Open Letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney

Date: November 26, 2013

From: Bob Tisdale

To: Lewis Black and George Clooney

Subject: Human-Induced Global Warming


First, let me congratulate and thank you for your efforts in disaster relief and other charities.

With that said, I’ve written to you both because a recent statement about climate change by George reminded me of a couple by Lewis.

At the Britannia Awards, in a response to what must’ve been a question about the recent typhoon that stuck the Philippines, George, you said in part:

If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up with the 99. You know what I mean?

Let me ask: Would you see a podiatrist or a proctologist for a sore throat?

The climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has only been tasked with determining whether manmade factors, primarily carbon dioxide, could be responsible for the recent bout of global warming, and what the future might bring if the real world responds to projected increases in manmade greenhouse gases in ways that are similar to climate models. They were not asked to determine if naturally caused, sunlight-fueled processes could have caused the global warming over the past 30 years, or to determine the contribution of those natural factors in the future—thus all of the scrambling by climate scientists who are now trying to explain the hiatus in global warming. Refer to the IPCC’s History webpage (my boldface):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation…”

It is not the IPCC’s role to understand the scientific basis for naturally caused climate change, which the Earth has experienced all along. As a result, even after decades of modeling efforts, climate models still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to global warming or stop it. So a “doctors” example falls flat because it relies on experts whose understandings of climate are extremely limited in scope. We’ll expand on this later.

You also appealed to authority, Lewis, in your appearance on the Weather Channel with Al Roker and Stephanie Abrams.

Lewis, let’s drop back a year or so to your interview with Piers Morgan. Piers asked you about the republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election. In part, you replied:

No grip on science. Science? No. No science. Did these people ever look… Did they all flunk it? Is that their fear? Do they think science is a lobby—that the democrats had funded this lobby called science? I mean, how do you not… Global warming is real.

I agree that global surface temperatures have warmed, but satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data both indicate the oceans warmed via naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, ocean atmosphere processes—not via manmade greenhouse gases. More on that later.

Lewis, you have said in the past:

The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, “I’ve got a really bad idea.” And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, “And I can make it shittier.”

Climate science is funded by the politicians…and in the United States that means by Democrats and Republicans working together. As I noted above, government-funded climate science has only been focused in one direction: to determine if manmade greenhouse gases could be the cause of the warming since the mid-1970s. And the answer is, it could be…in the virtual world of climate models, which, by the way, bear no relationship with the real world. None whatsoever. Was the warming actually caused by greenhouse gases? The climate science community hasn’t a clue, because they still do not understand how natural climate variability works. And we know this because climate scientists can’t model those processes.

This failure to properly simulate the timing and strength of internal variability caused a former lead author of the IPCC (Kevin Trenberth) to remark in David Appell’s article “W(h)ither global warming? Has global warming slowed down?

“One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,” he [Dr. Trenberth] says, especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.

I have stated, and will state, a number of times that climate models cannot simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, as noted by Dr. Trenberth. If you have scientific backgrounds, I’ll suggest some further reading:

The take-home statement from Ruiz-Barradas, et al. (2013) is:

If climate models do not incorporate the mechanisms associated to the generation of the AMO (or any other source of decadal variability like the PDO) and in turn incorporate or enhance variability at other frequencies, then the models ability to simulate and predict at decadal time scales will be compromised and so the way they transmit this variability to the surface climate affecting human societies.

(AMO = Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Both are forms of long-term natural variability. I have recently confirmed that climate models cannot simulate them in the post Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming.)

For Bellenger, et al. (2013) it is (my boldface):

Much development work for modeling group is still needed in order to correctly represent ENSO, its basic characteristics (amplitude, evolution, timescale, seasonal phaselock…) and fundamental processes such as the Bjerknes and surface fluxes feedbacks.

(ENSO = El Niño-Southern Oscillation. In this context, ENSO represents the processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events, which are the naturally caused, sunlight-fueled, phenomena that have the greatest impact on global climate on annual, decadal and multidecadal timescales.)

And for Guilyardi et al. (2013), the key statement is:

Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes.

Additionally, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) recently prepared and presented their recommendations for the future of the IPCC. [Refer to their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC.] Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:

We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.

In short, research for the IPCC, and all of the like-minded government-funded climate research, has been very limited in scope, neglecting natural factors—just what one would expect from Democrats and Republicans working together. To paraphrase Lewis: someone had a bad idea, and someone else made it shittier.

