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”
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.
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.
isn’t michael oppenheimer the brother of robert oppenheimer – whose communist ties in the 30s ultimately got oppie in trouble?
Back in the 60’s, they had a name for people like Chris Matthews too: useful idiots.
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.
Monty and izen, you have to show scientific evidence for these claims, where is it?
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.
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.
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.
The publicist for Lindsay Lohan recently quit, probably because he ran out of ideas for outrageous stunts for his client.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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)
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.
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.
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!
I suppose the warmists need abuse, threats and propaganda to fill the void left by the lack of evidence for their cause.
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.
Monty and izen, don’t give up now. You’ve nearly convinced me!!
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.
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!