Heartland gets a spot on multi-millon dollar global warming disaster epic “Years of Living Dangerously

We’ve reported on Years of Living Dangerously and how it has been tanking in the ratings, despite a big budget and big name participants. Michael Mann tried to prop it up recently (more below), but as usual his effort was laughable. The documentary followed two people (one from Heartland institute and one a former congressmen) debating whether a carbon tax can curb climate change. The Web-only segment is called Clash of the Conservative Titans and is not slated to appear in an upcoming episode. 

James Taylor and Bob Inglis debate the merits of a carbon tax at the R Street Institute.

click here if you can’t see it: http://vimeo.com/95541475

Now on Mann and his effort to make this documentary seem successful; Bishop Hill alerts me to a Huffington Post story where Mann makes this claim:

…a popular new cable television series The Years of Living Dangerously produced by James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger and featuring prominent figures like Harrison Ford, Leslie Stahl, Matt Damon and Jessica Alba…

Hmm Mann must be using some sort of new PCA Mannian math to come up with a definition of “popular”, because the ratings for this program stink, with ratings like 0.04:

Showbuzz_years

The documentary got moved to Monday nights, and this past Monday night it didn’t even make the top 100 cable TV programs this week.

Of course, in the small myopic world Mann inhabits, where even simple things like a free calendar at Christmas set him off on conspiracy theories, I’m not surprised that he believes Years of Living Dangerously is popular. In his tiny circle, it probably is. In the real world, not so much.

About these ads
This entry was posted in carbon tax, Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Heartland gets a spot on multi-millon dollar global warming disaster epic “Years of Living Dangerously

  1. hunter says:

    The problem is that skeptics are getting zero media space to present the rational point of view.
    Mann & gang do not care if no one watches it. The climate obsessed community makes money off of the production, writing and directing of that trash. They only want to reach the rich and powerful who will back their ideas, no matter how factually wrong and idiotic. As Mann demonstrates, they have done a remarkable job with so few facts.

  2. Col Mosby says:

    That Mann nonsense may even surpass my personal favorite : his claim that “global warming hasn’t stopped, it’s only slowed down,” or words to that effect.

  3. The facts have long left the building, leaving behind only the piquant stench of fear which, curiously, is still the main ingredient needed to convince anybody, unless they read a bit, and how often does THAT happen?

  4. davidmhoffer says:

    Mann simply misunderstood. He was reviewing Tiljander data just prior to looking at the ratings…

  5. MattS says:

    “We’ve reported on Years of Living Dangerously and how it has been tanking in the ratings, ”

    I have a small quibble with this. In order to be tanking in the ratings, they would have had to have had better ratings at some point in the past. My understanding is that their ratings have been abysmal from episode 1.

  6. Mac the Knife says:

    Arnold Schwarzenegger is a steroid addled fool but…..I really thought better of Harrison Ford.
    Damn.

  7. ossqss says:

    Sooooooo they, the big green people, have a show and the nondenominational, anonymous, unorganized climate skeptic groups have not a show?

    Think about “hearding cats”, and not even trying?

    How is that working?

    No disrespect, but how long does it take a group of “like minded” people to realize they gotta do something besides viewing and creating pixels on a monitor?

    Just sayin!

  8. Bill Jamison says:

    I’m sure that Years of Living Dangerously is VERY popular with The Team.

  9. Poptech says:

    I cannot believe Bob Inglis just flat out lies that the debate is about clean air. The documentary clearly fails to provide the other side of the debate. So long as people believe this lie, they will obviously support a carbon tax.

  10. F. Ross says:

    ” James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger and featuring prominent figures like Harrison Ford, Leslie Stahl, Matt Damon and Jessica Alba.”
    A global warming “documentary”?. And featuring the above well known climatologists?
    No thanks; think I’ll pass on this one just as I missed Al Gore’s magnum opus.

  11. Quinx says:

    Another Cameron show performing like Titanic.

  12. Alan Robertson says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    May 20, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Mann simply misunderstood. He was reviewing Tiljander data just prior to looking at the ratings…
    ________________________
    Left
    when White is Black
    and Black is White
    Who calls Up
    which Down is
    right

  13. The Mighty Quinn says:

    After applying Piltdown Mann’s secret algorithm to the Tv data, the show ratings are experiencing a recent sharp increase, much like a hockey stick.