Here’s a quick little tidbit: The climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have to double the rate of the observed warming of the surface temperatures of the global oceans over the past 30+ years in order to warm modeled land surface air temperatures at a rate that was close to observations. See my Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1 (Graphs are from Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State.)

Climate models are…to put it bluntly…crap, and they are the tools the IPCC uses for its forecasts of future gloom and doom. Also see the posts here and here for further information about the failures of climate models. Those posts are only the tip of the climate-model-failure pyramid. I’ve presented numerous posts about climate model failings at my blog, at WattsUpWithThat. Climate models cannot simulate surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice area. See the posts:

Those topics and others were discussed in my ebook Climate Models Fail.

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that, when climate scientists are claiming typhoons and hurricanes are being impacted by manmade global warming, they’re referring to the virtual worlds of climate models, not the real world. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth stated in an Op-Ed (my boldface):

The super storm Sandy follows on the heels of Isaac earlier this year and Irene last year, both of which also produced widespread flooding as further evidence of the increased water vapor in the atmosphere associated with warmer oceans.

Figure 2 presents the average outputs of two variables from all of the simulations of the climate models prepared for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report. They cover the period of January 1979 to August 2013:

  • (upper left-hand graph) sea surface temperatures in deg C.
  • (upper right-hand graph) global precipitation in mm/day.
  • (lower left-hand graph) a comparison of the two datasets after they’ve been normalized (by dividing the data by their standard deviations).

Figure 2

Figure 2 (Click to enlarge)

It’s very obvious in the virtual worlds of climate models that surface temperatures of the global oceans and global precipitation are increasing hand-in-hand. So, the climate models support what Kevin Trenberth said.

In Trenberth’s recent article for the Royal Meteorological Society, he uses 2001 as the start year for the recent hiatus in global warming. Figure 3 includes graphs of the same model outputs of sea surface temperature and precipitation, but with a start date of January 2001. Still, the models show an increase in global sea surface temperatures and an increase in precipitation, still supporting Trenberth’s claim.

Figure 3

Figure 3 (Click to enlarge)

On the other hand, data from the real world, based on actual measurements, contradict the models, and do not support Trenberth’s claims. Satellite-enhanced global sea surface temperature data and satellite- and rain gauge-based precipitation data both show declines since 2001. See Figure 4. So, there is no evidence that global sea surface temperatures have warmed over the past 12+ years, and there is no evidence that the mythical additional moisture in the atmosphere even exists, because global precipitation has also declined.

Figure 4

Figure 4 (Click to enlarge)

Notes: My response to Kevin Trenberth’s article for the Royal Meteorological Society is here. Also see the discussions of Hurricane Sandy here.

Now, you may be saying to yourselves that global sea surface temperatures have increased since 1982, as shown above in my Figure 1. That’s very true. But when you divide the global oceans into logical subsets, the ocean heat content data for the top 700 meters of the global oceans over the past 55+ years and the satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data (32 years) both indicate the oceans warmed via naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, ocean–atmosphere processes. I won’t go into details in this letter, but I’ve prepared an overview in the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42mb). Further information can be found in the 2-part YouTube series “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. See Part 1 here and Part 2 here. And if you’re really interested in the topic, you can refer to my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? – The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit: El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

George, your response to Typhoon Haiyan prompted this memo. Are you aware that tropical cyclones that made landfall in the western North Pacific had declined from 1950 to 2010? See Figure 5, which is from Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post Are Typhoon Disasters Getting More Common? Roger was one of the co-authors of the Weinkle et al. (2012) paper Historical Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls.

Figure 5 WPAC_50-10_Weinkleetal

Figure 5

Also refer to Roger’s recent post Graphs of the Day: Major US Hurricane Drought Continues. My Figure 6 is from that post, and it definitely shows a decrease in the landfalls of North Atlantic Hurricanes in the United States since 1900.

Figure 6 uslandfalls1900to2013

Figure 6

Sea surface temperatures are a major component of typhoons. The sea surface temperatures of the Indian and Pacific Oceans (from pole to pole) have shown little to no warming in almost 2 decades. See my Figure 7, which is from the post Reality is Absent from Michael Mann’s Activist Article on Typhoon Haiyan. On the other hand, the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report indicate the sea surface temperatures there should have warmed about 0.35 deg C since 1994…if they were warmed by emissions of manmade greenhouse gases.

