 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger.

        http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

        1. Zachary Shahan

          goodspkr, guess what, that money isn’t going anywhere if scientists find that there is still a lot of doubt regarding the matter and more research needs to be done. get realistic. it is not tied to specific conclusions that the funders want to see made. it is normal, scientific funding for scientific inquiry. fossil-fuel-funded studies are not the same. they are funded by an INDUSTRY that benefits form one specific finding.

          1. goodspkr

            Did you read the piece? Did you notice that the INDUSTRY that benefits from one specific finding is donating more money to the other side than the side they benefit from?

            Come on Zach, it appears you haven’t really been challenged much if you are going to pretend that FACTS that don’t exist are real.

            But it appears you are saying that AGW still has a lot of doubt to it. That’s the first thing I’ve seen from you that makes sense. (if scientists find that there is still a lot of doubt regarding the matter and more research needs to be done.)

          2. Zachary Shahan

            goodspkr: yes, even the oil industry is pumping money into solutions while they stall action with pseudo-science. why? because despite what they want the public to believe, they know they need to change. yes, there is a ton more funding going to climate scientists than blogger “sceptics”, big surprise. yes, most climate scientists are not “sceptics” — we’ve covered that. you make no useful point here other than the fact that while the fossil fuel industry pumps money into pseudo science to stall action on climate change, they are also pumping money into solutions that they could one day capitalize on like they are doing on fossil fuels now

  19. Jerry

    Your only going to crank up the anti AGW understanding of people who think and do not follow blindly the real cranks being paid millions to spread the agw propaganda

    1. David Anderson

      The budgets for anti-AGW forces are much greater than the meager budgets of the little nonprofits pushing the ‘scam’ — those people intentionally give up better paying careers to advance what they see as an important good cause — moving to a low-carbon future where energy is created locally and the people control their own energy destinies rather than unaccountable corporations.

      1. Arthur

        Billions of dollars from the US government, hundreds of millions of dollars from environmental corporations and fossil fuel companies ( including $100 million to Stanford U from Exxon Mobil) to support the AGW proposition.

        Now tell us who is getting even a fraction to give the rational point of view. Name names. Show us the receipts. Who is the skeptical Al Gore?

    1. Zachary Shahan

      2010 was the hottest year on record. January was actually a fairly warm January. yes, look beyond your region, the world is warming.

      large parts of the U.S. were colder as large parts of Canada and the Arctic were exceptionally warmer and wind patterns shifted. believe it or not, it is colder in Winter than in Summer, but looking at things from a larger perspective, the world is warming considerably

      and as far as snow goes, as i have to explain to far too many “climate change is bull experts,” more warming = more moisture in the atmosphere = more snow when it is cold enough and more rain when it is not. it is simple and nothing new.

      1. goodspkr

        This is the way science works for the supporters of AGW

        Increased warming means higher temperatures and therefore less snow. But increased warming means more water vapor in the atmosphere leading to more precipitation. Therefore AGW can cause big blizzards. So too little snow or too much snow is an indication of global warming.

        More warming can mean glaciers will shrink. But more precipitation means glaciers can grow. Therefore if glaciers are growing or shrinking it means global warming is happening.

        More warming means more energy for hurricanes and therefore more and stronger hurricanes are in the future. But more warming also means more wind sheer which cuts off hurricanes and can mean fewer hurricanes. So more or fewer hurricanes is caused by global warming.

        More water vapor means more clouds and more precipitation. More clouds and precipitation causes cooling which could lead to global cooling. So if it is warming or cooling, it is proof of global warming.

        No wonder Al Gore says the science is settled. It predicts everything that has and can happen.

        Although this looks like a parody, it isn’t. I’ve seen these arguments by warmists on various sites to explain things that don’t seem to compute with global warming.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          Thanks, goodspkr, if you really can’t understand the relationships and think they’re funny, keep enjoying yourself. We’re seeing more warming and we’re seeing the effects of it, and if you couldn’t tell, it’s not pretty for millions and millions of people

  20. Ed

    ” For years, climate “skeptics” have denied the near-unanimous scientific consensus around global warming in an effort to delay action. Near- unanimous? Oh, Please!

    1. goodspkr

      Ed, dave is suffering from selective reading syndrome. There was a study that said 97% of climate scientist thought humans contributed to climate change. Here’s what that study actually consisted of.

      “The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.”

