Oink

The “Hurricane Sandy is caused by global warming” Tabloid Climatology™ affliction gets out of control on MSNBC in a Chris Matthews interview with Dr. Michael Oppenheimer:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it. Is that what we’re facing here, just greed? I’m not talking about the guy at the coal mind, that’s hard work. I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.

OPPENHEIMER: Listen, Chris, I’m not into name calling here. I think –

MATTHEWS: Well I am.

The hate is extraordinary. I wonder if Chris Matthews realizes that he just insulted a good portion of the USA populace that is skeptical about AGW?

And, with a salary of $5 million, I wonder how much “stuff” Chris Matthews has compared to the average viewer he foams to.

Watch the video at Real Clear Politics: Global Warming Deniers Are “Pigs”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, media and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Oink

  1. John says:

    Sounds like Chris has hippy roots.

  2. vukcevic says:

    Here is a list of the 10 strongest hurricanes/tropic storms of this season according to the ACE (energy) number
    1 ….25.6 ….Nadine
    2 ….16.5…. Michael
    3 ….14.8…. Leslie
    4…. 12.5 ….Sandy
    5…. 9.47…. Isaac
    6 ….8.19…. Gordon
    7 ….7.71 ….Ernesto
    8 ….7.51 ….Kirk
    9 ….7.14 ….Rafael
    10….2.72 ….Chris
    Sandy was only half of Nadine
    source wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season

  3. MarkW says:

    A few weeks ago Mathhews declared that the only reason people would vote against Obama is racism.

  4. Coach Springer says:

    I am Swineacus!

  5. Timbo says:

    I think “Tingles” needs professional help.

  6. meltemian says:

    O.K. So now, as well as being ‘evil’ we’re now pigs.
    Ho-Hum……water off a duck’s (pig’s?) back, we’re used to it by now.
    It does smack of desperation though, doesn’t it?

  7. Nigel S says:

    John says:
    October 31, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Sounds like Chris has hippy roots.

    Dyed I expect if he can remember the 60s.

  8. Hypocrite just about describes this man.

  9. John West says:

    “I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science”

    I didn’t realize Oppenheimer spoke for “science”.

  10. Bill Marsh says:

    Chris ‘I felt a tingle going up my leg’ Matthews has gone round the bend a long time ago. All you need to do is listen to his post debate rant on MSNBC in which he suggests that Romney ‘violates the Constitution’ by not deferring to President Obama in the debates.

    I don’t pay any particular attention to anything Matthews says.

  11. DirkH says:

    They PAY him?

  12. Justthinkin says:

    They should have aired that today. Chris “Tingles” Matthews and Oppeheimer are just creepy.

  13. highflight56433 says:

    Chris Matthews can’t think of anything intelligent to say, so he resorts to defamation to an audience of like thinkers. Thus their viewership is low.

  14. Dave N says:

    …and the people who don’t listen who want to take away people’s “stuff” are called what, Chris?

  15. Jim Clarke says:

    Yes I am quite sure that Chris has a lot more ‘stuff’ than I do and a much, much larger carbon footprint, but in his mind, I am a pig.

    The ironic thing here is that I cared enough about the planet 24 years ago to do some in depth research into the threat of global warming. I bet that Chris Matthews has not cared that much. I discovered a serious lack in the science of catastrophic global warming; namely the catastrophic part. Furthermore, I realized that the recommended steps to combat this problem (that didn’t exist) would cause far more harm to the planet and humanity than the threat itself.

    I am a skeptic because I care more about the planet than Chris Matthews, yet he calls me an uncaring pig. I am not in to personal attacks, so I will not insult this man, but I will say that his rhetoric reveals an astounding lack of knowledge on this subject and the demographics of the people he is insulting.

  16. RockyRoad says:

    Ah, yes. Chris Matthews. What more is there to say?

  17. jrwakefield says:

    In today’s Globe and mail by a US meteorologist,

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/us-obsessed-over-the-superstorm-but-ignored-the-climate-behind-it/article4789420/

    Typical of the garbage from the AGW Priesthood.

  18. Doug UK says:

    Sad thing for the Alarmists is that such vitriol and bile simply make sane people question the dogma.

    I would suggest this “Chris Mathews” has a hole in his foot and a smoking gun in his hand.

    But being so “focussed” leaves him insensitive such that he really has no idea

  19. PaulID says:

    At least Chris is on a network that maxes out at five viewers at any given moment.

  20. Monty says:

    Interesting that some news reports are saying that ‘Hurricane Sandy’ is making Obama look presidential and in charge. This is marginalizing Romney and, with such a short time to go before polling, this may be crucial in deciding the election. Given that Sandy is almost certainly at least partly anthropogenic in origin wouldn’t it be ironic if a climate skeptic in charge of a climate skeptic party lost the election because of AGW!

  21. Doug Huffman says:

    “Well Professor .., back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really.” Sounds a bit like “We ain’t in no ways tired!” as Hag Hillary tries ebonics.

  22. Doug Huffman says:

    ” Well Professor …, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. ” Sounds a lot like “We ain’t in no ways tired.” as Hag Hillary tries eubonics.

  23. Owen in GA says:

    I have a feeling that once MSNBC realizes they have to make a product that people will actually watch in order to pay back their investors, Mr. Mathews will be looking for another line of work. I wonder who the deep pockets that keep them afloat are, because their viewer numbers indicate that it isn’t advertiser revenue.

    When they do something really bizarre and the web picks the clip up, more people see them poking fun at it than saw the original broadcast by orders of magnitude.

  24. pigs? Back in the 60′s. Jeez. He can’t even get the euphemisms right. The few of us that lived through the 60′s and retained enough brain cells to remember know what we used “PIG” for and it certainly was not against people collecting wealth – unless they were wearing pants with a stripe. Looks like a mixed metaphor or someone who really doesn’t remember the 60′s. Or maybe he did fry his brain. Certainly looks that way. Sad. Hope he gets better soon.

  25. tgmccoy says:

    Tingles look in the mirror. At $5mil a year you can have lots of Stuff. He also
    has a thing about racists too- all who have southern US ancestry are automatically
    1. white and 2. racists. As a mutt- racial American of Appalachian heritage and married to a Woman of similar background, You, sir are the pig…

  26. Steve from Rockwood says:

    He had probably just finished reading the “secret” Pentagon report that claims Britian will be a new Siberia by 2020, due to AGW.

  27. The loss of life in this event is tragic….but anyone living within 20 MSL on the shore, of any ocean, is taking a calculated risk. The overhyped Frankenwhatever, with the hyperbole of….”this may cause UP TO SIX INCHES OF RAIN”, should be viewed as a non event. Tropical Storm Claudette dropped 42″ in 24 hours, Sept 1979 in Alvin, Texas. The constant “Wolf, Wolf, Wolf” by the alarmists does not aid the reaction to real danger when it inevidably arrives. Sixteen years of NON warming did not increase the tidal effect of the full Moon.

    If you need some comic relief from this tragic news and some satire of current events then read “Penn Pied Piper Plays Laureate” at the Faux Science Slayer website.

    When your opponent refuses reason….resort to ridicule.

  28. Monty says:

    Hi Jim Clarke.
    You said you did “some in depth research into the threat of global warming”. So what research was this then? Was it published? Or did you look at a few newspaper articles? I only ask because the world’s leading scientists and all the world’s National Academies of Science of all the world’s industrialized countries disagree with you.

    Given that the effects we are seeing now (Sandy? Arctic sea ice? Moscow heat wave? Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming, the implications of 4C warming are pretty catastrophic.

  29. philjourdan says:

    Matthews is again wrong. In the 60s, police were pigs. Not people who did not agree with the hippies. But I am not surprised. His revisionism is always a lie.

  30. cw00p says:

    Brian Williams did it too last night. Got somebody on from the Weather channel and they didn’t “say” it was global warming, but it is….

  31. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Chris Matthews: I’m not talking about the guy at the coal mind, that’s hard work.

    Possible Hansen Syndrome, unnatural obsession with coal, affecting his perception and speech, causing irrational behavior?

  32. Espen says:

    Pigs are quite nice and intelligent animals, mr. Matthews could probably learn a thing or two from them.

  33. Johanus says:

    Come on folks, it’s really simple. If something never happened before, then that’s proof that GW caused it. Got it?

    I’ve never seen Chris Matthews so angry before. So, it must be that he’s just another pathetic victim of GW.

  34. wobble says:

    You pigs probably refused to believe in the impending Great Famines of the 1970s and Global Cooling, too. What’s wrong with you?

  35. Resourceguy says:

    Climate alarmism is also media desperation in a declining market. They go hand in hand because they are both desperate.

  36. NikFromNYC says:

    Hurricane Chris: tempest in a teapot.