Figure 7

Figure 7

Rising sea levels are also tied to tropical cyclone damage. But as I wrote in the Introduction to my book Climate Models Fail:

Many readers probably consider rising sea levels a done deal anyway. Sea levels have climbed 100 to 120 meters (about 330 to 390 feet) since the end of the last ice age, and they were also 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher during the Eemian (the last interglacial period) than they are today. (Refer to the press release for the 2013 paper by Dahl-Jensen, et al. “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed From a Greenland Folded Ice Core”.) Whether or not we curtail greenhouse gas emissions (assuming they significantly affect climate at all), if surface temperatures remain where they are (or even if they resume warming, or if surface temperatures were to cool a little in upcoming decades), sea levels will likely continue to rise. Refer to Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post “How Much Sea Level Rise Would be Avoided by Aggressive CO2 Reductions?” It’s very possible, before the end of the Holocene (the current interglacial), that sea levels could reach the heights seen during the Eemian. Some readers might believe it’s not a matter of if sea levels will reach that height; it’s a matter of when.

Then again, sea level data even during the satellite era is problematic. The final sentence of Wunsch, et al. (2007) “Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993–2004” reads:

It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be. The priority has to be to make such calculations possible in the future.

Considering that sea level has been studied for decades, that’s not very encouraging.

A recent blog post by one of the global warming enthusiasts/climate scientists at RealClimate confirms that it’s not a matter of if sea levels will rise in the future, but when they will reach certain heights. Stefan Rahmstorf writes in his post Sea level rise: What the experts expect (my bracketed conversions to inches and feet).

A just-published survey of 90 sea-level experts from 18 countries now reveals what amount of sea-level rise the wider expert community expects. With successful, strong mitigation measures, the experts expect a likely rise of 40-60 cm [about 16 to 24 inches] in this century and 60-100 cm [about 24 to 39 inches] by the year 2300. With unmitigated warming, however, the likely range is 70-120 cm [about 28 to 47 inches] by 2100 and two to three meters [6.5 to 10 feet] by the year 2300.

To put that in perspective, as noted earlier, sea levels were 13 to 26 feet higher during the last interglacial.

Keep in mind these expert opinions are based on assumptions they’ve made about the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on sea level when they programmed their flawed climate models. And the warming scenarios they’re referring to (mitigated versus unmitigated) are also based on assumptions about the future emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors. So the climate scientists are presenting assumptions about assumptions.

Bottom line on sea level: according to the sea levels presented by climate models, strong mitigation strategies only delay the inescapable—they only buy time, which seems to me to be money poorly spent. Phrased another way, coastal communities will have to bear the costs of adapting to sea level rise at some time in the future regardless of the strength of the mitigation measures.

As I was writing this, I ran across a partial translation of a recent interview with climate scientist Hans von Storch. What Hans von Storch is reported to have said is quite remarkable:

He finds climate models too CO2-centric in general. Here he appeals for more patience to let the science unfold.

“…let the science unfold”?

For decades, the IPCC has presented climate science as an established field. Now we’re being asked to have “more patience to let the science to unfold”? Climate scientists have had two decades to program their models, and they still cannot simulate naturally occurring, naturally fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause global temperatures to warm or can halt that warming.

People are being driven to fuel poverty—pensioners haven’t been able to afford heating energy costs and they’ve frozen to death in their own homes—because the climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC, has presented certainty in their findings, and politicians have acted on that certainty, needlessly driving up energy costs. And now a longstanding member of the climate science community has the gall to ask for patience due to uncertainties that many knew existed all along?

George and Lewis, I suspect you’re open minded, but you haven’t really examined or been introduced to the fatal flaws in the hypothesis of human-induced global warming. Are you willing to research and discuss this topic? I have presented data and climate model outputs for the past 5 years, and I’ve discussed what I’ve found. Data and climate model outputs are available to the public, in easy-to-use formats, through a number of sources. Most of my blog posts are also cross posted at the award-winning science blog, WattsUpWithThat, which is the world’s most-viewed website about climate change and global warming. I’ve also presented my findings in my ebooks. Please feel free to ask questions at my blog. I believe I can show you that climate models do not support the hypothesis of human-induced global warming. You may even come to understand the models contradict it.

In closing, I want to thank you again for your efforts in disaster relief and other charities. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t more proactive organizations that help developing nations create infrastructures, warning systems, evacuation plans, temporary storm shelters, etc., so that people around the globe are capable of moving out of harm’s way. Cleaning up the Earth a little bit is not going to stop tropical cyclones or the death toll associated with them. Moving people away from the coasts during cyclones definitely helps, though. See the article Why no one died on island in Cebu.


