Dissing skeptics hits prime time CBS drama "The Good Wife"

Global warming zinger in CBS “The Good Wife”

I was just watching the episode “The Art of War” in the drama “The Good Wife” on CBS and was shocked to see this very pointed put down about climate skeptics.

Scene: A judge is being seated at the bench in a  Cook County Courtroom.

The judge (Judge Abernathy played by Denis O’Hare) sits, and then announces to the courtroom.

Thank you for being here on this exceptionally warm November day. I suppose it goes without saying, Global Warming 1, skeptics 0.

The episode will likely be available online tomorrow, and if so I’ll add a link here.

I think perhaps the Hollywood producers or writing staff might have a burr under their saddle about the global warming issue not being front and center anymore, and while some TV shows and movies offer “gratuitous sex” this seems to be a case of a “gratuitous global warming schtick”.

I do. The data says exactly the opposite of what the zinger implies. Yes I know, its fiction, but they’ve opened the door on creative license.

From Fox News Chicago:

Second consecutive month of below normal temperatures

By Bill Bellis, FOX Chicago News Chief Meteorologist
For the second consecutive month, the average temperature ended up below normal at Chicago. The last time this happened was April and May of 2011. This is just another example of how warm it’s been around the Chicago area over the last year.The average high temperature for October was 60.5 degrees which is -1.8 below normal.

The average low temperature for October was 42.4 degrees which is -0.4 below normal.

Therefore, the average temperature for the month was 51.5 degrees exactly 1.0 degree cooler than normal.

Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19990100/2nd-consecutive-month-of-below-normal-temperatures#ixzz2BK49EZVZ

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gbees

One of my favorite tv shows. Not any more!

And folks in the US wonder where their jobs went; replaced by workers in China. Who in the world wants to employ high priced morons when there is a surplus of low cost morons in the third world ready to take your job. All it needs is free trade.
Oops, our politicians passed that, didn’t they…. Now we are competing head to head with $5/day labor. Ever asked why your wages aren’t going up as fast as the cost of living?

Billy

Another enviro celebrity airhead;
http://www.nesn.com/2012/05/steven-tyler-buys-worlds-fastest-street-legal-car-for-11-million.html
You folks freeze in the dark while I burn up the pavement. Thanks.

Goldie

I trust the evidence in that case holds together better than the evidence for AGW.

michaeljmcfadden

Anthony, while I can’t say I’m surprised, and while I *do* sympathize… wait until the time when you can find an episode in virtually every major family series where they’ve actually built in a plot element emphasizing AGW and the harms that come from it.
THEN…. we can talk turkey.
Right now such things are probably just spontaneous. Watch out for the point when they turn into trade for time: write a show with a major Global Warming element squirreled into the plot for brainwashing and get three minutes of required government PSA ad time freed up to sell to Pfizer & Co. As far as I know, you guys haven’t yet experienced THAT sort of thing.
– MJM

Bob Diaz

It’s no shock that Hollywood producers put lines into shows to promote their narrow point of view. It’s all part of the propaganda that they like to feed the public. Without the internet, we might never know any better.

Michael

The earth has 97,000 Olympic size swimming pools full of water as each and every persons share, for all 7 billion people on the planet. I did the math, not saying it’s perfect.
“Just how much water is there on (and in) the Earth? Here are some numbers you can think about:
If all of Earth’s water (oceans, icecaps and glaciers, lakes, rivers, groundwater, and water in the atmosphere was put into a sphere, then the diameter of that water ball would be about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers), a bit more than the distance between Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kansas. The volume of all water would be about 332.5 million cubic miles (mi3), or 1,386 million cubic kilometers (km3). A cubic mile of water equals more than 1.1 trillion gallons. A cubic kilometer of water equals about 264 billion gallons.”
The question I have is:
If we burned all the known reserves of fossil fuels on the planet in one year, and used it exclusively for heating all waters on the planet, how much would it raise the current temperature of that amount of water through direct burning of those fossil fuels?

ferd berple says November 4, 2012 at 10:52 pm

Oops, our politicians passed that, didn’t they…. Now we are competing head to head with $5/day labor. Ever asked why your wages aren’t going up as fast as the cost of living?