  37. Bruce Cobb says:

    Chrissy must have killed a lot of his brain cells back in the 60′s from assorted drugs to not remember that the epithet “pigs” referred to the police.
    But, if he insists upon using the 60′s as a metaphor, he, with his Alarmist Belief system is essentially representing “the establishment”, with the MSM, world governments, and most “scientific” organizations riding and/or driving that bandwagon. He represents the “Blue Meanies” out to search and destroy any and all opposition.

  38. Dodgy Geezer says:

    People say silly things when they’re angry.

    Don’t knock them. Encourage them. They are some of the best recruiting sergeants we have.

  39. Jimbo says:

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it. Is that what we’re facing here, just greed? I’m not talking about the guy at the coal mind, that’s hard work. I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.

    Ahhhh the stuff of life is a home (or 2 LARGE homes). The hypocrisy of these Watermelons is quite amazing.

    PHOTOS: Al Gore’s New $8.875 Million Montecito Villa
    Al and Tipper Gore have picked up a $8.875M luxury getaway in Montecito, CA; a swanky zip code that has attracted big name residents like Oprah Winfrey, Steve Martin, and Kirk Douglas. Records show that the approximately 6,500 sq. foot home boasts 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a large pool house, 6 fireplaces, wood framed french doors, and carved stone detailing throughout…….
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230

    Let’s try the Warmist director James Cameron. What does he own?

    • 3 adjacent houses
    (Total of 24,000 sq ft of living space) + 3 heated swimming pools
    • JetRanger helicopter
    • 1Humvee fire truck
    • A fleet of submarines
    • 3 Harleys
    • 1 Corvette
    • 1 Ducati
    • 1Ford GT
    • Dirt bikes
    • 1 yacht
    • 100-acre ranch in Santa Barbara
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/james-cameron-labelled-climate-change-hypocrite-2115151.html

    How about the concerned green John Travolta?

    With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming
    But although he readily admitted: “I fly jets”, he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

    Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton’s tally.
    http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming-7244988.html

    What about our planet saviour Warmist George Monbiot of the Guardian?

    “How many of us can claim to live as we urge others to live? Most environmentalists — myself included — are hypocrites.”
    Heat, London, Allen Lane, 2006, p. 215 & 287.
    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/hypocrite-george-monbiot-condemns-large-expensive-homes-except-his-own/

    “Mr Green goes motoring
    June 3, 2007 – The Times
    George Monbiot, the environmental campaigner, scourge of the automobile industry and champion of not owning cars, has finally bought himself…….a car. ”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article1870293.ece

    I think Chris Matthews should start his insults in his own back yard. Peer into the heart of a Warmist and you will find a hypocrite.

    More fun and laughter here.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_only_we_could_all_live_with_camerons_less/
    http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2009/11/celebrity-climate-change-hypocrites.html

  40. Resourceguy says:

    @Dodgy: Thanks, you are right on.

  41. cotwome says:

    How come no one from the ’60′s’ thinks for themselves or questions authority anymore?

  42. Johanus says:

    Monty said:
    “… world’s leading scientists and all the world’s National Academies of Science of all the world’s industrialized countries disagree with you … Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming, the implications of 4C warming are pretty catastrophic.”

    The variance among thermometers used to compute these statistics is greater than the 0.8C warming bias that you speak of. In the other words, “the signal is in the noise”.

    In any case, all of these “leading scientists and national academies” (and the King’s horses too) have been unable to produce a single convincing argument that these increasing CO2 levels will inevitably lead to catastrophe. It’s my opinion that this is merely speculation aimed at alarming the masses to extract taxes for funding socialist utopian schemes.

  43. Matt says:

    I get that this was a damaging storm — I’m not in denial about that. But, take an identical storm and have it hit New Orleans or Miami and we are not talking about a “Superstorm”, “Perfect Storm”, “Frankensandy” or whatever ridiculous labels have been thrown on it — no, we are talking simply about Hurricane Sandy, a late season category 1 hurricane that may cause some travel disruptions and flooding with maybe a few voluntarly evacuation orders.

    Seeing how much disruption and destruction it has apparently caused leads me to wonder if it was not purposefully hyped up to such levels to mask the fact that East coast states are woefully underprepared for a major hurricane event. I mean, if this much destruction and flooding was caused by a Category 1 hurricane, what will happen in the future with a category 3 inevitably hits the same area? What is Katrina had hit New York City? Would it have been worse than New Orleans?

  44. juanslayton says:

    Hmm… Back in the 60′s Al Capp introduced us to the group known as SWINE – Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything. Perhaps Mr. Matthews has forgotten his roots…?

  45. Brendan O Neill British Libertarian commentator.
    Said Hurricane Sandy is “Ghia,s Roth “gas Guzzling American consumers ,CO2 Emissions etc etc
    So Pat Robinson blaming Gays and Abortion Clinics offending Gods moral will sending Katrina to flatten New Orleans home of Bourbon, Sleazy laid back Jazz and Bordellos

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100187191/jon-snow-did-america-bring-this-on-itself/

    Someone start looking into Define Winds and Signs of Gods Anger IE Hurricanes and Tornadoes occurring in Red Indian Native American Mythology.
    Check the medieval Royal Court Records in Spain and Portugal to see if the early Explorers and Conquistadors also got held up by extreme weather events

  46. Sam the First says:

    “A few weeks ago Mathhews declared that the only reason people would vote against Obama is racism”

    Anyone who could say such an asinine thing should get out more and meet some real people. The man’s not worth the time of day, and it’s incredible that he’s paid to spout such nonsense.

    Even quite a few African-Americans are capitalists, but maybe he doesn’t know any people of colour. The rich usually stick to their own kind, and their own ghettoes

  47. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Monty says:

    October 31, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Given that the effects we are seeing now (Sandy? Arctic sea ice? Moscow heat wave? Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming, the implications of 4C warming are pretty catastrophic.

    Are you saying that none of these events happened when the world was 0.8°C cooler?

  48. Jimbo says:

    Now onto Chris Matthews – who simply want less stuff – not more.

    Chris Matthews salary = $5 million
    US average indexed wage = 42,979.61 (2011)

    He is making $4,957,021 more ‘stuff’ than the average American or 113.5 times more. What did Matthews call those who simply wanted more? He should realise he is calling most Americans pigs for simply wanting more – just like him.

  49. Something else is the Rotation of the Planets in the solar system causing more ferocious and frequent extreme weather events .
    Or possibly moving from Agriculture based society to Industrial more mass migration into coastal cities.More people getting more affected.

    Was Atlantic City getting hit by storms in the era of Steve Buscomi and Prohibition.

  50. nc says:

    If I can add in here, Discovery science channel here in Canada being very AGW blamed Sandy on AGW. I do not watch the program near as much anymore because of their pro AGW agenda with the usual talking points. Quite sad really.

  51. luluemu says:

    Methinks he smoked far too much or engaged in an over the top cocktail of mood enhances and thus destroyed any brain cells he may once have had back in the day. I can remember the 60s and any reference to pigs certainly meant the police.

  52. Pete says:

    “Ma always said, `Stupid is as stupid does’”.

  53. Buddy E says:

    Chris Matthews has been going off the deep end by being infected by the dross at MSNBC for about two years now. He used to be at least half reasonable. Now he’s just mean spirited and ignorant. Maybe he did burn brain cells in the ’60s but most of it has to do with ‘lie down with dogs, come up with fleas’ syndrome. Its groupthink at its worst, and he doesn’t even realize hes affected.

  54. Doug says:

    He is just the the polar opposite of some of the idiots on Fox. Sort of like the annual swings in Artic-Antarctic ice caps, the truth about climate is found by ignoring them both.

  55. tgmccoy says:

    Re; Travolta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oI80A_tPlI&feature=fvwrel
    “Do as I say not as I do..”

  56. Yes I saw that interview too with Markey and the profiteering academic global warming scaremonger Dr. Michael Oppenheimer. The good professor is smiling and seems to be very happy and content with the havoc and destruction that was caused by Sandy despite himself living in the same area.
    Oppenheimer referred in an article written by AP’s Seth Borenstein to the hurricane which struck the same are in 1821, while claming that Sandy had a higher surge because of global warming. He forgot to tell that that storm struck during low tide while Sandy struck during high tide.
    I don’t know if he has heard about the Dalton Minimum which occurred during the same time as the storm of 1821.
    It has become quite apparent that during low solar activity the jet stream becomes more twisted with big bends which was what happened in this case because of a big attack by a cold air mass targeting the south eastern US. As a result the hurricane was sucked in perpendicular to land over New Jersey.
    If anything, cold weather should increase the likelihood of events like this.

  57. Monty says:

    Hi Kelvin Vaughan
    Well the point is that extreme events (Sandy, droughts etc) are likely to become much more frequent in a warming world. SLR will make the storm surge from a Cat 1 the same as a more severe hurricane in the past. Which means that when a big hurricane hits, the effects will be that much more severe.