Bob Tisdale


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
lemiere jacques

come on , you know geoges clooney just wants to be “cool”…
and what is weird is you know clooney will not read your letter so don’t write a letter to him, it is too much credit for is opinion on climate science, just explain why being skeptic is “cool”, because truth is cool.


George Clooney is working with fictional stories, like all of his collegues do. This isn’t any different …


If there is ever a grand debate on the topic, you sir, just earned a spot on the team.


I would have gone with the angle,
“But George, a cancer diagnosis from 99% of homeopathic practitioners is worth about the same as the rake from your last three movies. You need to talk to an Oncologist, boy.”
You have to put it in terms he’ll understand.


Wait! Is this before, or after Obamacare?

gaelan clark

Firstly, for Mr.Clooney, you actually have to have graduated High School—at LEAST a GED— in order to even understand any of what you have written. In fact, I would be willling to bet that MrClooney has never sat down amd read that many words at one time.
Second, you have to have a weeeeeeeee bit of shame in order to feel badly about stating such silly remarks. And there is none.


Lewis Black is a funny man. But he should stick to comedy and stay out of political commentary. BTW Bob, just wondered if you saw this nice ad hominem on you over at

Bloke down the pub

I wrote to Prince Charles a while back on similar issues. I suppose I was being a bit optimistic to think that a single letter might lead someone to reconsider a belief system that they hold so dear. I do not hold out any hope that Mr Clooney will be any more open minded.

Well done, Bob. I forwarded to friends who are trying to get a handle on the subject and all that read in the mass media. It’s no wonder people are so confused.


Sorry to say it Bob, you are wasting your time. Unless you can get this on US TV, you are p1$$1ng into the wind.


For Clooney to accept what you have written he would have to go against all his cool friends who have an emotional attachment to the fashionable “climate change cause.” Some no doubt have a financial attachment as well. I just can’t see him being able to have an open mind on the subject.


Wow George as likeable as he is personally not sure I want him interfering in the climate wars as instead of dedicating himself to the science in his spare time he flogs coffee machines on the side ?


Patrick says:
November 26, 2013 at 4:32 am

It’s an open letter, Patrick, that makes all the difference. Bob’s letter is a good intro into the subject for the layman and stands on its own, whether Mr. Black and Clooney react on it or not.
I did send the article to a friend who recently showed interest in the matter.

#1 – I admire your tenacity Mr. Tisdale, but I am afraid you are wasting your time. Your letter, very well written and documented, requires intelligence to ingest, and neither recipient has enough of that to understand it. They are actors. They know how to lie convincingly. That is all they know how to do.
#2 – While not a Mensa candidate, Lewis Black does touch on the truth. I think he is just too narrow in his definition. One party does propose bad laws (it can be either, in contradiction to what Mr. Lewis said), and the other then mucks the law up trying to make it better (again it can be either). Basically, when lawyers write laws, they are bad laws. And bad laws are worse than no laws. Case in point – Obamacare. There were 45 million uninsured prior to the law, 30 of them involuntarily. Experts now predict an ADDITIONAL 80 million will be uninsured due to the law.
And while the law was created by the democrats (they proposed and passed the bad law), Republicans seem to only want to “fix it”. Which will only make it worse.


Mythbusters have proven many times that you cannot get good science from Hollywood …

James Strom

In reply to some of the posters above, the point of making a letter open is to have it be read by others besides the nominal recipients. Since the letter has been published on a leading climate website, Bob’s doing pretty well.
One way for Bob to get greater exposure would be to become highly skilled in comedy and be invited to various talk shows, where he could set people straight. However, if he had put in the effort to do that he would probably not have time to develop expertise in climate. Wait a minute! Doesn’t that sort of imply that Clooney and Black in turn may not be the best sources of climate information?


Well this is a TL;DR moment!
TL;DR: Climate models suck, they’re completely wrong. Warming stopped years ago. The only thing still increasing is the BS. You can either help spread it, or help stop it.
(for those who haven’t encountered “TL;DR”, it means “Too Long, Didn’t Read”)


“Jurgen says:
November 26, 2013 at 4:53 am”
There is only one solution to this “problem”. War!


That 99% quote about doctors from George Clooney always reminds me that ‘miasma’ would have been a valid prescription for illness for a very long time.
Didn’t make it right of course.
The science is very rarely settled so you believe and trust what you believe…..

John Bell

You can bet that both Black and Clooney still drive cars, use electricity, heat and cool their homes, in short they say one thing but do another.