  14. KNR says:

    Given the big names behind it and pressure they can bring onto the industry to show it , you have to wonder what time slot or station would show it if Cameron etc where not behind it?
    Perhaps it would already been pulled or being shown on the early am slot Monday morning.

  15. rogerknights says:

    Poptech says:
    May 20, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    I cannot believe Bob Inglis just flat out lies that the debate is about clean air. The documentary clearly fails to provide the other side of the debate. So long as people believe this lie, they will obviously support a carbon tax.

    James Taylor should employ Willis Eschenbach’s refutation of the claim that the closing down our coal-based power plants will make a noticeable difference in Americans’ health:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/mercury-the-trickster-god/

  16. gbaikie says:

    “By the end of the debate, the two opposing sides reached some very significant common ground. Most importantly, Inglis and Moylan conceded several prerequisites had to occur before they would support a carbon tax proposal. Those prerequisites include (1) a carbon tax must be revenue neutral, with all collected revenues offset by reductions in payroll taxes and capital gains taxes (and NOT offset by liberal “targeted” tax cuts), (2) government must scrap all existing and planned regulations and restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, (3) government must eliminate subsidies for low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources and (4) government must impose similar tax penalties on other energy sources, such as appropriate tax penalties on wind turbines for bird kills and land conservation shortcomings, and solar thermal power for water depletion.”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/06/17/conservatives-reach-common-ground-on-a-carbon-tax-and-thats-the-problem/

    In terms 3 and 4, I think government should eliminate subsidies for things which are said to be low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources. Obviously like ethanol or burning wood- they obviously cause more emissions but have this irrational idea of being sustainable. But wouldn’t against things which actually reduce emissions. As for 4, wind mills should simply have follow laws on books and not be given exemption because of what the claim of the “goodness” of wind energy.
    They aren’t good and large numbers of public oppose wind mills in their regions- for good reason.

  17. pat says:

    what repeat value does this series have? zero.

    20 May: GlobalWarming.org: Years of Living Dangerously Limps to an Unnoticed Finish
    by William Yeatman
    After debuting on April 13th, the show suffered “dismal” viewing metrics. Episodes 2, 3, and 4 averaged an anemic .04 Nielsen rating. Consequently, on May 12th, the show was demoted from Sunday night to Monday night; presumably, its audience is now even smaller. In fact, the Sunday-to-Monday downgrade is the second ignominy endured by the show in recent weeks.
    The plot of episode 3, which aired April 27th, centered on Rep. Michael Grimm’s (R-NY) conversion from global warming “skeptic” to “alarmist”; the day after the show aired, Rep. Grimm was indicted by the Justice Department. Needless to say, his credibility—and, by extension, that of the show—was shattered.
    http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/05/20/years-of-living-dangerously-limps-to-an-unnoticed-finish/

    the headline suggests the series is over, but i’ve seen it’s scheduled for yet another monday. pity.

  18. sophocles says:

    Mr. Mann works very hard at being a cretinoid coprocephalic.
    Hm, maybe not, maybe it just comes naturally.

  19. sven10077 says:

    our audience is getting more exclusive…

    “Michael *Spinal Tap” Mann

  20. GreggB says:

    This is obviously some strange new usage of the word “popular” with which I was not previously familiar.

    (with apologies to Douglas Adams)

  21. Kate Forney says:

    He’s hoping for a hockey stick.

  22. Gamecock says:

    Bob Inglis is an astroturf conservative. The legacy press loves to use the conservative label, but it’s a lie.

    For those who don’t know, Inglis lost his seat in Congress in a primary challenge. An incumbent who was fired by his own party! Since being fired, he has been making a living as an astroturf conservative, shilling for global warming.

  23. dynam01 says:

    Scoring 1/40th the audience of “Real Housewives of Atlanta” is pretty dismal.

  24. Jared says:

    It is a big hit, just wait for Mann’s 2015 paper where he models the ratings. It will be a truly robust paper that highlights how “Years of Living Dangerously” was a #1 hit for TV viewers. The Real World doesn’t matter to Mann, he prefers to Model some “noise” input until he gets the result he’s looking for. Possibly a Grammy is in his future?