    The 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum was probably unmatched for thousands of years. The problem is that we have seen rapid climate change in the past (e.g lateglacial times) and we sure don’t want to have to live through times like that. Much of those changes were driven by melting of ice sheets (which we are doing now) and subsequent reorganization of the oceans and change happened on less than decadal timescales. This would be catastrophic if it happened now. A simple risk management approach would be to say that AGW is happening, it’s potentially catastrophic and we should therefore reduce the risks by reducing emissions. Simple isn’t it?

  58. Jimbo says:

    News just in……hurricane death toll rising. We must act now!!!

    9 October, 1963
    “Hurricane Death Toll Soars To 4,000 In Haiti”
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=voNWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wuUDAAAAIBAJ&dq=hurricane&pg=5208%2C2158289

    Sep 13, 1960
    “With some- estimates of Hurricane Donna’s damage in Florida alone ranging to A shocking billion dollars, not .to mention the deaths, Injuries….”
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qT5SAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DHkDAAAAIBAJ&dq=hurricane&pg=6982%2C1175585

    Sep 14, 1965
    “Official Hurricane Death Toll Now 65″
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=97gqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uGUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=hurricane%20death%20toll&pg=6509%2C2624205

    Nov 2, 1961
    “Hurricane Death Toll Exceeds 100 Persons in Br. Honduras”
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LixgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dm8NAAAAIBAJ&dq=hurricane%20death%20toll&pg=4975%2C230286

    Oct 3, 1964
    “Hurricane Death Toll Mounting”
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NhkrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=55wFAAAAIBAJ&dq=hurricane%20death%20toll&pg=4412%2C806762

    Why didn’t those pigs care?

  59. markx says:

    Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am
    “….almost certainly at least partly…..

    Gotta love a scientifically certain viewpoint.

    I’m pretty sure storms like Sandy have happened before, there just were not so many (if any) buildings in the way.

  60. izen says:

    Back in the 1950s hurricane Sandy would have been a mid-strength hurricane that missed landfall on the US coast after doing its damage in the Caribbean. It would have degraded to tropical storm before it was north of Florida and dissipated in the Atlantic as it drifted eastward.

    It is the much warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’ in the jet stream that pushed it back onto the coast.
    Both of these factors are the result of AGW.

    So AGW did not cause hurricane Sandy, but it did increase its duration at near hurricane strength and divert its path onto the coast.

    REPLY: And your proof of this conjecture is what? – Anthony

  61. Quinn says:

    After the first presidential debate Chris was LITERALLY foaming at the mouth.

  62. Philip Finck says:

    Monty

    Actually 4 degrees isn’t catastrophic (if it ever came to pass). During the warmest part of the Sangamon Interglacial (130,000 to 125,000 yrs BP) the temp in the arctic was 4 -5 deg. C and some estimates suggest up to 8 deg. C warmer than present (Miller, et. al., 2006; CAPE Last Interglacial Project Members, in Quaternary Science Reviews). At that time the northern boreal forest extended to the arctic ocean, replacing the tundra. That the polar bears survived this 5000 year interval is just an aside. What is most important is that there was no tipping point where arctic ice permanently disappeared and lead to run-away warming. Equally notable is that all the clathrates (sp?) did not `melt’, bubble up from the ocean floor and create run-away warming. Indeed, peat bogs did not decay, release methane and again, run away warming producing a James H. Venus on Earth. Keeping in mind of course that wet, unthawed bogs do not necessarily decay. They are under reducing conditions and actually grow …again just an aside.

    What is actually obvious other than that Sandy is hyped all out of proportion is that alarmist statements are worthless garbage.

  63. markx says:

    Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:46 am

    “…… the effects we are seeing now (Sandy? Arctic sea ice? Moscow heat wave? Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming….”

    Monty, that is an incredibly bold statement there.

    Given that all these things have all happened in the past without the help of AGW, do you think grasping at one straw (one hurricane) will be convincing to anyone except those ‘already programmed’?

    With the topic of AGW and climate change, we have a science which has put forward a plausible theory, ‘proven’ it by computer modeling, and is in the early stages of data collection.

  64. Zeke says:

    “I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.”

    Well I’m talking about academics and experts who think they are uniquely godlike and can decide how much “stuff” everyone else has, and what they eat, and can set the population and temperature of the entire planet.

    I’m talking about academics and experts who claim there is too much “stuff”, and who congratulate themselves that they are seeking the “public good” and saving everyone else from “over consumption” and “materialism.”

    I’m talking about experts and academics who use science to claim outrageous precision and insight into nature after counting a few molecules, and proceed to then use science for advocacy to take away “stuff,” like water, cattle, crops, and electricity from people.

  65. Monty says:

    Hi Philip
    Yes, and what was the global SLR during the interglacial? 4-6m higher than now. In addition, while some parts of the globe were clearly warmer than now, overall the temperature was only about 1-2 C warmer than now (with some parts of the globe cooler). There was no ‘tipping point’ because the forcings weren’t going up continuously like they are now. Eemian interglacial (like all of them) was driven by orbital forcing.

    By the way, I don’t believe in Venusian ‘runaway’ but it’s clear that we are in for a pretty unpleasant time.

  66. Eric H. says:

    Chris’ theme song…

  67. Ged says:

    @Zeke,

    It is getting ridiculous, if not downright insane. Everywhere I look media sites are acting like this is the end of the world… for a cat 1 hurricane. Everyone’s forgotten Irene? Or the “Long Island Express” of the 1930s? Just… what’s happening to the mental fortitude of our race, or the rational skepticism of our founders of science? This is like mental rabies.

  68. GlynnMhor says:

    Pigs, are we? Don’t care about the planet do we?

    We have a timer thermostat to reduce heating fuel consumption, upgraded windows with triple glazing and double ‘low E’ coatings, have no A/C (not really needed in Calgary anyway), use rainwater barrels for garden needs, dual flush (6/3 litre) toilets and low flow shower heads, separate out compostables and recyclables from our garbage, I walk to work while my wife either cycles or takes public transit, we do laundry once a week using a cold/cold cycle, and run the dishwasher only after we start running out of spoons or bowls, we use cloth grocery bags, CF or even LED lights wherever possible and turn them off religiously when not in use… and yet I still cannot bring myself to believe in CAGW hypotheses whose principal predictions are not coming to fruition.

  69. Monty says:

    Markx quoted me: Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am
    “….almost certainly at least partly…..

    Gotta love a scientifically certain viewpoint.

    I’m pretty sure storms like Sandy have happened before, there just were not so many (if any) buildings in the way”.

    Well, Markx that’s what being a scientist is all about…recognizing uncertainties. Would you have rather I said ‘Sandy was definitely caused by AGW’? If I had, all the ‘skeptics’ here would have jumped on me.

    And what do you mean by “I’m pretty sure”. Doesn’t sound like you are a scientist!

    The whole point about these events is that they are extremely rare….it’s only the forced climate that is making them more common. No doubt, even if we had a hundred Sandys the ‘skeptics’ here would still argue until they are blue in the face that there is no AGW. I mean, some people still think the moon landings were faked!

  70. markx says:

    izen says: October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am
    “….It is the much warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’ in the jet stream that pushed it back onto the coast….Both of these factors are the result of AGW….”

    Amazing insight you have there izin.

    I guess in the southern hemisphere AGW causes the opposite effect.

    1950 to 1959 approximately 25 cyclones (hurricanes) crossed the eastern Australian coast, one as far south as Coffs Harbour (Lat 30 degrees S) and 4 hitting near Brisbane (Lat 27 S) … and the 1940s were worse.

    However, from 1997 to 2006 only 12 cyclones crossed the eastern Australian coast, and the southernmost hit at Mackay (Lat 21 S).

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1950&eyear=1959&loc=0

  71. MattN says:

    1) People like Chris will say ANYTHING for ratings. He says it. We respond. Just like he wanted.
    2) I suppose all those hurricanes in the 1800s were caused by….what?

  72. jonny old boy says:

    Hurricane Sandy was spectacular in many respects, not least its geographical size. But the “superstorm” was a co-incidence of a full moon, a large Cat1, a couple of blocking pressure areas and a few temperature anomalies. CO2 does not alter the waxing and waning of the moon ( the last time I checked )

  73. David Baker says:

    How apposite that the ad below this post is for Listerine mouthwash…

  74. Theo Goodwin says:

    “CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs.”

    Matthews makes up his own history. If you were an adult in the Sixties, you know that the slur “pig” was universally reserved for the police. The only reason people watch his show is that they expect his head to explode any moment.

    The so-called Superstorm event manufactured by the news media is a gift to Alarmists but especially to Al Gore. The use of invented terms such as “Superstorm” takes the discussion out of the realm of science, where sceptics are on solid ground, and puts the discussion in a Gorian lalaland of myth and outright falsehood. That is semantic piracy. It is the Left’s main tool as they ascend to power. Science must defeat semantic piracy or perish.

  75. MarkW says:

    izen says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Is it your contention, that prior to global warming, no hurricane ever struck the NorthEast? If so, history begs to differ.
    As to your claim that warmer waters made the storm stronger, what warmer waters?