In a land of abundant natural resources, we are restricted by artificial limitations imposed for purposes that are not always made clear (just WHO and WHEN are we reserving all our oil for on our federal lands for instance) ‘prices’ have increased on account of the cost of energy, probably the biggest sole component of anything we do/produce (mining, manufacturing, and even agriculture) … we _have_ seen a change in natural gas prices, however, owing to a more or less unrestricted new method (fracturing) that has supplies high and costs low … for how long this will remain the case until we reach a ‘peak gas’ stage (perhaps brought on by sufficiently strangulating govt regulations) is beyond my predictive capability …
.

Ben D.

Who knows,, they may have written that line into the script to get a rise out of AGW skeptics, nothing like a bit of stirring of the pot to involve the emotions of viewers?

TFNJ

The judge was being (a) insulting, or (b) weakly funny. or (c) delightfully ironic.
Whichever, not worthy of your comment Anthony. You are becoming too thin-skinned.
REPLY: I thought it was novel, I don’t recall seeing such commentary in prime time drama before – Anthony

John F. Hultquist

Over the past couple of years many folks commenting have claimed to resign from organizations and not renew magazine subscriptions. A magazine might cost between $20 and $40 per year. What’s the TV costing you? Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?

Bob Diaz says: “It’s no shock that Hollywood producers put lines into shows to promote their narrow point of view. ”
Bob, individual producers promoting their points of view is one thing. The danger lenters when the government begins subsidizing that point of view AND strays outside of subsidizing it with PSAs. People are aware that “ads are ads,” and they put up psychological defenses against being swayed by the emotional strings that are being yanked in ads. The camel’s nose came in the tent with the drug war :
“Under the sway of the office of President Clinton’s drug czar, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, some of America’s most popular shows — including “ER,” “Beverly Hills 90210,” … and “7th Heaven” — have filled their episodes with anti-drug pitches to cash in on a complex government advertising subsidy (Daniel Forbes. A Salon Special Report. Salon.com, 01/13/00).”
And moved over to the smoking arena with plotlines and commentary on numerous shows throughout the early 2000s. My comment on it in “Brains” was:
“Incredibly, TV networks even accepted having government officials review and alter scripts dealing with drugs to fit specified guidelines and received for this the equivalent of over ten million dollars a year in releases from PSA obligations that they could then sell to commercial sponsors. The idea of the government using our tax money to practice this sort of cultural indoctrination through our supposedly independent entertainment media should be deeply shocking to any American. ”
Given the history of this sort of subtle and very successful influence over our thinking and attitudes in the past in those areas, the question being hinted at by Anthony is quite valid: is there any evidence of the promotion of a “desired” point of view aimed through the chinks of our psychological defenses vis-a-vis our media when it comes to AGW? PSA type messages and paid organizational ad times are one thing: having our favorite characters state and illustrate political beliefs in a tax-paid effort to change our behavior is another thing altogether.
– MJM

FrankK

One of the coolest winters and spring here in Oz. Warmists = 0 Skeptics = 1

John F. Hultquist says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?

Put my boot though the screen of mine five years ago, while David Attenborough was giving me some BBC schmaltz about ‘global warming’..
Haven’t felt the need to replace it yet.

FrankK says:
November 5, 2012 at 12:06 am
One of the coolest winters and spring here in Oz. Warmists = 0 Skeptics = 1

Freezing here in UK a month early too.

SasjaL

It’s fiction! What else to expect?

Eric H.

Weather isn’t climate until it supports your side of the argument.
I hear ya Tallbloke, had snow on the ground already in Herts.

Mark and two Cats

“I think perhaps the Hollywood producers or writing staff might have a burr under their saddle…”
————————————-
The Hollywood left still have a burr under their saddle about the McCarthy era black balling of communist producers, writers, actors, etc. Even if overzealously pursued, there was at least some justification behind the indictments: there WERE communists in Hollywood (and now even in the White House – but I digress…)
More sinister is what is now taking place in the scientific community with the ostracism of sceptical persons for NO justified reason. There is no global warming monster under the bed.
I hope that some day there are movies lionising the people who stood up against the new McCarthyism just as there are movies about those who did likewise under the old – but I ain’t gonna hold my CO2 (breath).

Thank you for being here on this exceptionally warm November day. I suppose it goes without saying, Global Warming 1, skeptics 0.