      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz1ABMBjtVn

      1. Zachary Shahan

        goodspkr, as i’ve responded in the past on this blog, your (and this) interpretation of the results here are clearly geared towards making a controversy out of no controversy. the researchers presented the findings in many ways, looking at overall scientific views on the matter, the views of those working in this particular field, and the views of the experts who are actually currently publishing peer-reviews papers on this topic.

        yes, the number of climate scientists who are currently publishing scientific literature on this is smaller! wow. who would have guessed it.

        and yes, some of us really want to know what the true experts say on this matter. if you’ve got a problem with you heart, do you want to know what the medical community as a whole thinks about it or do you want to know what heart specialists think about it? i hope the answer is clear

        the experts have expressed what they think on it. & you don’t want to hear it. sorry, it’s not a convenient conclusion

  21. Ed

    ” For years, climate “skeptics” have denied the near-unanimous scientific consensus around global warming in an effort to delay action. Near- unanimous? Oh, Please!

  22. 4TImesAYear

    Did he even think about what he was saying? The sea level will put beaches under water, but his daughter won’t have enough water to drink???? They DO have ways of purifying sea water – go ask Israel. I’m sure it won’t quit raining on their reservoirs, even should glaciers disappear. Oh, and yes, the climate does change (4 times a year) and it IS dangerous – all those cold air masses colliding with warm have a tendency to generate tornadoes. Global warming should help take care of that problem;)

    1. Zachary Shahan

      4TimesAYear: thank you for adding a basic statement about the seasons to the discussion. the seasons actually do relate to climate, as does longer term changes that climate scientists have studied for decades.

      yes, water desalination exists, but it is extremely expensive still and not practical for the number of people who will be and already are suffering from lack of fresh water.

      1. 4TimesAYear

        It’s not as expensive as it used to be; they’ve found cheaper ways of doing it.
        http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/desalination.html
        And unless the planet stops doing its seasonal tilt, the seasons aren’t about to change. I doubt very much it’s going to stop snowing in the mountains any time soon. Everything we’ve experienced can be explained with the natural variations we’ve known about for years (El Nino and La Nina). The sea level certainly isn’t rising at the catastrophic rate presented in this video (if at all: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/2010-sea-level-largest-drop-ever-recorded/)
        This is nothing more than fear-mongering. There is no such thing as a “global temperature”; they use a very flawed “average” and an “average” temp won’t melt anything – furthermore, averages are meaningless – I can give you the average temp for any given day and you still wouldn’t be able to tell me what the high or low was.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          4TimesAYear: again, so much disinformation packed into such a small space.

          NO, natural variation doesn’t predict the changes we’re seeing. IT’S flat out not the case. which is why numerous climate scientists have won nobel prizes, because they have uncovered what is changing.

          no, an average temp is not going to melt the Arctic or the glaciers, but to say that we can’t study the global climate and that it would be more useful to make assumptions based on one piece of the puzzle is beyond absurd.

          the warming is occurring more in northern and southern latitudes, as predicted by climate scientists. and that is of greater concern as it will result in more melting (and is already) and will result in more feedback loops.

          i’m sorry, your claims look like someone claiming that because we have addition we have no need for division.

  23. 4TImesAYear

    Did he even think about what he was saying? The sea level will put beaches under water, but his daughter won’t have enough water to drink???? They DO have ways of purifying sea water – go ask Israel. I’m sure it won’t quit raining on their reservoirs, even should glaciers disappear. Oh, and yes, the climate does change (4 times a year) and it IS dangerous – all those cold air masses colliding with warm have a tendency to generate tornadoes. Global warming should help take care of that problem;)

  24. joseph

    I am not an AGW skeptic.I refute it outright.Everything this guy says,EVERYTHING-is demonstrably false.Shame on him for using children to further his imaginary and profitable crisis.

  25. joseph

    I am not an AGW skeptic.I refute it outright.Everything this guy says,EVERYTHING-is demonstrably false.Shame on him for using children to further his imaginary and profitable crisis.

  26. MrCannuckistan

    Don’t these people look at the empirical facts and evidence before they speak? It seems they just take the word of the consensus and blather on about what they know not.

    They will understand that co2 is a red herring soon enough.

    MrC

      1. goodspkr

        Dave,

        Once again I get to respond to you. It’s a red herring for the fact that they don’t understand the climate on planet earth well enough figure out the weather a month from now but they are making predictions 100 years from now.