  76. Theo Goodwin says:

    Matt says:
    October 31, 2012 at 7:34 am

    Very well said. The South has learned about tropical storms and hurricanes and has learned how to adapt.

  77. Bruce Cobb says:

    Monty says:
    October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Interesting that some news reports are saying that ‘Hurricane Sandy’ is making Obama look presidential and in charge. This is marginalizing Romney and, with such a short time to go before polling, this may be crucial in deciding the election. Given that Sandy is almost certainly at least partly anthropogenic in origin wouldn’t it be ironic if a climate skeptic in charge of a climate skeptic party lost the election because of AGW!
    Wishful and self-delusional thinking, Monty. The irony would be if all the totally unscientific palaver and hype about a so-called “frankenstorm” supposedly partly created by man actually backfired, causing Independents, some of whom might still be on the fence decide to go for Romney.

  78. David Larsen says:

    Yeh? I am in rural Montana right now and we have a large, new international airport being built as we speak. The boar hogs practice down the runways and you can hear them going “oink, oink, oink, oink …….”. Day and night. it is discusting.

  79. Theo Goodwin says:

    Monty says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:03 am

    “Well the point is that extreme events (Sandy, droughts etc) are likely to become much more frequent in a warming world. SLR will make the storm surge from a Cat 1 the same as a more severe hurricane in the past. Which means that when a big hurricane hits, the effects will be that much more severe.”

    You commit the classic fallacy of Begging the Question (Arguing in a Circle). You must first establish that tropical storm Sandy was an extreme event. You are using the media’s invention of the unscientific term “superstorm” as your only reason for calling Sandy an extreme event. If Sandy had come ashore in Florida it would have been treated as just another tropical storm. The damage suffered by New York City does not reach the level of a Category 1 hurricane, as I have explained in the following WUWT forum: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/29/tropical-storm-sandy/.

  80. Theo Goodwin says:

    izen says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am
    “Back in the 1950s hurricane Sandy would have been a mid-strength hurricane that missed landfall on the US coast after doing its damage in the Caribbean. It would have degraded to tropical storm before it was north of Florida and dissipated in the Atlantic as it drifted eastward.”

    What? It would have been a Category 3? What are you talking about? Upon landfall, Sandy became a tropical storm. The damage it created was typical of a tropical storm.

  81. Joe Born says:

    OT, but McKibbin is on the Michael Smerconish radio talk show (http://www.smerconish.com/stations/) right now.

    Call in 877-464-1776.

  82. highflight56433 says:

    izen says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am
    “So AGW did not cause hurricane Sandy, but it did increase its duration at near hurricane strength and divert its path onto the coast.”

    So then, all the tropical depressions since the 1950′s should follow your hypothesis? And all the Category 1 should elevate to Cat 2, and Cat. 2 should elevate to Cat. 3, and so forth? Furthermore, they should all last longer as well? Looks to me like these most intense storms are well spread either side of the 1950′s

    Hard to see any trend you are claiming.
    Most Intense1 Hurricanes in the United States2
    Rank Hurricane Year Category3
    1 Florida Keys 1935 5
    2 Camille (Miss./La./Va.) 1969 5
    3 Katrina (La./Miss.)4 2005 3
    4 Andrew (Fla./La.) 1992 5
    5 Indianola, Tex. 1886 4
    6 Florida Keys/Tex. 1919 4
    7 Lake Okeechobee, Fla. 1928 4
    8 Donna (Fla./Eastern U.S.) 1960 4
    9 New Orleans, La. 1915 4
    9 Carla (Tex.) 1961 4
    11 Last Island, La. 1856 4
    11 Hugo (S.C.) 1989 4

    Read more: Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778121.html#ixzz2AtVEfj4K

  83. Max Hugoson says:

    Katrina: 1883 killed, $110 BILLION in damage. (Lot’s of oil platforms in that, refineries). About 13 million in the “affected” areas.

    Sand: 60 killed, $25 BILLION in damage. (Less major industrial facilities RIGHT ON OR IN THE OCEAN), better evacuation. about 95 million affected.

    HUM, can we say…people as Christie, and even (hate to say it) Bloomberg in NYC, had their HEADS TOGETHER compared to the SOUTH?

  84. Jimbo says:

    Let’s not forget our favourite Warmist hypocrite Prince Charles.

    “Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, says we should live with less to help the environment.”

    Prince Charles owns 200 square miles of land known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Last year he made £17,796,000
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/28/prince-charles-income-taxpayers-rises

    James Cameron LOL

    Robert Redford ;)

    ——————————————————

    Has the world gone nuts, or is that bananas

    BBC – 31 October 2012
    “Bananas could replace potatoes in warming world”
    “Researchers from the CGIAR agricultural partnership say the fruit might replace potatoes in some developing countries.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20126452

    I do believe it’s actually a herb not a fruit.They say as much in one of the captions.

  85. pat says:

    Pigs? I call people like Mathews dimwits.
    These storms were once far more frequent. And just as destructive in the 30′s when residential housing was discouraged in vulnerable areas and people who lived on the shore still had a sense of the dangers.

  86. Jeff D. says:

    I couldn’t even stand landing on Chris’s channel so it is now blocked on the cable box.

  87. Jimbo says:

    Monty says: October 31, 2012 at 6:46 am

    “…… the effects we are seeing now (Sandy? Arctic sea ice? Moscow heat wave? Midwest drought?) are caused by 0.8C warming….”

    Do you know what was the cause of the low Arcitc sea ice extent this year? Tip: storm
    During the Moscow heatwave there was a cold wave in the East of Asia. Did global warming cause that?
    Finally, did co2 cause the lack of warming over the last 16 years?

    Did you know that the frequency of boreal forest fires has been decreasing since around 1850 as the world has warmed?
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261/abstract

    Extreme weather events – no trends
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

  88. John F. Hultquist says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 31, 2012 at 7:03 am

    cold mind

    More likely audio to text software. There is also “we calls” in the second line. Chris M. might be a dolt (I’ve never watched his program and only know of him via reports of his doltishness), but these printing errors are probably just that.

  89. Jon says:

    Jews and Muslims don’t eat pigs because it’s unclean?
    I, and other, think the reason for that is that water historical has been and still is a margin for that environment/climate/area?
    Pigs are very water demanding in dry warm climate, SouthEastAsia is a wet warm climate area with lots of water.
    So maybee it was orginal a choice between keeping alive pigs or Man in that area?

  90. Bill Marsh says:

    @ izen

    “Back in the 1950s hurricane Sandy would have been a mid-strength hurricane that missed landfall on the US coast after doing its damage in the Caribbean. It would have degraded to tropical storm before it was north of Florida and dissipated in the Atlantic as it drifted eastward.”

    It would have taken you about 2 minutes with Google to have avoided putting that statement in print. It stuns me (although I don’t know why anymore) the things people throw out as ‘fact’ without ever doing any research into them. Here’s just a few (there are more) that hit the area long before there was any ‘AGW’. None of them seem to have ‘degraded to a tropical storm’ before they were ‘North of Florida’. The first couple occurred during the ‘Little Ice Age’.
    —————————
    Tempest of 1609–At the time that the first ever colony in the United States was being developed, a strong hurricane menaced the Western Atlantic in the weeks following the departure of a fleet with 500 colonists left Great Britain for the New World. The ships then met with the maelstrom head on, and scattering all the vessels. Most were able to survive the onslaught of Mother Nature except for the flagship of the fleet, the Sea Venture, which was deposited in the infamous “Isle of Devils.” Nevertheless, those who were on the ship still managed to reach shore, and received a much better fate than those, who had already situated themselves in the colony. The story of the Sea Venture was the basis of William Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest.

    1667–The Year Of The Hurricane–At a time when the Mid-Atlantic states of North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland agreed to temporarily halt production of tobacco, a strong hurricane ripped through the Mid-Atlantic region on August 27th. While there was no recorded statistics such as where the storm made landfall, its track, and its forward speed and intensity. It destroyed 80 percent of the tobacco and corn while destroying some 15,000 homes in Virginia and Maryland.
    Hurricane of October, 1749–The storm was perhaps one of the strongest storm ever in the Mid-Atlantic. According to Rick Schwartz, the hurricane produced a huge tidal surge of 15 feet. Based upon that observation, many experts believe that this system was a Category Four on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. It was responsible for creating Willoughby Spit, a small area of land near Norfolk that was inside the Chesapeake Bay.

    Cape May Hurricane of 1821–The last major hurricane to make a direct landfall in the Garden State of New Jersey. This storm, which was a Category Four Hurricane, struck Cape May, New Jersey on September 3, 1821, and had hurricane force winds go as far west as Philadelphia while folks in New Jersey experienced wind gusts of up to 200 mph. The storm cut a path of destruction that is similar to that of the Garden State Parkway. More detailed information on this hurricane is at Greg Hoffman’s Real Lousy Weather Page.