He could have been speaking facetiously. I.e., the logic of his statement was so absurd that he said it only to amuse the audience–and maybe to poke fun at warmists who reason similarly.

Gary Hladik

Maybe the show should be renamed “The Politically Correct Wife.” 🙂

pat

no matter how often the MSM is mocked for illustrating CAGW articles with steam-emitting chimneys, they keep right on doing the same thing, including in this one:
5 Nov: International Business Times: Esther Tanquintic-Misa: Global Carbon Emissions Breach Threshold – PwC
In its latest annual Low Carbon Economy Index report, which analyses the developed and emerging economies’ progress in lessening their respective carbon intensity, or emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), Price Waterhouse Coopers found that these global carbon emitters were only able to reduce emissions to a combined 0.7 per cent only in 2011, “a fraction what is required against the international commitment to limit global warming to 2°C.”
To achieve the 2°C limit, the world would need to reduce global carbon intensity by an average of 5.1 per cent a year – a barometer the PwC said was never achieved since 1950 when the records first began.
“Because of this slow start, global carbon intensity now needs to be cut by an average of 5.1 percent a year from now to 2050. This rate of reduction has not been achieved in any of the past 50 years,” the Low Carbon Economy Index report said…
“The risk to business is that it faces more unpredictable and extreme weather, and disruptions to market and supply chains. Resilience will become a watch word in the boardroom – to policy responses as well as to the climate,” Jonathan Grant, director, sustainability and climate change, PwC said.
“The new reality is a much more challenging future in terms of planning, financing and predictability. Even doubling our current annual rates of decarbonisation globally every year to 2050, would still lead to 6°C, making governments’ ambitions to limit warming to 2°C appear highly unrealistic.”
“This isn’t about shock tactics. It is simple math,” the report said…
China’s and India’s decarbonisation, meanwhile, seems to have stalled in the last decade…
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/401372/20121105/pwc-carbon-emissions-britain-france-germany.htm
apart from Indian Express, reuters point carbon is the only other MSM carrying this CATASTROPHIC news! however, these days u have to pay to read the rubbish they put out.

bertief

Really you chaps are spoiled. I’ve lost count of the number of dramas on British and French TV where there is a global wamring/we are killing the world/CO2 is man made poison theme relentlessly shoved in the viewers’ faces.

Herbie

If you take it in context of the show and the fact that that character is portrayed as an airhead loon then it actually fits with his character. Sometimes it helps to remember TV shows are fiction.

linearthinker

Hultquist @ 11:58 pm
“What’s the TV costing you?”
What’s your point, John? I applaud the calling out of the agenda driven programming for what it is, and that’s what Anthony has done.
“Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?”
Count me in that group. I keep a TV around to watch movies on VCR and DVD, and may resubscribe to satellite service, only for sports and Fox News. The rest is drivel and trash. I’m with Tallbloke on that score. Actually, it’s worse than I characterize it above. Look up Amber Lyon, a three time Emmy winning investigative reporter who recently resigned from CNN, citing that they were actually on the take from the Obama administration for slanting news to favor the administration, or of not reporting some stories at all if it was offensive to their patrons.

Sceptical Lefty

Sorry, Anthony: I think TFNJ (above) nailed it. This is of no consequence.

I like the show. This is satire, based on the Edward Current. meme, “God 1, Atheists, 0!”

Jack Simmons

Hollywood deals with alternate realities as a matter of course. Of course they are receptive to fictional views of the earth.
Part of the fun of science fiction is playing the ‘what if’ game. What if I could travel through time. What if some aliens came to the earth.
A lot of actors confuse acting ability with expertise in the real world. So do a lot of their fans.
If I were a lawyer in a trial where the judge did make a comment of that sort, I would know right away the judge is not very bright. Certainly would not object; just file the observation away for future use in the trial.

Leo Morgan

The Television and Motion Picture Industry is perpetually and embarrassingly wrong about all scientific issues. It’s hard to believe any group could get it so consistently wrong. It’s as if they are engaged in a war to spread disinformation. They get it wrong even in cases where its easier to get it right.
It’s particularly strange since the Industry relies so extensively on some of the most advanced technology on the face of the planet.
I care about the damage they do to the education of the general public, sufficiently much that I say a little prayer that they should get their just deserts, every time they muck things up. Generally, that’s with every movie and TV show.