        It’s a red herring for the lack of accuracy in all 11 climate models the IPCC uses. And one of their major assumptions regarding feedback on all 11 models is exactly the opposite of what we actually see happening.

        http://1202013.blogspot.com/2010/02/yesterday-i-wrote-up-basic-theory-of.html

        And it’s a red herring regarding the so called hockey stick theory by Michael Mann. In fact a recent study:

        “The Swiss online NZZ from Zurich has a report on a recent multiple-proxy temperature reconstruction produced by a Swedish team of scientists. It wasn’t that long ago when European media outlets were saying Mann’s old hockey stick was settled science – that is until a series of scientific and statistical analyses by leading experts debunked it and the pressure to drop it became too much to bear.

        Now Europe’s media are quietly abandoning it and returning to what years and years of reliable literature originally had stated: The temperature trend over the last several thousand years was by no means flat and that there were periods that were just as warm, if not warmer than today.”

        http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/14/from-hockey-stick-to-boomerangs/

        1. Zachary Shahan

          goodspkr, nice ridiculous blogs trying to disprove what leading overarching scientific bodies and numerous reconstructions have repeatedly confirmed — that the hockey stick theory, inconvenient as it is, is not under threat by one or two obscure, faulty studies.

          for more on the hockey stick, check out Joe Romm’s extensive coverage of it and attacks on it: http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/01/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated-penn-state/

          or even the wikipedia entry which does a 1000x better job of communicating the state of things now than you do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

          the science is sound and the work has not been discredited at all

          oh, and for the first point, WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. climate scientists predictions have been quite accurate. cherry picking a minor inaccuracy here and there doesn’t disprove that

  27. MrCannuckistan

    Don’t these people look at the empirical facts and evidence before they speak? It seems they just take the word of the consensus and blather on about what they know not.

    They will understand that co2 is a red herring soon enough.

    MrC

  28. John from Michigan

    Remember. Name calling is the last resort of people who have lost the argument on facts. It is an admission that you’ve lost the battle.
    Keep this in mind. Calling those who disagree with you cranks is not a positive thing for you.
    It’s best not to do that.

  29. John from Michigan

    Remember. Name calling is the last resort of people who have lost the argument on facts. It is an admission that you’ve lost the battle.
    Keep this in mind. Calling those who disagree with you cranks is not a positive thing for you.
    It’s best not to do that.

      1. arthur

        The truth is that climate is changing, has always changed and will always change. That reconstructions of past climate are a statistical sham using dubious proxies which artifiically and unjustifiably reduce the natural variability of climate to make the present seem “unprecedented”. That a small cabal of scientists has actively perverted climate science, hiding and even destroying the dubious data and crock statistics that formed tose reconstructions, trying and sometime succeeding in blocking scientific papers calling them on their lies.

        1. Zachary Shahan

          the overarching scientific authorities disagree with you. who agrees with you? FOX News and some fringe libertarian or conspiracy theorist blogs. no, the climate scientists have not hijacked climate science. others have, tho

          1. Jimmy

            “The truth is that climate is changing, has always changed and will always change. ”

            Only a ‘denier’ will disagree with this statement.

          2. Zachary Shahan

            no one disagrees with this statement. if you haven’t figured that out yet, you’ve got a loooong way to go. the point is that the climate is changing MUCH, MUCH FASTER than it has and that is the concern

      1. arthur

        The truth is that climate is changing, has always changed and will always change. That reconstructions of past climate are a statistical sham using dubious proxies which artifiically and unjustifiably reduce the natural variability of climate to make the present seem “unprecedented”. That a small cabal of scientists has actively perverted climate science, hiding and even destroying the dubious data and crock statistics that formed tose reconstructions, trying and sometime succeeding in blocking scientific papers calling them on their lies.

  30. kevin king

    You will only ever be taken seriously when you start behaving like an adult. This involves not simply name-calling and abusing people who don’t share you’re opinions. Until you do that you are not worth wasting time on. And believe me using your daughter to propagate a pseudo-science is truly disturbing and makes many millions of sane people very angry

  31. kevin king

    You will only ever be taken seriously when you start behaving like an adult. This involves not simply name-calling and abusing people who don’t share you’re opinions. Until you do that you are not worth wasting time on. And believe me using your daughter to propagate a pseudo-science is truly disturbing and makes many millions of sane people very angry

  32. Gerry

    I read Mark’s first book “On Bended Knee” 20+ years ago, and I’ve personally discussed that topic with him and have a lot of admiration for his reporting (or I did back in 1991). From that limited interaction, I also concluded that he’s a very nice guy.