    The Hurricane of 1846–Referred to as “The Great”, used its northeast quadrant that caused havoc on the Delaware all the way up to Camden, New Jersey. This storm revealed the fact that Delaware Bay is open to southeast winds in the right quadrant, and water in the Bay would go upriver into cities such as Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Camden.

    Atlantic Hurricane of 1893–Was a strong Category One Hurricane that struck New York City with 90 mph winds on August 24th of that year. Barometric pressure was only 29.23 inches of Hg, but it leved some one hundred trees in Central Park. The beach and piers on Coney Island was devastated. However, it wasn’t as bad as Hog Island, a sand spit off Rockaway Beach that was wiped off the map.

    Hurricane Edna–Edna followed on the heels of Carol, and had a very similar track to Carol’s as it passed the Carolinas offshore on September 10, 1954. While the storm left minor damage and beach erosion for North Carolina, Edna ended up doing much more damage in New England after making landfall in Long Island.

  91. Where renewable energy policies have been most aggressively implemented, that being in Britain, Germany, and Spain, the rich aren’t hurting (they’ve exploited the situation); it’s the poor who are suffering.

    Anyway, even if we plutocrats were to give up our stuff, Asia won’t, so our gesture won’t any difference.

  92. jim2 says:

    Ha! Chris Matthews, a proud and tingling member of the 1%!

  93. John A says:

    A few weeks ago Mathhews declared that the only reason people would vote against Obama is racism.

    Which in itself is a racist statement. Matthews should be ashamed.

    On the other hand, it was last week that Republicans were claiming that Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama was because they shared the same skin color, not Romney’s policies (which is what Powell cited in his reasoning)

  94. DJ says:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-wants-conservatives-to-apologize-to-al-gore-about-global-warming-after-superstorm-sandy-he-was-right/

    I’m sorry Al.
    I’m sorry to all the puppies too. And the frogs. And the glaciers. And all the Solyndra employees.

  95. John F. Hultquist says:

    izen says: @ October 31, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Back in the 1950s hurricane Sandy would have been a mid-strength1 hurricane that missed landfall2 on the US coast after doing its damage in the Caribbean. It would have degraded to tropical storm before it was north3 of Florida and dissipated in the Atlantic as it drifted eastward4.

    It is the much5 warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’6 in the jet stream that pushed7 it back onto the coast.
    Both of these factors are the result of8 AGW.

    So AGW did not cause hurricane Sandy, but it did increase its duration at near hurricane strength and divert its path onto the coast.

    ——
    This must be a record. Just 120 words and 8 significant errors, plus 2 repeats in the last 2 lines. To paraphrase Chris M., it makes be tingle.
    [bolds are locations of errors; I do not fully explain these but if you need help – ask.]

  96. Louis says:

    “back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs.”
    -
    And what would they have called you back in the 60s, Chris? You are just a tiny bit over 30, you know, and a shill for the establishment.

    The only reason Mathews has his gig on MSNBC is because he’s willing to call people names. That’s all they want him for. What do you call someone who’s willing to trample over others for one’s own personal wealth and fame?

  97. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Sage wisdom from the winner of the “Porky Pig” look-a-like contest.

    This seems appropriate:

  98. Climate Weenie says:

    Of course, pigs are intelligent.

    Matthews, not so much.

  99. John West says:

    izen says:

    “It is the much warmer surface waters of the Atlantic that maintained and even strengthened the storm as it moved up the East American coast and the ‘wobble’ in the jet stream that pushed it back onto the coast.
    Both of these factors are the result of AGW.”

    So, AGW caused the Gulf Stream and a trough to be moving in at the same time as Sandy? I think it would be more appropriate to chalk it up to Murphy’s Law than AGW.

    According to NOAA:

    SANDY WILL CONTINUE TO INTERACT WITH A
    STRONG NEGATIVELY TILTED SHORTWAVE TROUGH LOCATED OVER THE
    TENNESSEE VALLEY THAT WILL CONTINUE TO MOVED EASTWARD TOWARD THE
    U.S. EAST COAST OVER THE NEXT 48 HOURS. AS THE TROUGH UNDERCUTS
    SANDY TO ITS SOUTH…THE HURRICANE IS EXPECTED TO LIFT
    NORTHEASTWARD AND THEN NORTHWARD OVER THE NEXT 24 HOURS…FOLLOWED
    BY A TURN TO THE NORTHWEST AND POSSIBLY WEST-NORTHWEST UNTIL
    LANDFALL OCCURS WITHIN 48 HOURS OR SO. THE OFFICIAL FORECAST TRACK
    IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ADVISORY TRACK AND LIES DOWN THE MIDDLE
    OF THE TIGHTLY PACKED GLOBAL AND REGIONAL MODEL GUIDANCE.

    THE VERTICAL SHEAR IS FORECAST TO DECREASE IN THE 12 TO 36-HOUR
    PERIOD AND SANDY IS EXPECTED MAINTAIN A SMALL AREA OF DEEP
    CONVECTION NEAR THE CENTER WHILE THE HURRICANE REMAINS OVER SSTS
    GREATER THAN 25C. AS A RESULT…THERE IS STILL SOME POTENTIAL FOR
    SANDY TO INTENSIFY SLIGHTLY AS A TROPICAL CYCLONE…ESPECIALLY WHEN
    IT WILL BE TRAVERSING THE WARM GULFSTREAM TONIGHT.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2012/al18/al182012.discus.025.shtml?

    Oh, you might want to consider the lack of recent warming too:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/3-low-mid-lat-no-atl.png

  100. This simply demonstrates that CM is nothing but a entertainer and not all that good a one either.

  101. OpenMind says:

    Okay so it looks like, again, everyone missed the New England 1938 Hurricane (cat 2). Not nearly as much CO2 then:

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=new+england+1938+hurricane

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane

  102. Bob Johnston says:

    Monty says:
    No doubt, even if we had a hundred Sandys the ‘skeptics’ here would still argue until they are blue in the face that there is no AGW. I mean, some people still think the moon landings were faked!

    I think the point you’re missing entirely Monty is that there haven’t been a hundred Sandy’s, not even close. We’ve gone 7 years without the US being hit with a major hurricane so where does that leave your thesis (answer – in tatters). Obviously you no doubt believe what you say but you’ll have better luck convincing people if you were to raise a real argument other than spewing nonsense.

    As for you anticipating what the skeptics will say I don’t think you’re capable of that because you seem to be of the opinion that skeptics all say global warming isn’t happening. Your inability to actually define the skeptical argument leaves you unable to provide a believable case against it.

  103. garymount says:

    A good strategy (to keep my health) that I use is to not watch warmist / alarmist shows.
    Shows I don’t watch any more:
    PBS Newshour, Frontline, Daily Planet, BBC news, Weird or What (first episode linked large sized hail to global warming, I canceled all future scheduled episodes from being recorded and deleted any shows I had already recorded and never watched the show ever again. Too bad because a fellow Canadian is host of the show and I was looking forward to watching the series at first.)
    There are a few other shows that I limit my viewing of just incase, like CTV news and Global, CNN and of course CBC and most environmental / nature shows on The Knowledge Network.
    The Walking Dead went stupid in one episode where a scientist was upset that his facility didn’t run off of ethanol instead of fossil fuel. I couldn’t figure out why he thought that the remaining non zombies would be bothered turning food into alcohol to burn in generators for his scientific facility. The logistics in this new world would have been a nightmare.

  104. cba says:

    isn’t michael oppenheimer the brother of robert oppenheimer – whose communist ties in the 30s ultimately got oppie in trouble?

  105. Craig says:

    Back in the 60′s, they had a name for people like Chris Matthews too: useful idiots.

  106. michaelwiseguy says:

    I hear and read people now calling people like Chris Matthews Climate Changers and Progressers, mocking and giving them back with some of their own medicine.

  107. Matt G says:

    Monty and izen, you have to show scientific evidence for these claims, where is it?

  108. JPeden says:

    Monty says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:03 am

    “A simple risk management approach would be to say that AGW is happening, it’s potentially catastrophic and we should therefore reduce the risks by reducing emissions. Simple isn’t it?”

    No it isn’t “simple” at all. The Precautionary Principle “works” only if a real cost-benefit or risk management analysis justifies it, in which case the PP becomes irrelevant.

    Therefore, you haven’t magically done a risk management analysis by merely stating the Precautionary Principle, and assuming that CAGW is happening.

    Why not start your risk management analysis by asking yourself why China considers the cure to its very real disease of underdevelopment to necessarily involve the construction of as many coal fired electricity plants as possible?

    From there on you will find that the current costs and future risks – adverse side effects – of your “simply” alleged cure to your still “simply” alleged disease of CO2 = CAGW only get worse. While the CO2 = CAGW hypotheses themselves will remain falsified by virtue of their own failed predictions, meaning that there is no demonstrable disease to treat.