Peter Plail

Yet another example of media/scriptwriter ignorance over the weather/climate issue.

Manfred

Global warming, global cooling – it’s all the same meme : catastrophic change. No change? same thing: it should be changing, it always has! Whatever way one looks at it, the catastrophist meme covers it all. Science fiction at its worst, political control at its best.

Otter

Gilmore Girls. Smallville. Dr. Who… They’ve managed to ruin each show for me with such ideological claptrap.

Otter

Say, Anthony, OT and sorry about that, but I am guessing you will be posting a reminder for your webshow soon? I’ll post it in my journal.

One warm day in November is not, of course, evidence of global warming. But it is a funny quip nevertheless.

Jack Simmons

Michael says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm

The volume of all water would be about 332.5 million cubic miles (mi3), or 1,386 million cubic kilometers (km3). A cubic mile of water equals more than 1.1 trillion gallons. A cubic kilometer of water equals about 264 billion gallons.”
The question I have is:
If we burned all the known reserves of fossil fuels on the planet in one year, and used it exclusively for heating all waters on the planet, how much would it raise the current temperature of that amount of water through direct burning of those fossil fuels?

Total water in earth, from your figures – 3.285 X 10**21 pounds.
Total energy in earth from fossil fuels – 1.0 X 10**21 BTU
See http://www.scribd.com/doc/27989321/Calculating-Earth-s-Total-Fossil-Fuel-Reserves
Divide former into latter, I come up with about 1/3 degrees F.

John F. Hultquist says: “Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?”
I’m keeping mine to watch their faces as they announce the end of the Kyoto Commitment on the 31st December 2012. Or better still, to watch the utter lack of any comment what-so-ever from any news media, NGO or US or UK government as they try to ignore what the rest of the world is telling them as they ditch Kyoto and the Global Warming scam.
Then I want to have my TV, to watch the greens and NGOs as they first try denial to pretend it hasn’t finished, then they try anger to force people to listen, then they just go into childish screaming michael-mann fit on the floor.
And then I want to watch the faces of all the presenters who over all these years have told straight faced lies about global warming … as they try to pretend they were always sceptics.
But the best bit will be watching all those third rate reporters who have had the easy cop-out when asked “what caused it” … as they now struggle to make any sense of any science behind the real climate now that the pseudo clap trap religion that used to be their answer for extreme weather events as been exposed as carp.

Gail Combs

John F. Hultquist says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Over the past couple of years many folks commenting have claimed to resign from organizations and not renew magazine subscriptions. A magazine might cost between $20 and $40 per year. What’s the TV costing you? Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?
___________________________________________
I have.
I can not stand the drivel the broadcast, I rather read.

Ian W

_Jim says:
November 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm

The real question Jim is why the interpretation of The Constitution changed from the Federal Government only being able to own land for a very limited number of ‘enumerated purposes’ to the Federal Government can ‘take ownership of any land or property for any purpose’.

The judge in the episode was clearly portrayed as an assclown more interested in not being overturned than doing his job. The actor conveyed it well. 🙂

nevket240

Who in their right mind would lower their precious intellect to watch an American [snip. . mod]??????
come on dudes, your joking, aren’t you??
regards,,

cba

I viewed the show last night and noticed the goofball character making a comment the agw comment. I also noticed something far more egregious – the overall theme of that episode. The client was trying to sue a company for the after hours conduct of one of its employees.

Peter Crawford

Based on the silent clip the Judge Abernethy character appears to be a bit of a smug fellow and not very sympathetic. So maybe the line is meant to illustrate just what a smug little creep he is. Maybe.
Tallbloke reports snow in northern England. Eric H reports snow in southern England. I can report that two days ago in north Wales my 5-year old niece was throwing snowballs at me. When I told her there was a climate scientist who said a few years ago that our children simply aren’t going to know what snow is she replied, “what an idiot”.

Dave

Anthony – you are being too thin skinned. The judge is a repeat character and a knee-jerk ‘liberal’ jerk, the kind of person one would expect to say something like that. I laughed at him, not with him.