C.M. Carmichael

Actors are people who have the ability to say anything with a straight face and seemingly strong emotion, when a cause trots out its celebrities, the cause is lost. My approach to celebrity guidance is, “What would Yoko Ono Do ?” and do the opposite. Lewis Black is a bright and funny comic, but Bob is a expert in climate.

Stephen Richards

If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up with the 99. You know what I mean?
So, he has never heard of Dr Marshall and his ulcer research. But why would celebs have heard of anyone outside of the circle of spoilt brats. They haven’t the time to educate themselves properly and have no need to. All they need is a good memory oh, and good looks help.


Celebrities, and particularly those involved in acting/performing are obviously used to having their heads filled with fabricated sh!te…..
Celebrities who partake in fundraising activities, whilst maintaining a luxurious lifestyle themselves are extremely annoying. Requesting that I give up a few pennies to help others, whilst they are fully seen to live in outright selfish extravagence, is a little more than just hypocritical. How many hundreds of thousands could they themselves give? When the likes of such celebs ‘do as they preach’ – and preferably move down to my standard of living, giving up all else for such charitable causes – I will take notice. Until then, I ignore them. (It doesn’t stop my charitable support – just rankles me to hell).
It is the same with political issues – which AGW obviously is – some doozy trying to tell me which way to vote when I know full well that it makes not a ha’peth of difference to their own lives is simply disgusting. IMHO, they are simply dabbling without real ’cause’.
Hence, it is bad enough that the scientists are making gross mistakes and extreme ‘claims’ – in the name of science, and with some kind of ‘consensus’ – but to have some celebrity openly supporting it – again, when we know it affects them not one jot – is simply beyond irksome.
My kids understand more about climate and science than pretty much all the celebs who ever mention the subject. I respectfully suggest these celebs shut their fricking traps!!

General P. Malaise

follow this link. the liberal / progressives don’t think like rational creatures.

Steve Case

George Clooney probably has about as much science expertise as the average guy. Neither he nor the hypothetical average Joe is going to read your letter. I know I started skimming half way through. In other words, your opus is aimed at a very small audience who are all probably members of the choir.


95% of priests would tell you that you are going to hell unless you repent

G P Hanner

So. Arguing with a comedian and a schmuck who makes movies like “Men Who Stare at Goats.” My daughter would call that reasoning with a three-year old.

michael hart

George Clooney is a fine actor, but as far as I know he didn’t train as an actor in drama school. I don’t think any less of him because of that.

Alberta Slim

It’s all about marketing the CAGW scare.
The sheeple listen to the the lies of “airhead” celebrities and ignore facts.


See, michael hart, I would have written:
George Clooney is a “fine actor”…. /sarc
Generally speaking, I know that if his name is on the credits it is going to be something boring.


Sorry, no disrespect to Bob, but this open letter will go straight over their heads and binned. It is too complex and excessively factual. Good for us sceptics – but sadly not for them (the believers).
From experience, I have found the most successful way to convert most warmists (irrespective of their education/background/qualifications) is to simply highlight all the ways we manufacture CO2 – deliberately excluding all naturally occurring ways that the trace gas is produced. This method works well over a pint in the pub, over dinner and especially when written down.
So, start by deliberately leaving out out photosynthesis, respiration (including cellular), volcanic activity, calcification, flatulence, etc. Agree with them that the burning of fossil fuels produces CO2 (we already now that), but add all the other ways we produce the stuff during food & beverage manufacture, refridgeration, use of propellants, industrial processes, etc. Try to include some surprises such as ‘fermented soya beans’ for the world’s soy sauce market, ’emergency exit slides on all aircraft’, ‘denture cleaning products for the 4% of the population with false teeth’ and ‘human cremation’. At this stage, convince them that ‘driving your gas-guzzling car up the road is only a small part of the equation’.
Finally, your trump card, finish by asking them three questions: (i) How much of all the CO2 up there in the sky is naturally occurring, (ii) How much of the CO2 is man-made, and (iii) What percentage of CO2 is there in relation to all other atmospheric gas.
(Answers: (i) 96.775% (ii) 3.225% (iii) CO2 = 0.040% All other gases = 99.96%)
Every time, the warmists retreat by concluding “I didn’t know that. So how can humans possibly be blamed for warming the planet up from such a miniscule amount of gas – it just doesn’t make sense”.
Job done.
PS. I have a comprehensive list of all the surprising ways we ‘manufacture’ CO2 if anyone asks.


Bob wrote
“Let me ask: Would you see a podiatrist or a proctologist for a sore throat?”
The answer is; yes. George Clooney would and should see a proctologist for a sore throat.

more soylent green!