  109. James Sexton says:

    It’s nice to see that some alarmists still pop by to demonstrate their lack of science knowledge. We’ve had over 50 years of observation to compare weather events against increasing atmospheric CO2. There is no increase in frequency of weather events. None. Hurricanes, specifically, have decreased in strength and frequency over the last 20 years.

    The stark contrast of reality to hyperbolic prognostications defeats the alarmist meme. The fact is, the alarmism was never based in reality. It’s just some dark fantasy for totalitarian nut jobs.

  110. John West says:

    garymount says:
    “The Walking Dead went stupid in one episode”

    Really? One episode? How about the whole premise of dead flesh being capable of responding to signals from a virus re-activated brain stem to go around trying to eat anything that moves? Entertaining? Yes. Not stupid? No. Scientifically “The Walking Dead” is about as sound as CAGW hysteria including the attribution of Sandy to AGW. I hope that someday very soon these CAGW criers will be similarly viewed as being entertaining though not at all realistic by the vast majority of people. Judging by the way the issue is avoided by politicians; the time may be very near indeed when these people will even be ridiculed by the MSM.

    Personally, I like the “Rage” induced zombification scenario better, something similar to rabies but much worse. At least it doesn’t violate the laws of physics. Of course, LMFAO-PRA/Shuffling as we all know will get in your bones and has a similar devastating effect to civilization albeit in a more benign sort of way, but again without violating the laws of physics. Similarly, if one looks at the physics of an “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” it doesn’t take long to realize that the majority of its effect is to increase minimums not maximums, hardly a menacing scenario unless fantastical feedbacks and unrealistic ecological devastation is pontificated.

  111. Resourceguy says:

    The publicist for Lindsay Lohan recently quit, probably because he ran out of ideas for outrageous stunts for his client.

  112. Sean says:

    Science is losing in the battle against the climate doomsday cult and their junk science.

    People like Chris Matthews are both hypocrites and dangerously ignorant buffoons.

  113. wayne says:

    Well, Chris Matthews just move onto my “never, ever again consider” list. Bye Chris.

    MSNBC, you’re teetering on that very same chasm’s edge. One more step MSNBC and whosh! … down the drain… for ever. I’m sure many are thinking the same thing.

  114. nevket240 says:

    Only Socialists can be Sociopaths. They must destroy what they hate to have control. The desire to be in control is what manifests their hate. The modern Enviro-whacko is the pure manifestation of the Sociopath.
    regards

  115. pat says:

    let them eat lamb instead, (N.Z. lamb only):

    31 Oct: UK Daily Mail: Buy New Zealand lamb to save the planet, say UN scientists – because British farming methods produce twice as much greenhouse gas
    British shops should sell New Zealand lamb rather than homegrown meat if they want to help protect the environment, experts have claimed.
    The suggestion, which is likely to outrage British farmers, comes after a study found the amount of man-made greenhouse gases from food production is twice as much as previously estimated…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225772/Go-vegetarian-save-planet-Double-greenhouse-gases-comes-farming-animals-estimated.html

  116. Steve C says:

    Not only did he forget the correct Sixties use of the word “pigs”, he also seems to have forgotten the adage of the time that “the more you have, the less you are“. On an income like that, I guess the ol’ selective memory needs to kick in, to filter out the embarrassing stuff.

  117. Gerald Machnee says:

    RE: Monty says:
    October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am

    ***Interesting that some news reports are saying that ‘Hurricane Sandy’ is making Obama look presidential and in charge. This is marginalizing Romney and, with such a short time to go before polling, this may be crucial in deciding the election. Given that Sandy is almost certainly at least partly anthropogenic in origin wouldn’t it be ironic if a climate skeptic in charge of a climate skeptic party lost the election because of AGW!***

    The temperature may have gone up – period. If you have been reading WUWT, you will have seen many posts clearly giving scientific studies showing that Hurricanes have not increased in intensity with the so-called warming. What caused the Galveston hurricane?
    If Obama gets elected because of “photo ops” during this hurricane, then the people really do not know what they are doing by looking at a week of the last 4 years.

    So will you and Izen get out of your dream world and get real!

  118. Matt G says:

    pat says:

    October 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Grass already on hills that sheep eat use twice more CO2 than grass on hills in New Zeland? Who would had thought that Britain apparantly has evil grass, of course there is no agenda driven here. (/sarc) Sheep are then magically teleported from New Zeland to Britain with no CO2 use, aren’t UN sciientists fantastic or have they been watching Star trek? (/sarc)

  119. markx says:

    The good thing about commentators such as Izen and Monty is (while never changing their own viewpoints) their simple claims will prompt a lot of clearer thinkers to muse, “Hey, that ain’t right…..”.

    I was quite happily drinking the KoolAid until my elderly father pointed out many of the temperature records in Australia were set in the 1940s and earlier (he could remember them happening, having fought bushfires at the time), and research confirmed his memory. The next thing I knew many of the Australian temperature records available on-line were curtailed to only go back to the 1960s, and then later they were restored, but most of the high temperature records of the past had been adjusted away.

    Then I saw Mann’s global modelled efforts to remove the Medieval Warm Period (at the same time attempting to rename it the Medieval Climate Anomaly!! …Orwellian, much?) and I really started to feel some doubts.

    Had they adjusted the records first, then touted AGW it may have been a little more of a solid case, but as it is I see a whole lot yet to prove.

    Now of course we have every single little storm touted as a harbinger of global warming, but the best effort was the trumpeting of the “unprecedented 97% surface melt” of Greenland, “which had not been seen for some 180(?) years” ….. here they forgot both the meaning of unprecedented and the whole gist of their story.

  120. Pamela Gray says:

    Because of my social liberal view (you love who you love and no one should dictate whether or not that is right or wrong between consenting adults), I used to watch MSNBC. But then I moved back to the far corner of rural NE Oregon and got my nose rubbed in what was really happening. I was served a platter full of crow followed by a huge slice of humble pie while I tried to run a family ranch. Eventually I realized I had been hoodwinked by MSNBC, the Democratic Party, and other liberal leaning folk. It shook to my foundation the notion that I thought I was smart enough to determine whether or not someone was a snake oil salesperson.

    Matthews has no clue. If he wants an education, I suggest he visit one of the last frontiers in the mainland US. The corner of NE Oregon. And leave his bank account at home. If he can make a living there, he may regain my respect. Chances are he would leave the county within weeks with his tail tucked between his legs.

  121. Jim Clarke says:

    Monty asks me:

    “You said you did “some in depth research into the threat of global warming”. So what research was this then? Was it published? Or did you look at a few newspaper articles? I only ask because the world’s leading scientists and all the world’s National Academies of Science of all the world’s industrialized countries disagree with you.”

    First of all, I am a meteorologist. I read the journals. This was pre-internet, so there was not so much garbage floating around then. I have absolutely zero input from ‘Big Oil’ or any other demonized industry. I used my brain and saw serious short comings in the theory. I read more and realized the obvious short comings were being ignored. I thought I was the only one who problem with this theory and that I must be wrong. I kept looking for my own errors, but in the process, started discovering things about the shameful way scientists must tow-the-line if they want to keep their jobs and get funding. Then the internet came along and I discovered two things…Many other scientists had come to the exact same conclusions that I did (I was not alone) and my questions and doubts were now being ignored by a much larger group of AGW supporting scientists.

    For 22 years now I have been searching the science for an indication that I am wrong. So far, everything I find confirms I am right.

    Your final sentence is misleading. What exactly do the worlds leading scientists say? That climate changes? That humans are impacting the climate? That all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming? Well then, we all agree! I say the same thing. The science is settled! Will a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels be catastrophic? There is no consensus on that one, my lad. Here is were the consensus falls apart. The science is anything but settled on this issue. The constant implication that the last question is included with the three before it, is the big lie! The issue is climate sensitivity to increasing CO2, and that is not settled at all.

    Let me ask you a simple Sandy question. Given that there is no trend in Atlantic hurricane activity or in land falling US hurricanes for over 100 years, during which time we have had global warming, what would be the trend if we had an equal amount of global cooling over the next 100 years?

    If you answered “none”, go to the head of the class. There is no ‘tropical’ benefit from raising energy costs, reducing living standards across the entire world, starving the poor (some of them to death) and in general, making life more difficult for everyone, on the off chance that reducing our carbon emissions might actually cause cooling or even less warming. We still get hurricanes at the same rate and intensity, only then it is more difficult to deal with them because everything costs more.

    Science tells us there is no trend in Atlantic hurricanes over 100 years of general atmospheric warming. So even if humans are 100% responsible for the warming, there is still no AGW fingerprint in Sandy, and any implication that there is, is what…wishful thinking?

    That is kinda sick!

  122. anticlimactic says:

    I suppose the warmists need abuse, threats and propaganda to fill the void left by the lack of evidence for their cause.