  25. Bob Tisdale says:

    davidmhoffer says: “Mann simply misunderstood. He was reviewing Tiljander data just prior to looking at the ratings…”

    Thanks. That made me laugh.

  26. wws says:

    Some background on Bob Inglis, for those unfamiliar with him: Bob Inglis was a fundamentalist Christian from South Carolina, who parlayed his fire-breathing hatred of the Clinton’s into a congressional seat for a few years. Then he transferred his religious fervor over to the cause of Global Warming, and became one of the most zealous of the True Believers. (the warmists will try to hide the fact that he has always been a hard-core fundamentalist and creationist, which will let you in on his true long term views towards “science”)

    in 2010, a primary opponent made an issue out of Bob’s warmist views, and he was bounced out of his congressional seat by republican primary voters. He has never forgiven them for that, and to this day holds a monstrous grudge against those wicked and evil voters who failed to see the wisdom of his personal, divine revelation.

    And this is the guy that they picked as a “conservative titan”. riiiiiiiiiggghhhhttttt.

  27. Just an engineer says:

    The proper term for this type of production is crockumentary.

  28. Jeff says:

    A fellow named crock, er, cook reviewed the show and said 97 percent of the people he spoke with found it:
    1) A TV show that should be a movie
    2) A movie that should be a TV show
    3) both of the above
    4) none of the above

  29. Steven Mosher says:

    “Bob Inglis is an astroturf conservative. The legacy press loves to use the conservative label, but it’s a lie.”

    You guys should note that Inglis won the debate.
    You guys should also note that it was held at R street, a libertarian think thank.
    Expect more sound thinking from the right

    Like my Libertarian friends at R street I see climate change as an opportunity to address some key issues.

    Ending subsidies for industry ( FF and renewable)
    Fixing the insurance mess
    Monetizing the commons. It’s my frickin Air, no coal company should get to dump their PM2.5 there for free.

  30. richard says:

    Will the BBC spend tax payers money and buy the series.

  31. wws says:

    Funny to see Steve Mosher think so highly of a fundamentalist and creationist who thinks evolution is nonsense. But “he won the debate!!!”

    I wonder if Steve would be singing the same tune of Ingles had just “won” a debate about evolution?

  32. richard says:

    There has just been a programme on the BBC about Monsoons in India and way back in the past in Sahara . They talked about the tilt of the earth , natural causes , very interesting.

    I couldn’t quite enjoy it as I had my hand on the remote ready for instant channel change, every second I expected to hear man made global warming or co2 thrown in. The tension starts to mount but nope got through the programme without a mention. I was a little shaky after that so had a cup of tea with sugar in.

  33. Gamecock says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 21, 2014 at 7:51 am

    You guys should note that Inglis won the debate.

    =============

    That may be the most obscure piece of trivia ever.

  34. Years of Living Dangerously is “popular”. Mann is a “Nobel laureate”. Alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan is a “Pulitzer winner”. The illicit industry funding of skeptic scientists is “well documented” and the mainstream media gives “too much equal time to skeptics” anyway over a science debate that is “settled”.

    Plop, plop, plop goes all those dominoes until the last one falls, which then sends the collective idea of catastrophic AGW into its final tailspin.

  35. D.J. Hawkins says:

    @Steven Mosher says:
    May 21, 2014 at 7:51 am

    Susidies
    I’m curious as to what sorts of subsidies you thing the fossil fuel industry receives. And please don’t go on about “depletion allowances” and what not. These are tax adjustments whereby the government declines to confiscate, er, I mean collect as much money from a company as it might otherwise. If the company doesn’t collect a check after it pays no taxes, it’s not a subsidy.

    PM2.5
    You’re kidding, right? The next reputable study that makes a connection between PM2.5 and lung disease will be the first one.

  36. Poptech says:

    @Mosher, why did Inglis lie that the debate is about clean air? Why are you being intellectually dishonest as well? Dealing with PM has nothing to do with CO2.

    Inglis is a flat out liar and has no integrity on this matter.

  37. Brian H says:

    Inglis a titan? A golem, maybe.

Comments are closed.