If all you know about global warming/climate change/climate disruption/man-made climate disaster comes from the popular media and word-of-mouth around Hollywood, how could you believe differently? These guys have been brain-washed and propagandized as badly as the Hitler-Youth.
BTW: Sorry about the NAZI reference. Too soon?

Joseph Bastardi

Grays paper on all this, and remember he was saying this back in the 1970s, looks for the unmoved mover behind the amo/pdo. Great read


An “open letter” is usually written for the purpose of presenting an opposing viewpoint, or in this case, getting the truth out. Here, we know that neither Clooney nor Lewis will understand it. You can hit them with the facts all day long and all you will get is the “deer-in-the-headlights” look. If fact, I would go further to posit that they will never change their belief system. So, Bob basically writes this for us skeptics, or anyone that might be in-the-middle. Therefore, it is not a waste of time. If fact, it is greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Bob!


If you had 99 doctors tell you that the cause of your stomach ulcer is spicy food, drink and lifestyle and 1 tells you it’s caused by a bacterium, whose advice would you take? Before the 1980s most people would have said the 99 doctors and they would have been mostly wrong.
What if 99 medical research scientists working for the big drug companies told you that a particular patented drug was good for you and 1 medical research scientist said it’s not. Wouldn’t you ask for a second opinion? Wouldn’t you ask the 99 research scientists who they work for? I ask myself who these climate scientist work for and what’s in if to them. Alas it’s Nobel Prizes, tropical jaunts, lavish, government funding, Calamalotological stardom, press interviews as if you are important leading to statements from the former CRU climate modeller: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”.
And finally, how does George Clooney lead his low co2 life? What’s a couple of mansions between friends? Why take train, car or scheduled airline when you can go by private jet? Even for a short visit to friends. What’s ONE car or motorcyle when you can have MANY? Let these things not distract you, George Clooney is doing his best to tackle climate change.

Chuck L

Bob, you did usual thorough job in debunking climate alarmism but regrettably, facts and logic make no impression on tiny-brained true believers like Clooney, Black, or any of the myriad empty-headed twits that seem to populate most of the entertainment world who belong to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Wierding/whatever the term de jour is.


Excellent letter, but a waste of time. George isn’t bright enough to grasp what you are trying to tell him, and he will ignore it anyway. When climate change has finally ceased to become an issue, guys like George will just blithely move on to whatever is the next popular cause without giving it a second thought. They will not even stop to consider what kind of damage their mistaken commitment has done.

Gene Selkov

Every time I read something written by Bob, I want to thank him for his patience. Never mind that he fails in his mission to educate those whose education is complete. There are many enough of us here who are perpetual students. We do appreciate his efforts.

Ian W

That needs to be turned into an ‘elevator speech’ , The intended recipients possibly read a page before their lips got tired.


Casting your pearls before swine. Nice try though.

Jim G

Excellent summary, Bob. Wasted on most people, particulary the addressees. Remember the KISS principle. CO2 is going up, temperature has not for 18 years. Models don’t work. Their predictions are fiction. Nuf said.


Calling this downturn in temps a hiatus or pause lends credibility to the Alarmist GW cause. Can we all start referring to this as a “top” in the cycle or an inflection point?

Our fake charts and grafts make our fortunes your long words with facts will never harm us.

Bernd Palmer

Great letter, Written in easy to understand layman terms, leaving no doubt about the scientific basis.
George Clooney is a great and convincing actor in his video spots for Nespresso coffee, but he should stick to that. If I had a health problem, I would go the a doctor, not to an actor, to get advice.

Keep in mind what Comrade Stalin said, “Its not about the votes its who counts the votes.”
So, “Its not about the real facts its what the msm reports as the real facts.”


I agree, an excellent letter but probably a waste of time. Entertainers with publicists are the most flighty of them all.

michael hart

troe says:
November 26, 2013 at 6:14 am
Bob wrote
“Let me ask: Would you see a podiatrist or a proctologist for a sore throat?”
The answer is; yes. George Clooney would and should see a proctologist for a sore throat.

I was polite about him because I’m actually pretty ignorant about most people in Hollywood. But that comment is one of the funniest I’ve read all year.

I didn’t know who Lewis Black was, so I had to look him up. I don’t recall ever seeing him. I particularly enjoyed the comments about Republicans and science from two people who probably never have taken a science course since about the 10th grade. Well, maybe they are exceptionally well read and well educated in the matter.
Good post, Bob. However, Messr’s Clooney and Lewis would likely not read it or understand if they read it.