  123. ericgrimsrud says:

    So Andrew Watts has told us that this “pig” of the AGW movement makes $5 million per year. I wonder how much the pigs of the anti AGW movement make.

  124. David Ball says:

    Monty and izen, don’t give up now. You’ve nearly convinced me!!

  125. David Ball says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Now I know why you said “pissing contest”. Projection.

    Firstly, it is Anthony Watts (which I am sure you knew) and secondly, and I can only speak for the one anti-AGW Phd in climatology that I know personally. An honest man who could have made a hell of a lot more money if he just towed the party line. You have proven over and over again that you haven’t a clue about any of this subject whatsoever.

  126. Day by Day says:

    Monty Monty Monty, you say: The whole point about these events is that they are extremely rare….it’s only the forced climate that is making them more common.

    You are like a teenager rebelling against the adults by repeating sound bites from your friends, no matter what the adults say or know, you and your friends know better, na na na…

    I know you know how to read because you are “na naing” us in writing. So read the posts please–not just the comments to this one but read the last three or four. If you READ them and then look up the facts (the links that go with the comments), you will begin to find that you and your friends have some growing up to do.

    But other commentators here have responded better than I. I sometimes teach counselors and know that repetition is important in teaching new ideas..so I repeat what you need to hear from others here at WUWT, in order for you to learn:

    izen says: Is it your contention, that prior to global warming, no hurricane ever struck the NorthEast? If so, history begs to differ.

    highflight56433 says: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778121.html#ixzz2AtVEfj4K

    Max Hugoson says: Katrina: 1883 killed, $110 BILLION in damage. (Lot’s of oil platforms in that, refineries). About 13 million in the “affected” areas.

    Sand: 60 killed, $25 BILLION in damage. (Less major industrial facilities RIGHT ON OR IN THE OCEAN), better evacuation. about 95 million affected.

    Jimbo says: Extreme weather events – no trends
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

    Bill Marsh says: It stuns me (although I don’t know why anymore) the things people throw out as ‘fact’ without ever doing any research into them.

    and finally Bob Johnston says Obviously you no doubt believe what you say but you’ll have better luck convincing people if you were to raise a real argument other than spewing nonsense.

    And in the final words of Jim Clarke That is kinda sick!

  127. Reg Nelson says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    So Andrew Watts has told us that this “pig” of the AGW movement makes $5 million per year. I wonder how much the pigs of the anti AGW movement make.
    * * * * * * ** *

    Shouldn’t you be worrying about whether the science is correct or not?

    Shouldn’t you be wondering about how this green energy fallacy is harming us (you and me)?

    How will massively increased energy costs affect our Great Recession Recovery?

  128. Brian H says:

    Jim Clarke says:
    October 31, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    scientists must tow-the-line if they want to keep their jobs and get funding.

    … That all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming? Well then, we all agree! I say the same thing.

    That’s “toe the line”.
    And continue your checking; steady CO2 increase has lead to 0 temperature increase in the real world in the last 16 years.

  129. Brian H says:

    David Ball says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    if he just towed the party line.

    You, too. “toed the line”. Comes from British naval shipboard crew line-ups back in the day.

    And yes, your father is a fine example of someone who “walked the walk” and paid the price for it.

  130. izen says:

    I suspect that the cultural meme that CM was referencing is that most powerfully expressed in the Pink Floyd concept album ‘Animal’ in which human society is divided into Sheep, the vast majority who are exploited and controlled by Pigs and Dogs.

  131. logicophilosophicus says:

    I see (Huffington Post) that Mr Gore is convinced that the severity of both Sandy and the Nashville floods a couple of years back were caused by AGW “pollution”; and by the way “please donate”. I’m sure he’s right. After all, that 1821 hurricane didn’t flood any New York Subways. Come on – cheque books out everybody.

  132. izen says:

    @- “And your proof of this conjecture is what? – Anthony”

    Well the prediction that AGW would lead to more extreme events has been around since the 80s as with the Hansen -Hudson river/road flooding claim.
    The idea that a Lance Armstrong climate will increase the probability of such events is hardly controversial.

    But the detail of why it affected things this time, try this –

    http://conference2011.wcrp-climate.org/posters/C11/C11_Francis_M123B.pdf

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109.abstract

  133. Monty says:

    Hi Jim Clarke.

    Earlier I asked if your ‘in-depth research’ had been published. Given your recent post, I guess the answer is NO!

    Nice to hear you say this: “That climate changes? That humans are impacting the climate? That all else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming? Well then, we all agree! I say the same thing”.

    I bet that has upset lots of the usual ‘skeptics’ at WUWT!

    You are right in one sense…the big issue is climate sensitivity. Well, the paleo record suggests high S (ie at least 3C), so does the modelling. You can’t use recent T change and forcing as then you are measuring transient S which isn’t the same thing at all.

    So all your hopes are dependent on low S. Just suppose you are wrong and S is indeed high (and let’s be honest, this is most likely given the consensus of the majority of the world’s climate scientists). Then inaction will lead us into a world of 4,5,6….C rise. Welcome to 10s of metres of sea level rise then.

    This is what I mean by a risk managment approach. Assume the ‘worst’ but hope for the best. We’d better start some serious mitigation.

    To all the other posters….I am indeed a climate scientist. Judging by some of the ignorant posts I guess few of you are.

  134. Ryan says:

    @Monty:
    “We’d better start some serious mitigation”: Really? And when do we start the serious mitigation for the next ice-age, which will definitely happen, perhaps tomorrow? Mitigation is best done when you know what your mitigating against and by how much. So just how fast will this 10s of metres of sea level rise happen Monty? A year? A generation? Ten generations? Do you realise that most of the tall buildings in London were not there a generation ago? Do we really need to “mitigate” anything? Or do we really just need to wake up and realise that building wooden houses on raised foundations on the sea-front was never good building practice in the first place?

    And please, Monty, tell me where you, as a climate scientist, discovered that there was a consensus that the sea level would rise by 10s of metres?

  135. Bruce Cobb says:

    “Monty” says “I am indeed a climate scientist.” Thanks for letting us know. Now we at least know why you post such laughable nonsense as you do.

  136. Alan D McIntire says:

    Presumably, the way to fight CAGW is to cut back on electric power use. Just how MUCH should we cut back? The CAGWers don’t say.

    I’d think they’d be HAPPY that 8 million people cut back on power use 100% for a period of time.

    http://www.idahopress.com/news/national/disarray-millions-without-power-in-sandy-s-wake/article_a63b1034-2279-5b18-b13c-86202b80f13e.html

  137. David Ball says:

    Brian H says:
    October 31, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    I stand corrected. Thank you Brian. I knew this somewhere in the back of my mind, but as I am only human, ….

  138. David Ball says:

    Monty is a climate scientist? Holy, …. climate science is in big trouble.

  139. izen says:

    @- Alan D McIntire
    “Presumably, the way to fight CAGW is to cut back on electric power use. Just how MUCH should we cut back? The CAGWers don’t say.”

    Your presumption is wrong.
    The way to fight{?} or mitigate AGW {the ‘C’ is a strawman} is to reduce burning fossil fuels, NOT use less power. There are other ways to generate power so reducing fossil fuel use does NOT inevitably mean a reduction in the amount of energy consumed. That is a shibboleth advanced by the fossil fuel interests that would prefer that energy consumption continued to require their profitable provision than any move to alternative options with less damaging effects on the globe.

  140. markx says:

    izen says: November 1, 2012 at 3:31 am

    “….But (for) the detail of why it affected things this time, try this – …”

    Ah. So THIS time, it was different?

    I’m glad I don’t have to deal daily with your sense of logic.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109.abstract is a good abstract – it mentions the severity of hurricanes in warm years, but not one word blaming AGW (its a wonder it got published, but perhaps AGW got the standard mention for ‘peer review purposes’ in the main article).

    http://conference2011.wcrp-climate.org/posters/C11/C11_Francis_M123B.pdf is a poster, a slow download and difficult screen read … but mainly suggest there is a northward shift in pressure ridges, apparently due to warming?

    Here’s one I like: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/abs/413508a0.html (references removed)

    High frequency of ‘super-cyclones’ along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years. Jonathan Nott & Matthew Hayne

    “…….assessing whether changes in the variability of such cyclones are induced by climate change.

    Our ability to accurately make these assessments has been limited by the short (less than 100 years) instrumented record of cyclone intensity.

    Here we determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces………………….

    …….. We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa).

    Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated, which was once every several millennia …….)………………

    I feel it makes a very good point: what man has recorded in the last few hundred years ain’t much in the greater scheme of things.

  141. markx says:

    Addendum to my comment above: I just download the entire article and http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209542109.abstract is in fact entirely about storm surges and global warming……

  142. Bruce Cobb says:

    Math question for izen:
    Say you have $100 to spend on electricity. Source A costs $.10/kwh, while source B costs 2x as much, or $.20/kwh.
    Q: If you choose source B and given your spending constraints will the number of kwh available be:
    A) More
    B) The same
    C) One-half
    D) Don’t know
    Take your time. I know how math-and-science challenged you people are.

