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”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@- “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
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.
@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?
“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.
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
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, ….
Monty is a climate scientist? Holy, …. climate science is in big trouble.
@- 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.
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)
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.
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……
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.
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.
Monty,
A 3c rise in the past is not scientific evidence and neither is a computer model.
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.
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
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.
izen says: @ur momisugly November 1, 2012 at 6:55 am
@ur momisugly- 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
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
No wonder the Royals and parliament are behind wind power! Talk about a hidden tax on the peasants!
Ain’t “Follow the Money” fun?
@- 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.
@- 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.
Sort of funny (in a pathetic sort of way) to watch Chris’ slow descent into the quicksand of obscurity.