    But on this topic I must disagree. I haven’t read Mark’s recent books or reportorial articles, but I have read his very recent global warming commentary. But I’ve also read a great deal of the in-depth global warming literature for the last year and confess that I must side with “the cranks.”

    From Al Gore’s “the science is settled” to the Climategate emails (which I’ve partially read) to “the Himalaya is melting,” it is demonstrably true that “The Science” has been grossly and unashamedly corrupted by at least a core influential group of the climate science community.

    In fact the very cornerstones of climate science – the temperature records from both NASA/NOAA and The Univ. of East Anglia – have both been so massaged and so heavily “adjusted” that it it literally impossible to determine what is the factual raw data versus the massaged data, or is that data any different from background noise. In the case of the UEA, the original, raw data actually does not even exist, according to its head Dr. Phil Jones. It has been lost forever (and this statement is on the public record from Phil Jones’ mouth).

    So in essence the current foundations of climate science are actually rotten to the core, yet they are every bit and particle also the foundation for Mark Hertsgaard’s concern.

    Like many Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) believers, it will be almost impossible for Mark to back out of his position now. He’s invested too much energy, time, and writing for the CAGW team. But I would hope that as the good reporter that I know he is, that he would at least spend some time looking honestly at the scientific views of critics and skeptics.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      Gerry, thank you for your comments. But you seem to be getting your info from bad sources. The data and science have not been massaged as you describe and numerous independent scientific inquiries have confirmed that. yes, people are spreading this information far and wide, but it is downright now true. not one of the many independent investigations on this matter have found that.

  33. Gerry

    I read Mark’s first book “On Bended Knee” 20+ years ago, and I’ve personally discussed that topic with him and have a lot of admiration for his reporting (or I did back in 1991). From that limited interaction, I also concluded that he’s a very nice guy.

    But on this topic I must disagree. I haven’t read Mark’s recent books or reportorial articles, but I have read his very recent global warming commentary. But I’ve also read a great deal of the in-depth global warming literature for the last year and confess that I must side with “the cranks.”

    From Al Gore’s “the science is settled” to the Climategate emails (which I’ve partially read) to “the Himalaya is melting,” it is demonstrably true that “The Science” has been grossly and unashamedly corrupted by at least a core influential group of the climate science community.

    In fact the very cornerstones of climate science – the temperature records from both NASA/NOAA and The Univ. of East Anglia – have both been so massaged and so heavily “adjusted” that it it literally impossible to determine what is the factual raw data versus the massaged data, or is that data any different from background noise. In the case of the UEA, the original, raw data actually does not even exist, according to its head Dr. Phil Jones. It has been lost forever (and this statement is on the public record from Phil Jones’ mouth).

    So in essence the current foundations of climate science are actually rotten to the core, yet they are every bit and particle also the foundation for Mark Hertsgaard’s concern.

    Like many Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) believers, it will be almost impossible for Mark to back out of his position now. He’s invested too much energy, time, and writing for the CAGW team. But I would hope that as the good reporter that I know he is, that he would at least spend some time looking honestly at the scientific views of critics and skeptics.

  34. Biff

    Umm, to be sceptical presupposes a plausible hypothesis. I think the ‘sceptics’ would love the opportunity to share their views. I dunno, maybe the same way Galileo was finally given the same. The ‘consenus’ looked and behaved back then as it is now. Shameful, really.

    Fear, noise, faith – this is the ‘social’ science behind the green agenda. Have fun exposing the truth.

    1. Zachary Shahan

      you seem to have reversed things. Galilieo discovered something before others and eventually the scientific community caught up. likewise, a number of leading climate scientists discovered global warming over half a century ago.. the scientific community has now caught up. of course, the public at large, especially the less-well-educated, is still a bit confused and divided on the matter,.. and there are a few fringe scientists holding on to the past as well

      1. Biff

        The similarities are striking, actually.
        Galileo was a sceptic. He was told to shut up because the consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. The science was ‘settled’ as far as the established (benefitting body) was concerned. Challenging this consensus was tantamount to ‘hating God’, blasphemous, and even ‘anti-science’ to those who claimed the science was settled.