  143. David Ball says:

    izen says:
    November 1, 2012 at 1:03 am
    Your Pink Floyd analogy is a good one except it is backwards. Do you not see that it is the establishment that is pushing the green agenda and want a totalitarian control over the people? The ability to control what you do, how you do it, etc. Is this lost on you? Your whole life is made comfortable by the thing you demonize.

  144. Matt G says:

    Monty,

    A 3c rise in the past is not scientific evidence and neither is a computer model.

  145. Matt G says:

    izen says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:31 am

    The link causing these pressure anomalies has been mentioned years ago and has recently been falsified. The pressure anomalies are determined by the position of the jet stream which influences the AO and NAO. The idea was that the jet stream was moving north during global warming so the AO and NAO would become increasingly positive overall. Since the early 2000′s this had significantly changed especially post 2007. The jet stream has often been in a southern position which causes these blocking highs to persist and increase severe weather. The result has been Russian heat waves, awful colder/wetter European summers and much colder winters. The AO and NAO pattern reflects these position of stubborn high pressure blocks and have become increasingly negative for both. Therefore the idea that global warming could increasingly push the jet stream North have been falsified this century.

  146. Laurie Bowen says:

    Oh, how “they” dream of the days and years and decades when a person like Bernie Madoff was a respected business man, and anyone who did not agree had hell to pay.

    Interview: Bernie Madoff Whistleblower Harry Markopolos
    http://www.millionairecorner.com/article/interview-bernie-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos

  147. Jim Clarke says:

    Monty,

    I said I read the journals. That is the scientific, peer reviewed journals. How you perceive that to mean that I do not read the published science is beyond me, but it may explain a lot.

    Secondly, I think the vast majority of skeptics believe that climate changes. The only climate change deniers I have ever heard of are M. Mann and the team. They keep trying to tell us that climate did not change for a few thousand years. I know of no ‘skeptic’ that believes that! Also, most skeptics understand that humans have an impact on climate, but believe it ranges from small to very small. Finally, the science is truly settled that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere results in warmer air, all else being equal. Of course, nothing else is equal and a doubling, all else being equal, would only produce about 1 degree of warming. That is the known science. The rest is conjecture.

    The modeling suggests that S is around 3 degrees C because the modelling assumes the S is around 3 degrees C from the very beginning. This assumption is disguised in the assumed positive feedbacks, which have yet to be discovered in the real world. GIGO! And paleoclimate contradicts the theory, at least here on Earth.

    I won’t go into your promotion of the precautionary principle, (which is neither precautionary or a principle, because it is self contradicting). Ryan did a nice job of that already.

  148. Gail Combs says:

    izen says: @ November 1, 2012 at 6:55 am

    @- Alan D McIntire
    “Presumably, the way to fight CAGW is to cut back on electric power use. Just how MUCH should we cut back? The CAGWers don’t say.”

    Your presumption is wrong.
    The way to fight{?} or mitigate AGW {the ‘C’ is a strawman} is to reduce burning fossil fuels, NOT use less power….

    Glad to know you are 100% behind the building of many more nuclear power plants since solar, biofuel and wind have proven to be noting but pie-in-the-sky money makers as payback for political supporters and not reliable energy sources.

    For an example check out ADM CEO Dwayne Andreas (1971 – ) top political contributor to BOTH parties and the bio-fuel payback

    Form a source you should be happy with, an interview by http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world#13518551325591&action=collapse_widget&id=747886

    ” …Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

    …Robert Shapiro, author of a corporate welfare report for the Progressive Policy Institute, describes ADM’s federally supported journey this way: “ADM begins by buying the corn at subsidized prices. Then it uses the corn to make corn sweeteners, which are subsidized by the sugar program. Then it uses the remainder for the big subsidy, which is ethanol.”

    The grease–or perhaps oleo–that helps keep these kinds of programs going is the money Andreas, his family, his company, and his company’s subsidiaries provide politicians who have influence over agricultural policy. During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in “soft money” (which goes to party organizations rather than individual candidates, and is exempt from limits) and $345,650 more in contributions to congressional and senatorial candidates, using multiple donors in his family and his companies….

    And ADM’s really big payback from http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/08/04/adm-profits-soar-550-percent-as-ethanol-margins-improve/ ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve

    The boondoggles in wind power and solar have certainly gotten enough media. Perhaps the best one is Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, and the failed Solyndra project (now under investigation) where her brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, was a major Solyndra stakeholder and second in command. As Solyndra failed this was followed very quickly by ANOTHER $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for another of Ronald Pelosi pet projects, the Crescent Dunes project in Tonopah, Nevada. In the UK the Earl of Glasgow, the Duke of Roxburghe, the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Inchcape are all collecting feed-in-tariffs net millions annually for the big estates. For example Sir Reginald Sheffield will net an estimated £3.5 million a year for the 8 turbines built on his 3,000 acre estate in Lincolnshire. And do not think the off-shore wind turbines are not included. Crown Estates has leased tracts of seabed for offshore wind developments with a potential of billions in earnings. http://www.struanstevenson.com/media/speech/the_renewable_rape_of_scotland/
    At this time Crown Estates says it

    ” The Crown Estate says in a statement.

    “Other than the Northern Ireland leasing round The Crown Estate is not currently undertaking any offshore wind leasing processes.”

    The Crown Estate announced the launch of a leasing round for wind projects in Northern Ireland’s waters in December. Applications to pre-qualify for the round closed on the 27 January. http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article313580.ece

    In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List). It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report… The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom… rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; … the estate also owns 144,000 ha (356,000 ac) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than half of the UK’s foreshore… ( WIKI

    No wonder the Royals and parliament are behind wind power! Talk about a hidden tax on the peasants!

    Ain’t “Follow the Money” fun?

  149. izen says:

    @- David Ball
    ” Do you not see that it is the establishment that is pushing the green agenda and want a totalitarian control over the people? ”

    I am not entirely sold on conspiracy theories of totalitarian government, my experience of governments is that they operate by the SNAFU principle rather than being unified well structured systems with a single goal. There are always a plethora of interest groups and power brokers pulling and pushing them in various directions with the resultant often being a chaotic wobble around the status quo.

    But the idea that the Green movement is uniquely positioned to advance totalitarian goals seems unsupported by the evidence. So unsuccessful has the supposed drive to control being that in the US at least AGW is the problem that dare not speak its name. Apart from a few partisan blogs, up until now climate change has been a case of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Hardly the sign of a dominant and controlling political power.

    AGW rather seems to fit into a historical pattern of issues where the conflict is between science detecting damage to people and the environment, and vested interests trying to negate, block or delay any policy decisions that derive from that detected damage. The past story of Lead, Asbestos, Acid rain, CFCs, DDT and of course tobbacco. In each case the complex and uncertainties of the science and delay and doubt generated by vested commercial interests was eventually overcome to establish regulation that all but the most extreme contrarians would agree is of overall communal benefit to the global population.

    Obviously with a business that generates as much money and therefore wields as much political power as the fossil fuel industry no Green organisation can compete with the amount of money that they pump into the political process. The industry funds spent on lobbying in Washington and the massive campaign contributions made to candidates on both sides of the political divide dwarf any monies used by the Green movement to try and influence the political process. Only the politically naive would discount these sums as having an influence on the politics, presumably the fossil fuel industry regards the political contributions and lobbying as cost effective.

    And given the almost total suppression of the issue in American politics where money has more influence than it might in more mature democracies it would seem to work. Certainly if the Green movement is trying to take over US policy it has clearly failed dismally and lost the fight.
    Up until Nature makes the issue unavoidable.

  150. izen says:

    @- Gail Combs
    “Glad to know you are 100% behind the building of many more nuclear power plants since solar, biofuel and wind have proven to be noting but pie-in-the-sky money makers as payback for political supporters and not reliable energy sources.”

    Absolutely.
    I have been pointing out for years that France showed the way to vastly reduce the carbon use for power generation decades ago.
    Windfarms are token efforts, large and dramatic ‘evidence’ that the government is responding to a problem without actually doing anything significant about it or upsetting the status quo. Biofuels are a scam by agribusiness to justify subsidies. PVs will eventually become much more efficient and cheaper with materials technology, but will need smart grids to manage local, distributed generation.
    Efficiency advances also will play a bigger role than wind turbines or biofuels. The problem there is that it is not in the financial interests of any of the present commercial players to sell LESS power.

    The big technological advance that we require is much better methods of storage of electrical power.
    Even without the motivation of AGW it is inevitable that fossil fuels will become increasingly expensive as the EROEI shifts against them with finite reserves and the easy, cheap stuff already extracted.

  151. DEEBEE says:

    Sort of funny (in a pathetic sort of way) to watch Chris’ slow descent into the quicksand of obscurity.

Comments are closed.