Hoser

tallbloke says:
November 5, 2012 at 12:15 am

You are not polluting your own mind, or your kids’, and that’s a good thing. I haven’t had live TV in the house for years.
However, consider the legions of heads filled with garbage voting for mini-tyrants making dangerous policy. The opposition must either make us buffons or evil, and Hollywood is busy trying to fulfill that mission. These sorts of lib-cracks (not wisecracks) have peppered shows for many years, even ‘intelligent’ shows like House. The same juvenile humor is common in politics now, at least on one side (e.g. Petreus – betray us). We should at least be aware of it.
Fortunately, we have WUWT to arm ourselves with good science-based arguments, and I suspect we have the laws of Nature mostly on our side. Eventually, reality will reveal the truth. The question is by the time everyone knows the score, have we already given up our freedom to be kept “safe”. What happens Nov 6 will influence how fast we move down the road to serfdom, not just in the US.

ozspeaksup

not in any way surprising ABC radio etc in aus has been doing this(badly ad nauseaum) for the last few years. every show inc the religion ones have managed to intro warming into it somewhere.
they TOLD us they planned to ramp up media coverage and fight back at us nasty unbelievers:-)
this is just the beginning, and then theres all the thick actors who will happily say and do anything to gain media cover and a few more retarded fans..
I ditched TV in 1992 and havent missed it a bit.
the pc and the info via net is far superior.

“…The average high temperature for October was 60.5 degrees which is -1.8 below normal.”
Just being pedantic, but I always thought 2 negatives made a positive?

Birdieshooter

It was 22 F this morning in Mid Michigan. Skeptics 1 AGW 0

MikeN

Scandal had an episode where the protagonists realize the CIA has doctored photos because of global warming. The growing season has moved over time ~1 decadee because of global warming, so the pics are taken now rather than when claimed.

cedarhill

michaeljmcfadden November 4, 2012 at 11:03 pm (and others).
Every entertainment work you see on TV and video is scripted. Some human wrote the script, word for word. All the ads are scripted. Doh? Oh, and even all the news programs as well as those great shows on MSNBC and “speical reports”. Yada yada yada.
Point is, the line presented was sincerely intentional. If the judge had said, for example, “this case is a stain on the blue dress of justice” do you think the writer meant the the signing of the Magna Carter? Throw away lines, sub plots and even entire stories are intentionally intended to convey exactly what they say. No need for Dr. Phil.
For the rest of use, the point is you all should be pro-choice in the sense that you can choice to not patronize and contribute to these shows and their actors/entertainers. It’s your choice.

Sasha

This is not unusual at all.
Example: BBC TV had a program about architecture. The whilst a helicopter hovered over the City of London the voice over pronounced in its usual God-like manner; “The eighties gave us wide shoulderpads and global warming”…
The number of times this sort of sly insertion has been made by the BBC and others is too numerous to mention. We don’t call it the British Brainwashing Corporation for nothing.

Jason Calley

John F. Hultquist says: “Can I get a show of hands of those that have gotten rid of their TVs?”
Count me in that group too. Got rid of mine 16 or 17 years ago. It is an unfortunate fact that modern programming, taken as a whole (and yes, there may be a few minor exceptions) is NOT an instrument of education. It is, as Fred Reed phrases it, a source of “enstupidation.” Once you ditch your TV you will be amazed at the mental fog which will leave your daily life. Give it a month and see the difference.
Leo Morgan says, “It’s hard to believe any group could get it so consistently wrong. It’s as if they are engaged in a war to spread disinformation. They get it wrong even in cases where its easier to get it right.”
Yes, exactly, they are engaged in a war of disinformation. Mass broadcasting has two purposes, neither of which is involved in the actual passing of truth. First, they wish to capture your eyeballs. Remember, YOU are not their customer. You are their product. They sell your eyeballs to people who purchase advertisements. Lies can be made into a better bait than simple truth. Secondly, mass programming relies heavily on governmental licensing and permitting. They disseminate disinformation as a favor to their governmental sponsors. The government is in the business of acquiring power, and the most potent weapon for gaining power is by retaining a populace which does not understand what the facts are. TV helps.
These points are very simple, and anyone who actually looks around can verify them. On the other hand, they are so unpleasant to internalize that few people are willing to admit them.