        To even make a claim that Climate causation is settled demonstrates the rank arrogance of those who want to protect findings. Climate science is one of the most difficult disciplines to map and track due to the complex and always changing variables. Now the ‘uneducated’ are noticing that if the weather dept can’t forcast beyond 5 days, in one small metro area, with even a 5 degree accuracy, it’s conceivable that perhaps predicting 5, 10, 50, 100 years in advance on a global scale is a bit dubious – Even dishonest considering there have been failed ‘consensus’ in the past (Global Cooling certain!! Time, 1978) and infinitely complex nature of the science. Cloud cover can’t even be factored in for goodness sake, and it has been estimated that clouds and water vapour are the biggest drivers in climate variation, not just a ‘result’.

        At any rate, now that you admit climate science is still open to discovery and improvement, why hold so firmly on a AGW position when there are thousands of scientists that disagree? Many of them used to be on the UNIPCC panel. Many are genuine climate scientists. Your ‘less educated’ comment suggests any evidence that contradicts AGW is wrong, because it threatens the faith.

        Finally, the biggest reason scepticism is on the rise is because AGW is non-falsifiable. For those ‘less educated’ people, that means that no matter what happens with the climate in any location at any time of the year, to any degree, the establishment will find a very creative way to attributed to AGW.

        Science used to be about trying to disprove one’s scientific theory. That brings it credibility, transparency, and robust discovery. AGW climate science looks more like consensus building, and moral manipulation (see 10:10) which is not scientific at all. (See Galileo).

        1. Zachary Shahan

          Biff, you’re equating weather forecasting to climate science! and you expect me to take your scientific claims seriously?

          furthermore, scepticism is only on the rise in the general public since “climategate,” which was the biggest scam in climate science because as numerous independent investigations have found, there was no scientific wrongdoing, the only wrongdoing was some hacker breaking in and stealing emails and the publishing of totally out-of-context quotes that made it look otherwise. you know this is THE reason the public has become more confused. and the paid and unpaid disinformation campaign that took that and ran with it.

          to act as though Galileo is equal to a climate sceptic is completely backwards and twisting of the history of climate science

          and enough with the ridiculous “global cooling used to be the consensus” claims — a small fringe of scientists wrote about that and climate scientists have been writing about global warming since the 1950s or earlier.

  35. Biff

    Umm, to be sceptical presupposes a plausible hypothesis. I think the ‘sceptics’ would love the opportunity to share their views. I dunno, maybe the same way Galileo was finally given the same. The ‘consenus’ looked and behaved back then as it is now. Shameful, really.

    Fear, noise, faith – this is the ‘social’ science behind the green agenda. Have fun exposing the truth.

  36. Eric

    I think he needs to start looking at the raw data. The seas are not going to cover the beaches, the snow in the mountains are going away, storms have not been stronger, and the temp of the world is not going to fry us. In short the sky is not falling and the predictions so far have all been wrong.

  37. Eric

    I think he needs to start looking at the raw data. The seas are not going to cover the beaches, the snow in the mountains are going away, storms have not been stronger, and the temp of the world is not going to fry us. In short the sky is not falling and the predictions so far have all been wrong.

  38. Paul

    When you talk of climate cranks are you refering to those lunatics who think that the world is doomed due to a trace gas? If this is indeed the case then I suggest that now that the war of ideas has been lost by these cranks we should all get on with our lives and get out there and live life to the full instead of listening to what remains of the eco-loons and others paid to write about the demise of the earth. Who knows, Al Gore might even decide to take up a real cause worth doing such as helping to save the starving in Africa.

  39. Paul

    When you talk of climate cranks are you refering to those lunatics who think that the world is doomed due to a trace gas? If this is indeed the case then I suggest that now that the war of ideas has been lost by these cranks we should all get on with our lives and get out there and live life to the full instead of listening to what remains of the eco-loons and others paid to write about the demise of the earth. Who knows, Al Gore might even decide to take up a real cause worth doing such as helping to save the starving in Africa.

    1. Biff

      The arrogance and irrationality is exactly what’s exposing the green agenda. Keep the irrational fury coming. It’s really all the movement has. Afterall, even the UNIPCC has backtracked on climate sensitivity, glacial melt, artic ice, desertification, etc, etc. Now all the talking points are gone, all you have is Jihad.

      We knew all along it was a faith. Your statements verify this. You don’t see mathmaticians calling for the heads of those who think 2+2=5. Only green nutters resort to this kind of ‘science’.

      1. David Anderson

        It’s undeniable that the climate is going haywire, worldwide. Some areas a significantly warmer, some significantly colder. Whatever the cause, the prescription is the same — prepare. And arguing about why it’s happening only leaves us more unprepared. Greens mean well–their sense of urgency is not from dollar signs in their eyes, but the preservation of a comfortable way of life as our daily conditions get more … unpredictable.

        1. arthur

          When has the weather ever been benign? When were there no hurricanes, floods or droughts? Current levels of hurricanes are at a 30 year low worldwide.

          Wherever did you get the idea that the Earth’s climate barely changed? Eden’s benign climate never existed.

          1. Zachary Shahan

            arthur, no one is claiming there were never natural disasters. the disasters have gotten larger and more severe. “Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events…. it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.” http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/munich-re-pielke-extreme-weather-damages-climate-change/

            hurricanes and cyclones have been getting more severe.

        2. JerryV

          In fact it is quite deniable. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project indicates that there is no such “haywire” trend in the climate since 1871. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/wsj-no-weather-weirding-worries/
          I don’t think you can attribute this project to the carbon fuel industry. Like many people not trained in climate science, I was inclined to believe “the science” of AGW proponents, until I started reading it, as well as the numerous questions being raised as to it’s theoretical basis as well as the data being asserted; as well as the already-failed predictions of the leading proponents such as James Hansen, who declared in 1988 that the West Side Highway in New York would be “under water” in 2008; and the numerous articles about snow becoming non-existent.I am now quite convinced that the science is “settled” as profoundly uncertain regarding the amount of future warming, its connection to human activity, and the costs v benefits of what can or should be done. Continuing to assert the “consensus” of AGW proponents whose arguments become increasingly desperate and transparently silly will not re-establish the public’s faith in the false assertion of certain doom that almost handed the global economy over to politicized pseudoscience.

          1. Zachary Shahan

            JerryV, you’ve supplied us with an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal… this is your proof? Wow, please, cherry pick a few more points and drop another link to a major global warming denier website in the post so that we can all get over the decades of research climate scientists have done on this matter.

          2. JerryV

            The “opinion piece” quotes the climate science study being done, which you can access directly. This is the kind of dismissive, head-in-sand reaction I see all to often from AGW proponents when they are challenged with data and studies casting doubt on their false “consensus.” Also, the “2010 hottest year ever” hype has actually been downplayed by James Hansen himself, and his temperature data has been questioned by others who are tracking the data. Again, there are links from the “opinion piece” to the NASA press release itself and the unconvinced climate scientists.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/green-journalists-lament-the-lack-of-overwhelming-coverage-of-global-warming-in-the-liberal-media/

          3. Zachary Shahan

            thanks for another ridiculous wattsupwiththat piece. from the blogger who challenged anyone to a bet of what changes we’ll see over the next 10 years and then stepped down from it when someone took him up on it.

            no, there isn’t a link in the WSJ opinion piece you pulled off of wattsupwiththat.

            many more datasets than NASA have shown that 2010 was the hottest year on record, including NOAA’s, UAH, and CRU. wake up! it’s not a conspiracy

          4. Biff

            Zachary, since when does JerryV’s source matter. Why not address his very logial points. As for “denier”? If the hat fits…

            Finally, it doesn’t matter how many decades of ‘science’ have been done on the matter. If the theory just doesn’t work, then shame on them for beating a dead horse. Seems most ‘unenlightend’ ones outside the holy inner circle see it as it is.

      2. Zachary Shahan

        Biff, you’ve offered up a ton of claims that have no backing. but i guess you don’t care if they do or not. climate science regarding glacial melt, desertification, arctic ice, and accelerating feedback loops has only gotten stronger

        1. Biff

          Is that the issue, really? If I post the links to the findings (which I’m sure you are aware of) you’ll agree that the AGW is at best astrology, and at worst a tax scam.

          Let me know. I’ll use Google if i have to…

    1. Biff

      The arrogance and irrationality is exactly what’s exposing the green agenda. Keep the irrational fury coming. It’s really all the movement has. Afterall, even the UNIPCC has backtracked on climate sensitivity, glacial melt, artic ice, desertification, etc, etc. Now all the talking points are gone, all you have is Jihad.

      We knew all along it was a faith. Your statements verify this. You don’t see mathmaticians calling for the heads of those who think 2+2=5. Only green nutters resort to this kind of ‘science’.

      1. David Anderson

        It’s undeniable that the climate is going haywire, worldwide. Some areas a significantly warmer, some significantly colder. Whatever the cause, the prescription is the same — prepare. And arguing about why it’s happening only leaves us more unprepared. Greens mean well–their sense of urgency is not from dollar signs in their eyes, but the preservation of a comfortable way of life as our daily conditions get more … unpredictable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *