Ugly: MSNBC host wants 'reducation' for 'climate deniers'

Wow. just wow. No wonder MSNBC is tanking in ratings. Watch the video:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 8, 2014 1:06 pm

My first thought was why would anyone watch this ignorant blowhard, but then I realized, practically no one does.

August 8, 2014 1:07 pm

Eddie seems to think that a basic earth science class will cover it. HAHAHAHAHAHA! But why the discrimination? I think they should ALL have to take a basic climate science class. Equal opportunity learning…right?

Owen in GA
August 8, 2014 1:07 pm

If it were a REAL Earth Sciences course it would be very heavy on Geology which would strongly reinforce the skeptical attitude toward the whole CAGW scam.
I think he means a political science course featuring sensory deprivation and a diet consisting of only carbohydrates…you know: the elements of brainwashing cults.

William Mason
August 8, 2014 1:08 pm

Their true colors are showing. I believe re-education camps were something the Soviet Union used to deal with anyone not towing the party line. It’s scary where things are these days.

August 8, 2014 1:09 pm

Well, there could be a logical explanation. They are trying to hold onto their core audience of narcissists—

Owen in GA
August 8, 2014 1:09 pm

I have no idea how my prior post wound up in the sin bin…I thought I had avoided the choice words that would get it flagged for moderation…I must have missed one.

Reply to  Owen in GA
August 8, 2014 1:15 pm

Owen….did you use “Ed” or “Schultz” or “Ed Schultz”? *evil grin*

Chip Javert
August 8, 2014 1:12 pm

Unfortunately this was seen by the entire MSNBC audience.
Oooops – wait a minute – this was only 17 people…

August 8, 2014 1:14 pm

Ed would undoubtedly teach it. He obviously knows everything about these mysterious abnormal events and their cause. He could even define what he thinks is being denied and why the deniers are wrong. It would definitely be educational.

Joe Born
August 8, 2014 1:14 pm

Ignorant, yet. But ugly? What do you say we try not to jump the shark on every post.

August 8, 2014 1:16 pm

One constant with modern leftists, is their totalitarian tendencies towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Quinn the Eskimo
August 8, 2014 1:18 pm

Ed Schultz is a troll with a microphone.
Back when tax breaks for private business jets were a Democrat meme to whip up low information voters, Schultz was dutifully arguing the Democrat talking point of the day, bashing “the rich” for having private jets and bemoaning the tax breaks that went with claiming them as a business expense. Class warfare demagoguery, plain and simple.
Then it emerged that Mr. Schultz himself owns and flies private business jets on a regular basis.

August 8, 2014 1:19 pm

Joe Born-
UGLY-unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance
synonyms:unattractive, unappealing, unpleasant, hideous, unlovely, unprepossessing, unsightly, horrible, frightful, awful, ghastly, vile, revolting, repellent, repulsive, repugnant;
It doesn’t say “specifically in appearance”, and I find everything about that man unappealing, unpleasant, ghastly, vile, and repulsive. I also find him unattractive. 🙂

george e. conant
August 8, 2014 1:23 pm

Basic Earth Science Course!?!? Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha, I was reading an article about Climate Deniers in the Senate such as Sen. Inhofe being a shill for Koch brothers and knowing full well the dangers of climate change yadda yadda , I got SO angry because there is the distinct probability the Senator from Oklahoma is genuinely concerned for the safety of his constituents as well as protecting the states infrastructure , both of which have been getting blasted by killer winters causing human deaths and suffering as well as stretching their resources to the limit! I say the rank and file American Citizen is more concerned about the realities of yet another brutal winter staring us in the face as we slide into autumn soon, with more cold forecast earlier this year (for my region , the north east lower 48) Basic Earth Science… and whose course are we advocating anyway, a CAGW funded one I bet. WOW

August 8, 2014 1:23 pm

That’s what happens when leftists take over a country. Those who do not fall in line are killed or sent to prisons that are renamed as “reeducation camps.” Today’s leftists show they are very similar in thinking to Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Kims of North Korea, and other leftist revolutionaries of the past century. We can only hope that they never seize complete control of the U.S. so we never have to find out how far they are willing to go.

Don Price
August 8, 2014 1:25 pm

Well, if they take my HS freshmen earth science course, they will likely become WUWT readers; I am one of the few earth science teachers that is proud to be a nonbeliever in CAGW.

Old Hoya
August 8, 2014 1:25 pm

Be kind. Would you want to be Ed Schultz? If you woke and suddenly realized you were that big an a$$, you might well kill yourself. So the fact that Ed is still alive makes him a grand master of denial. Hence the irony (projection?) of his passionate loathing for “denialists.” MSNBC is truly a freak show only they don’t seem to know it. Sad, really.

Jeff L
August 8, 2014 1:29 pm

If these MSNBC know-it-alls and other left wing warmists took a “basic earth science” course, they would learn:
1) Climate has always been varying through Earth’s History, with out the aid of AGW
2) Those past variations are huge compared to what we have seen over the last 100 years
3) There is no reason to believe that those process aren’t still at play in our earth-ocean-atmosphere system and that we can not uniquely and entirely put the blame on CO2 for warming over the last 100 years
4) That CO2 and temperature have a very weak to non-existent correlation over geologic time scales.
5) That the earth-ocean-atmosphere system is extremely complicated, non-linear and hard to predict, with many different forcings at many different scales, most of which are not adequately represented or simulated in climate models.
And , in the end, IF they were good students, they would emerge from this re-education as …..

August 8, 2014 1:29 pm

Is the misspelled word “REDucation” in the title a Freudian slip?

Gary (Arkansas)
August 8, 2014 1:30 pm

Um… I figure most all elected Republicans have at least a high school diploma. That would mean they have already had their basic science courses. In fact, the reason I’m a denier is because… well, I’ve had some very basic scientific education. That education has taught me that science is never settled and that the core of the scientific method is a conglomerate of: questioning, unbiased observation, testing, measuring, experimentation, debating, etc. The instant that mankind forgoes scientific debate – the dark ages return. (oh, and another thing I learned about scientific method: the necessity of constant modification of hypotheses.)

August 8, 2014 1:34 pm

Wow! MSNBC is still running?
No! Who woulda thunk dat?
And gee, i thought everyone had left their “power yellow” polyester ties to charity by 1985…..

August 8, 2014 1:35 pm

“Should climate denying Republicans be forced to take a basic Earth Science course”. A carefully crafted PR statement. Think of everything subtly implied by this and how it influences people reading it thinking it is just a survey question. Someone at MSNBC is probably just itching to put out the headline that would report the survey results, “80% Of Respondants Think Climate Denying Republicans Should Be Forced To Take A Basic Earth Science Course.”

David Larsen
August 8, 2014 1:37 pm

I want reduction for climate deniers. I grew up in SE Wisconsin where the glacier melted. I want all who denies the sun melted the last glacier from SE Wisconsin up above the arctic circle reduced.

August 8, 2014 1:42 pm

Anyone who uses the term “denier’ is just spewing hate speech. It is exactly the same as calling all of us [n*ggers].
I wonder what it would take to get a civil rights action going against them. We are definitely an oppressed minority.

August 8, 2014 1:42 pm

Sick puppy should take some basic civics classes. Of course, I doubt he has much in the way of science on his cv either. He likely thinks that a Planck is something that pirates have people walk off of.

Martin 457
August 8, 2014 1:42 pm

Sign me up. Maybe they can have a class debate. (snark)
I don’t have MSNBC so, I don’t watch it. (Hope advertisers are paying attention.)
Deniers?, The Not-see cult of doom and gloom are at it again in full force.

August 8, 2014 1:48 pm

Would this qualify as “earth science?”
Back when that iceberg the size of Texas calved off Antarctica there was serious whoop-de-do about climate change until someone pointed out the volcanic activity that melted the glacier from below. The melt water causes basal lubrication which allows the ice sheet to slip downhill. Glaciers melt from below, from the heat of the earth, not the heat from the air. Geothermal heat flux. Don’t hear much about that, but then it’s neither caused nor cured by man. What did IPCC AR5 TS.6 have to say about it? Let’s Look.
Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quan¬tification of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1}”
Half of the heat that keeps this meaningless dust ball from turning into an ice cube comes from within the earth. The hundreds of scientists involved with IPCC don’t have a handle on how that works.
As the linked papers below suggest, relatively minor fluctuations in the geothermal heat flux at the bottom of the ocean could easily explain the warming and outgassing of CO2. Should the recently launched CO2 satellite and deep diving, down to 2,000 meters, ocean radio sondes even hint at CO2 and heat distributions influenced by geothermal heat flux, mankind generated AGW/CCC is dead and the person/organization who verifies that connection picks up the $30,000 prize.

August 8, 2014 1:50 pm

I can’t see Ed Schultz without thinking of paraphrasing Dan Aykroyd:
Ed, you ignorant slut.

August 8, 2014 1:50 pm

“80% Of Respondants Think Climate Denying Republicans Should Be Forced To Take A Basic Earth Science Course.”
You’re kidding. You know the answer is going to be [97.3% ], they booked Cook to to cook the books.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2014 1:51 pm

What a blithering idiot.

August 8, 2014 1:54 pm

No need to watch it. Ed Schultz is violently paranoid and schizophrenic. IN any other occupation, he would have been locked away long ago.

August 8, 2014 1:55 pm

Thanks for this item, Anthony. I was afraid there would be no “Friday FUNNY” this week.
As Lisa Lubner used to say to Todd on the old “Saturday Night Live”, “That’s so funny I forgot to laugh”

August 8, 2014 1:58 pm

Taphonomic says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Thanks for the laugh 🙂

August 8, 2014 2:01 pm

@ Don Price, 1:25 pm,
Thank you.

August 8, 2014 2:03 pm

” all these things are happening that are terribly abnormal and very severe.”
What is this buffoon waffling on about?
Has he read AR5 SPM, has he ever heard of IPCC SREX. Apparently not.

David in Michigan
August 8, 2014 2:04 pm

It’s Aug 8 at 1700 hours. The poll was posted yesterday. So far there are 867 votes. 96% are YES, 4% NO (including mine…. you have to vote to see the results).
It’s a reflection of the number of viewers that Big Ed has. When you only have a few viewers, you have to resort to extreme measures in an attempt to get your ratings up.

August 8, 2014 2:05 pm

OO-er, winds picking up, looks like Bertha is about to hit Europe.
I’d bettter go and batten down the hatckes, this could be terribly abnormal and very severe.

August 8, 2014 2:08 pm

Typo alert: “Reduction” should be “Re-education”. I did not see the pitiable Mr. Shultz call for re-education, by the way. I did see him demonstrate his ignorance by confusing his climate obsession with ‘basic Earth science’.
[The spelling difference is acknowledged. We do not know yet whether is was (another) example of poor decisions and poor education by Mr. Schultz, or a typo on this site’s side. .mod]

August 8, 2014 2:10 pm

maybe a spelling mistake with re-educate!

August 8, 2014 2:12 pm

Reduction camps.
Didn’t they used to call those spas?

August 8, 2014 2:17 pm

If I am a denier, Ed is a Climate Molester.

August 8, 2014 2:18 pm

Yes, he’s a troll. But Ed is Special.

August 8, 2014 2:21 pm

I disagree where you say “MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:16 pm
One constant with modern leftists, is their totalitarian tendencies towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.”
They were doing this a hundred years ago.
[Well, 96 years ago: The Communist-leftist-socialists didn’t have real control of the state’s secret police, the state’s press corpse, and their re-education camps until 1917-1918. .mod]

August 8, 2014 2:22 pm

MSNBC wants better ratings so they stir up controversy. Best to simply ignore them.

August 8, 2014 2:25 pm

Actually, we are all headed for climate re-education camp. Mama Gaia runs a fierce ship, so get ready.

August 8, 2014 2:28 pm

“Re-education” assumes they were educated in the first place. Problem is, many of them know very little about science, and need huge sums of money to get elected, which is why they’re prone to follow the politicized version of science. We need to call for campaign finance reform, not “re-education” (although more education would always help).

August 8, 2014 2:28 pm

David in Michigan says:
“It’s Aug 8 at 1700 hours. The poll was posted yesterday. So far there are 867 votes. 96% are YES, 4% NO (including mine…”
You see. If all you non-MSNBC viewing deenyers from WUWT hadn’t skewed the results it would have been 97.3% . Just like I predicted.

August 8, 2014 2:31 pm

Has Ed taken such a course?

August 8, 2014 2:32 pm

I thought that Mr Ed was a talking horse.

Reply to  RJ
August 8, 2014 4:25 pm

Threads like this are what make me love you guys….smart comedy!
Mr Ed was a talking horse. This Ed is a talking horse’s…..behind.

August 8, 2014 2:32 pm

mpainter says:
MSNBC wants better ratings so they stir up controversy.
if 867 = 96% , they got 903 phone-in responses. Pathetic. If that’s stirring up controversy, it’s not causing much of a stir.

August 8, 2014 2:35 pm

Why just Republicans? I think Democrats should be “reducated” too. Of course, I and my fellow Libertarians could teach the course. We might not follow the script, though. 🙂

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 2:47 pm

prolefeed goodthink

more soylent green!
August 8, 2014 2:48 pm

Earth sciences as taught by a social justice activist, no doubt.
But I’m not too concerned as the only people who watch MSNBC are the ones who work for the network.

Louis Hooffstetter
August 8, 2014 2:57 pm

I’m a registered professional geologist who taught basic earth science classes as a grad student.
Ed Schultz can kiss my ass.

August 8, 2014 2:59 pm

RJ says: I thought that Mr Ed was a talking horse.
Sorry that’s a different Ed, this one is just a horses a$$.

Richard Wright
August 8, 2014 3:01 pm

Should MSNBC talking heads be forced to take a journalism class?

August 8, 2014 3:05 pm

BTW, who denies climate?
Climate does not exist. I deny climate. OMG, I’m a deenyer. Can I have a free ES course please? I’m not a republican, does that matter? Not climate, not climate, not climate. See?

August 8, 2014 3:06 pm

Oh Mann!!
Maybe he should look in the mirror and ask him self, Have I been Brain washed and Am I the true Denier.
Yes and Yes.

Bill H
August 8, 2014 3:10 pm

We know MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the DNC.. Whats scary is this is how a good many of the faithful think Just ask the current and past leadership at the EPA.. Next thing you know they will be calling for the beheading of children and their parents..
I dont know who is worse MSNBC, the KGB or Radial Islam…. they all seem to rally around “do as your told or die”! All extremist religious zealots..

Allan Williams
August 8, 2014 3:11 pm

Com’on Guys:
Lettuce just join’um.
Think of how much easier it would be to solve ALL the problems of the world by solving JUST ONE:
Now stop being SILLY.
Be reasonable….do it their way

DC Cowboy
August 8, 2014 3:17 pm

It fits. With CNN showing Hong Kong located in Brazil,
You have to wonder why anyone pays any attention to what the ‘mainstream media’ has to say.
I favor the Mark Twain quote, “Whenever I find myself in agreement with the majority, I find it is time to pause and reflect…”
I wonder what ‘abnormal’ weather this guy is talking about? It’s really great that they don’t have to provide ANY observational evidence to prove their emotion laden claims (which, btw, are far more ‘anti-science’ than even the creationists claims). They get to simply state ‘we’re having abnormal climate’, proof is left to the student as an exercise. I had a Probs & Stats Grad course where someone asked the Prof (who wrote the book), “sir, I tried to prove that theorem you said you left to t he student as an exercise and I couldn’t, can you show me the proof?” The Prof responded, “actually, no I can’t prove it, I was hoping one of you would do it.”

DC Cowboy
August 8, 2014 3:20 pm

Bill H says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm
We know MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the DNC.. Whats scary is this is how a good many of the faithful think Just ask the current and past leadership at the EPA.. Next thing you know they will be calling for the beheading of children and their parents..
I dont know who is worse MSNBC, the KGB or Radial Islam…. they all seem to rally around “do as your told or die”! All extremist religious zealots..
Yes. Truth. I had a friend who quoted ‘National Geographic’ as an authoritative scientific source. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response.

Mike Smith
August 8, 2014 3:25 pm

Perhaps MSNBC hosts should be required to take a critical reasoning skills class?

Bill H
August 8, 2014 3:34 pm

A good number of MSNBC hosts are Communists and Socialists who openly demand dictatorship and full government top down control. I am sure this reflects the leadership of the network as well.
CAGW is a tool to gain that end.. Re-education camps are a viable option in their minds.. It has never been about science only how to take control without revolt and bloodshed. So far it has not ended in bloodshed but ‘We The People’ are waking up. I just hope its not to late and many lives will be lost to regain what it is these people want to take. Europe fell with barley a whimper, Australia is fighting back, what will we do?

Mark Hladik
August 8, 2014 3:34 pm

Let’s see: I have two Earth Science degrees (from a large U. S. university), and I am licensed in the State of Wyoming as a Professional Geologist (my number is 25XX — — last two digits redacted by me); I teach both Math and various geology classes to undergrads in my current employment.
I am not a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter; I guess I don’t claim any political party — — way too much political, and not enough PARRR – TEEEE [which must include bock-style beer] … … … … … ).
Hmmm. Somehow, I must be missing something — — OH YEAH!!! I remember! That university taught me HOW to think, and didn’t tell me WHAT to think!!!!
I’m doomed!!!!!

Bill H
August 8, 2014 3:44 pm

kim says:
August 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Actually, we are all headed for climate re-education camp. Mama Gaia runs a fierce ship, so get ready.
The Cattle are already being brought down from high pasture due to the cold nights. The Antelope are already gaining heavy coats. The Deer are also getting heavy coats. My dogs are shedding and the under fur is thick and heavy.. All of this two months early and at 5,265 feet in Wyoming.
The sage brush has already bloomed and is now packing in the nutrients to go dormant for winter.
Looking around at mother nature she is throwing out one hell of a warning… Ranchers around here are already stacking hay for 2 extra months of winter feed. Me thinks its going to be a long cold winter.. Are you ready?

bit chilly
August 8, 2014 4:05 pm

fortunately for you guys in the states you have guns if things get too bad. what we are going to do about the bbc in the uk i have no idea.

Bill Illis
August 8, 2014 4:07 pm

I wonder why he stopped at just taking an Earth Sciences course?
The funny thing is that if global warming was somehow proven as a true theory some day, it would be the Republicans who would be trying to find a way to solve the problem (being a party that relies on proven programs and theories) …
… while the Democrats would just be dreaming up ways to turn it into another social program that more people have to rely on for support financed by ever higher taxes on the country (Democrats being all about just getting more people to depend on government for handouts so that when elections roll around, a greater number of people vote Democrat just to ensure their hand-outs keep rolling in, that is all they are about today, every policy is).

August 8, 2014 4:28 pm

Hey Ed, what an idea. I’ve been thinking about going back to school anyway since I graduated from college 19 years ago. Thanks for letting me know that I don’t think correctly and am in need of a climate “re-education” so I can be set straight. Something like Winston Smith was in Orwell’s 1984. Got to quit using those critical thinking skills that I learned in college that got me into this mess. BTW Ed, how much are the Koch brothers paying the skeptics anyway…do you know offhand?
Ed, do you think we might me able to get that prestigious Dr. Michael Mann for our class instructor? I know he’s busy with a legal case right know, but maybe he could tear himself away from it for a while?? Huh, do you think? Maybe, maybe?
When does signup start? I want to sign up early to make sure I get a seat in class before it fills up. Hope I can get a good seat up front so I can ask lots and lots of questions. Questions like why I should believe that the Earth is still heating up when satellite evidence shows no warming for 17+ years. And why CO2 is a significant driver of temps and climate today when evidence shows it trails increases and decreases in temperature in the Earth’s prehistoric past. And where are those positive feedbacks that are going to cause the Earth to overheat. Yea, I know Ed. Such questions are religious heresy and are not supposed to be asked. But it’s so darned hard to stop using those critical thinking skills of mine. I know that you don’t seem to have much use for yours.
Ed, please announce on air when and where we can sign up for this great opportunity. I realize my thinking on the climate issue is religious heresy, and and I really, really want to reform so I can start thinking just like you do Ed. Really Ed, I do. Really. /sarc (in case anybody’s wondering).

john robertson
August 8, 2014 4:50 pm

Another ; Standards Good, Double Standards better, elitist nitwit.
Do not vote, MSNBC will count you as viewers.

Bob Greene
August 8, 2014 4:52 pm

I sure am glad I haven’t denied that there is a climate.

Tom Port
August 8, 2014 4:59 pm

Schultz does the best he can to fight for the blue collar folks. I am glad someone is trying to counter the 40-year Republican agenda to drive down wages in this country and steer as much capital as possible to the rich.
It is most unfortunate, however, that Schultz, along with most liberals, have bought into the global warming “threat” which more and more is turning out to have been way overblown.

August 8, 2014 5:01 pm

dccowboy says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm
“Yes. Truth. I had a friend who quoted ‘National Geographic’ as an authoritative scientific source. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response.”
You should have asked him his name to make sure he’s not already in delirium; then call the paramedics, and repeat asking him his name until they arrive.

Rob H.
August 8, 2014 5:01 pm

Eds poll is just anoher example of how the tide is turning in the AGW debate. You can feel the disdain and outright hate starting to come from the AGW side. Im a P.Geo who actually knows a little bit about climate. Love going to parties and stirring the pot with the uneducated masses.. .

August 8, 2014 5:07 pm

Greg says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:05 pm
“Climate does not exist. I deny climate. OMG, I’m a deenyer. Can I have a free ES course please? I’m not a republican, does that matter? Not climate, not climate, not climate. See?”
Don’t forget it’ll be liberal Earth Science; I don’t know why you would want that.

August 8, 2014 5:10 pm

Reblogged this on RubinoWorld and commented:
Ah, yes. Now the left wants reeducation classes for those who disagree with them. MessNBC dipping their toes in some Soviet style discipline for dissenters?

Joel O’Bryan
August 8, 2014 5:15 pm

That Ed blowhard is just an entertainer. The only one’s who watch MSNBC are the CAGW true believers. He is giving his audience what they want to hear. Truth is not a factor.

August 8, 2014 5:24 pm

Eddie, Eddie, Eddie . . .
If your frantic perception of reality has a lot of evil Replublican dēnīērś in it, then it is undeniably an artifact of belief in ‘Lewandowsky-ism’.
Even re-education is not an effective option for you. But you can at least hang out at Cook’s site where the consensus is that Lewandowsky is a demi-god. You will never feel alone there.

August 8, 2014 5:32 pm

Ugly: MSNBC host wants ‘reducation’ for ‘climate deniers’

I have never denied the climate. I have never denied climate change. I insist on climate change as my default position. That’s why you see over 17 years of no global surface warming, increasing Antarctic sea ice extent, global sea ice on average, the Arctic death spiral on hold for now, snowfalls are not a thing of the past and so on. Climate change is real. Live with it.

George Steiner
August 8, 2014 5:41 pm

Mr. Watts, please find some words to replace the wow wow. I am sure you can do better than the bark of a dog.

Curious George
August 8, 2014 5:51 pm

Climate-denying Republicans should be forced to take a course…
What about reality-denying Democrats?

August 8, 2014 6:12 pm

The latest (Thursday Aug 7) ratings for the 5:00 PM news networks timeslot are FNC (Fox); THEFIVE ==> 225
CNN; BLITZER ==> 104
HLN; FILES ==> 58
The full ratings at show Fox generally destroying the competition, with CNN a consistent 2nd.

August 8, 2014 6:14 pm

I wonder if Mr. Ed has taken and Earth Science course.

Steve R
August 8, 2014 6:14 pm

I had to go show this to my wife who is both an earth science instructor at a large community college, and a global warming skeptic. She commented she would be happy to open her course up for politicians of either party.

Bob Diaz
August 8, 2014 6:19 pm

The Bozos at MSNBC should be forced to take a basic science course. They clearly know NOTHING about real science.

August 8, 2014 6:22 pm

A few years ago Ed Schultz said “people who oppose the affordabe care act should be shot”.
Those of us who are older that Ed have seen all kinds of weather events and nothing is ‘abnormal’ that we haven’t seen before..

Mike Maguire
August 8, 2014 6:22 pm

The course he must want deniers of catastrophic global warming and climate model skill to take is “How to be hypnotized to ignore observations and empirical data in the real world”
Other than heavy rains events/flooding, there is no evidence at all that extreme weather has increased(in some realms, it clearly has decreased).
The overwhelming scientific evidence on our planet, shows that increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has been beneficial.
Maybe another course to take would be “How to show that a proven law like photosynthesis is not as important as a speculative theory”
Or, “How to generate funding for a study on climate science”
Or, “How the government/media always tell us the truth”
Or, “How to allow cognitive bias’s to determine our views”
On the other hand, maybe classes with the completely opposite objective would have the most benefits in our world today.

Sweet Old Bob
August 8, 2014 6:23 pm

THAT PARROT IS (the) dED (show)….

August 8, 2014 6:28 pm

Greg says:
August 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm
” all these things are happening that are terribly abnormal and very severe.”
What is this buffoon waffling on about?

Probably this:

Brad says:
August 1, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Released memo from Patty Murray, senator from Washington State.

There was a text box about a wildfire in OR on his screen. Perhaps that was his launching pad.
He never used the word “reeducation” or “reducation”; it shouldn’t have been in quotes in the headline. He didn’t imply it either (forced conversion), only education. (But that would only bolster our side of the case, not his.)

Travis Casey
August 8, 2014 6:45 pm

I didn’t read all the comments, so I apologize if this has already been stated.
I diagree with the preamble to the question. “So we have seen all these weird things and all these records”. Um, no. No records. Dangerous climate is on the decrease according to all metrics I have seen.
It is the ever-increasing microscopic nature of humans (maybe only Americans) that buy into the “unprecedented” malarkey.

August 8, 2014 6:48 pm

Until today, I hadn’t even heard of Ed Schultz! But then I’ve never taken MSLSD before. Uh, what planet is this????

August 8, 2014 7:00 pm

Hey Ed, I’ll take your “basic Earth Science” if you’ll take Calc I & II, DiffEQ, Stats and at least a 6 hr lab science course, because that’s the minimum to truely understand the “settled science” your reporting on.

August 8, 2014 7:03 pm

Ric Werme says:
August 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Why just Republicans? I think Democrats should be “reducated” too. Of course, I and my fellow Libertarians could teach the course. We might not follow the script, though. 🙂
You would have to teach them to read first.

August 8, 2014 7:05 pm

Earth Science 101 to Sgt. Schultz:
If you are right about CO2/anthropogenic global warming/etc./et al./ then the reason we are not already well into the next glacial is because of CO2/anthropogenic global warming/etc./ et al.:
“The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
conclude Muller and Pross (2007)
Sgt. Schultz to Earth Science 101:
“I know nothing, I know nothing……”

stan stendera
August 8, 2014 7:23 pm

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is the titular head of the Democratic Committee and a Congress critter. Surely you have seen her on TV with her mouth open. Ed Shultz is married to Debbie. I did not realize this for a long time and, since it has not been mentioned I suspect many of the commenters don’t realize this fact. I am not going to say anything else because I don’t want to be banned from WUWT.

Scott Scarborough
August 8, 2014 7:29 pm

Yep, he’s pretty ugly!

August 8, 2014 7:39 pm

Reblogged this on Maley's Energy Blog and commented:
I’ll be happy to compare my Earth Science education and C.V. with Ed Schultz.

August 8, 2014 7:58 pm

stan stendera says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:23 pm
“Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is the titular head of the Democratic Committee and a Congress critter. Surely you have seen her on TV with her mouth open. Ed Shultz is married to Debbie.”
So would that make her Debbie Waffen-SShultz?
/sarc off
P.S. Apologies to all (especially the mods.), that was just too easy………
/sarc on
P.P.S. Just running “boot” interference for stan……
/sarc off

August 8, 2014 8:11 pm

Sadly Eddie pontificates the Democratic Party, i.e. Obama, Line for fullest extent.
The Obama Party Way.

August 8, 2014 8:39 pm

I think a “basic climate science” challenge is a great idea; a test given to warmist-alarmists as well as scientists. The big problem is that we know the warmers will cheat.
We have “reeducation camps” in the US, and probably in other countries, under Agenda 21.
Appendix K, Audio-Visual Team in FM 3-39-40; Internment/Resettlement Operations, “When
directed, the team disseminates products that support other PSYOP task force programs (reeducation, reorientation, posthostility themes)”.

F. Ross
August 8, 2014 8:41 pm

“Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”
Well of course they should.
Course syllabus to be designed by Dr. Mann; syllabus advisor A. Gore. Course text “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”. All students required to bring a hockey stick to class. Final test: All students will be required to recite publicly and from memory ALL the evil capabilities of CO2.
Need I add? /sarc

F. Ross
August 8, 2014 8:47 pm

stan stendera says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:23 pm
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is the …
Surely you have seen her on TV with her mouth open. Ed Shultz is married to Debbie.

Thanks for the info; explains a lot.

August 8, 2014 9:47 pm

This is insane, any respectable earth science course surely would have to address the carbon cycle revealing that all life, most planetary oxygen, most carbohydrates (mammal food) ultimately comes from co2 and that it’s dangerously close to starvation levels. Surely that’s earth science 101

August 8, 2014 9:58 pm

Appreciate the allure of being so vastly superior in intellectual and moral status to entirely half the population of Western civilization that you are practically sporting a gold halo. This however is made possible, fully enabled, by Glenn Beck having left Fox News, the only mass audience show that displayed actual details of scientific fraud. Almost no serious pressure is being out on the left or on working academics that they are promoting now try obvious fraud. All we have for loudly calling out fraud is the Goddard blog chock full of crackpot commenters and Holocaust photos, which helps lose instead of win a culture war, for Steve’s lack of civil discipline. It’s going to require a testosterone injection by young conservatives and libertarians I’m afraid, since the urban artists and professionals who now dominate national elections still detest anti-science religious right abortion banners way too much to consider acknowledging the validity of climate model skepticism. Goddard is right about the core situation that Republicans could end the debate in two hours if they really wanted to, by simply exposing *details* of fraud on television. But nobody has put the Marcott 2013 bladeless input data out there, to a mass audience, for instance. Well why not?

August 8, 2014 9:59 pm

Considering many earth scientists do not buy the CAGW theory, these ignoramuses of MSNBC should take the courses themselves!

August 8, 2014 10:00 pm

try obvious = truly obvious

EdA the New Yorker
August 8, 2014 10:20 pm

This thread is getting out of hand. First, anyone named Ed has heard all the Ed jokes. Second, we all have to admit that we were totally nonplussed by the science of the Kerry Model, as presented in Jakarta in February. That is, of course, excepting Philip Mulholland, who encapsulated the idea with his notation of “Greenhouse Glass warming.” The U.S. Secretary of State had the courage to present his model on foreign soil, and garnered the prestigious “Jackson” Award from the DDP. So I can envision the topic of the first few re-education lectures.

Michael 2
August 8, 2014 10:29 pm

dccowboy says: “I had a friend who quoted ‘National Geographic’ as an authoritative scientific source. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response.”
It is what it is. I quote National Geographic probably more than I quote other publications. Within its realm of expertise, its charter so to speak, it is the best there is. It also reaches a large audience whereas whatever you have in mind as a scientific authority very likely reaches a small audience.
It is, like essentially all publications and journalism, left wing. That’s the nature of the journalism beast.

August 8, 2014 10:41 pm

There are similarities here with Galileo Galilei and his assertion was we revolved around the sun.
Mind you with freedom of speech we can say ‘we have a credible argument against alarmists’
But that is not good news worthy as nothing has changed, even the climate.

James Bull
August 8, 2014 10:57 pm

So the big question is was anyone able to stomach this long enough to find out the result of the poll.
And the result is not 97% before we count the votes.
James Bull

August 8, 2014 10:59 pm

A little research shows Debbie Wasserman Schultz is married to Steve Schultz.

August 8, 2014 11:05 pm

Oh, what a tangled web we weave once trying to deceive. I think the general masses are getting bored with this.

August 8, 2014 11:08 pm
She has been married to Steve Schultz, a banker, for 20 years.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

August 8, 2014 11:11 pm

I thought of all sorts of smart comments, but at the end of the day he’s just a know nothing talking head, desperate to sell air time. He won’t be so full of himself when he has no job!

August 8, 2014 11:14 pm

Ed Shultz was very effective because he used to be a Republican who’s conscience bothered him after viewing so much poverty created by trickle down economics, so he switched sides. Now he is a disappointing money slut who will say anything for cash.

August 8, 2014 11:31 pm

You guys are wrong.
MSNBC is very popular in a certain house in Washington who provide Ed et. al. talking points.

August 8, 2014 11:47 pm

What sort of ‘abnormal and severe’ things is he talking about? Here’s a typical lack of attention to detail for a bit of cheap publicity. Let’s hope no-one believes him.

Crispin in Waterloo
August 9, 2014 12:07 am

Is there a reason why I have never heard of Ed Schultz?

August 9, 2014 12:27 am

Ed Shultz is such a useful idiot of the clueless left.
What “strange” climate is Mr. ed referring? Even Mr. Ed’s beloved IPCC admits that severe weather trends haved changed in 50~100 years..
Is Mr. Ed referring to global warming trends? Hmmm. Global temp trends have been flat for 18 years and falling for the past 14 years…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is referring to Sea Level Rise, which is stuck at 6~7″ per century, which is perfectly normal…
Or maybe he’s referring to polar ice where Arctic Sea Ice is showing signs of recovery and the Antarctic sea ice trend has been rising for the past 35 years, and just set a 35-yr record anomaly last month…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is suggesting ocean pH dropping from 8.15 in 1750, to pH 8.10 in 2014 after burning through 50% of known fossil fuel reserves is “strange” and cause for concern, regardless of the fact that the average ocean pH over the past 250 million years has been pH7.6….
Hmmmm…. Perhaps it’s Mr. Ed that needs a refresher course in basic science instead of blindly repeating busted leftist CAGW propaganda….

John Coleman
August 9, 2014 12:30 am

We should try to concentrate on the science and stay away from the politics. I want liberals and Democrats to feel comfortable being global warming skeptics. And, I get nervous around people who deny global warming simply because they are Republicans. Frankly, the older I get the less use I have for either party. Basically it seems the politicians have mostly solid out for millions in campaign dollars.
It is true that MSNBC has a much smaller audience than CNN or Fox News. However, the Ed Show is viewed by over 450 thousand people on the average day. Compare that number to the 650 people who attended the ICCC9 last month. How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses?

August 9, 2014 12:44 am

News for this guy. In 2005 I completed an M.S. degree at an American university with a GPA of 4.0 .
I was a climate lukewarmer then but am now a full-fledged skeptic. I am not skeptical about the physics, specifically the role of CO2, H2O vapor and other GHGs.
Rather, I am more skeptical about the magnitude and direction of feedbacks, the role of the Sun and the strength of internal climate variability relative to forcings.
So education in Earth science or even atmospheric physics is not going to achieve the goal of winning converts to Catastrophic AGW (CAGW).
I admit that on first reading of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge U Press, 2012), I missed Murray Salby’s pointers to flaws in the CAGW thesis.
If you can afford it and are willing to put some effort, I recommend Dr Salby’s excellent book, probably the most comprehensive textbook in atmospheric physics. (You may conclude, as I did that Dr Salby is one of a very few world-class atmospheric physicists.).
Salby’s book needs a first reading as a textbook, an effort that will take about one month for a person with some climate physics background and perhaps three months for a person who has to supplement the book with supporting studies.
However, to gain insight into Dr Salby’s interpretation of AGW as presented in his video lectures found on Youtube, this first reading should be followed by a very close second reading of selected chapters, focusing on the global energy budget, the role of the oceans and the interaction between oceans and atmosphere.
For me the most important chapter was Radiative Transfer (no. 8), especially Fig. 8.1 adapted from Goody and Yung,
The graph appears at Fig. 1.1 on page 4 on Google Books in Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis 1995, for which the URL is:.
Inspection of the Black-Body spectra for the Sun (6000K) and the Earth (250K) shows why methane (CH4) is seldom mentioned in regard to CHG. You can see that CH4 lies on the long right tail of the spectrum for the Sun and also on the long left end of the tail of the spectrum for the Earth. Methane is a GHG but its impact is small not merely because of its scarcity but also because of the location along the Black-Body spectra of Sun and Earth of its absorption and emission windows, indicated by the ordinate (height on Y axis of the graph.
This is one example of what one can learn from Dr Salby’s book. But there is a lot more to keep a student busy long after the lectures are finished and forgotten.
To work out the quantum physics of the greenhouse effect, you will need something like Goody and Yung’s text, which is still probably the most comprehensive.
I doubt if the greenhouse effect can properly be understood without quantum physics. You can go a long way with classical physics, but what is really needed is modeling using both classical and quantum physics. I don’t know if this has been done. Blog references to the molecular effects of radiative transfer mention vibration and rotatation but not the quantitative significance of these effects in the real atmosphere.
By all means let’s have more Earth science education, but don’t expect education to have the same effect as propaganda.

August 9, 2014 1:09 am

[red-yoo-key-shuh n] noun
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring superficially plausible general knowledge, developing the powers of emotionalism, inability to reason and data manipulation, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for left-wing life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular socialist dogma or attitudes, as for a profession in the media or chasing taxpayer funds.
3. a degree, level, or kind of socialist schooling: a university reducation.
4. the result produced by left-wing instruction, training, or study: to show one’s reducation.
5. the science or art of teaching socialism; propagandising: reducate the masses.

August 9, 2014 1:15 am

Those whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad.
This bloke is all but frothing at the mouth.

August 9, 2014 1:29 am

I’m persuaded by Arrhenius and the basic science. When living or even just over-nighting in sealed glass receptacles. I’m always wary of rising CO2 and consequent temperature gains from those strong laboratory lights.

Ken L
August 9, 2014 1:34 am

Non scientist progressives like Ed Schultz constantly harp about “deniers” being scientifically ignorant or anti-science, but if you ever are involved in a discussion with them from a sound knowledgeable base on the actual scientific issues, they inevitably and ironically demonstrate a high level of ignorance. Almost any one of us here, including even yours truly with my lowly level of expertise, could make Schultz look like the fool shows himself to be on this subject – and most others. This is by no means the first time his mouth has played receptacle to his foot.

August 9, 2014 1:39 am

@ NIk, @ 9.58 could it not read “almost no pressure is “put” on the left rather than “out”?
@ Sigint@ 8.11, “the Obama Party Way” , ie OPW, is more like the OPM way (ie other people money) way!

Bloke down the pub
August 9, 2014 1:57 am

Anthony, I think you mean re-education, unless by reducation you mean instruction in how to be a good communist.

Lank is flannergasted
August 9, 2014 2:20 am

‘Life can be cruel without fossil fuel’

August 9, 2014 2:58 am

HIs basic premise is a lie, there is no out of the ordinary extreme weather occurring because of what has been happening with the climate for the past 20, 50, 100 years. In fact for the US if anything the weather has been getting milder with less hurricanes, less tornadoes, less wild fires, etc. This guy is a member of the flat earth society and the people he calls deniers are like those insisting the earth is round. MSNBC is part of the Global Warming Religion and just like the bigots that tried to forced people in the middle ages to believe the earth was flat.

Peter Miller
August 9, 2014 3:00 am

Ask any earth scientist – caveat: not working for government, nor an NGO – and try and find a climate alarmist. They are there, but they are few and far between. However, there are probably quite a few, fresh out of university, who have not yet got into the habit of thinking for themselves.
I think this oaf’s question was wrong, but it is simply corrected by replacing the word ‘Republican’ with ‘Democrat’.

Ralph Kramden
August 9, 2014 4:41 am

Science based on anecdotal data is bad science and all scientists know that.

August 9, 2014 4:47 am

While Isam murders it’s way to world domination, we are still listening to this crap. Unbelievable.

August 9, 2014 5:06 am

[Nah . . we’re better than that aren’t we? . . mod]

August 9, 2014 5:19 am

Remember the study that showed Republicans/deniers had a better grasp of science than the AGW folks?

August 9, 2014 5:52 am

The rhetorical technique is brilliant.
The question proposes that only Republicans are deniers, that Democrats are not deniers, that only Republicans need “re-education,” that Democrats do not need “re-education,” that Republicans are dangerous, the Democrats are not dangerous and so on.
This is exactly they type of technique used by despots, tyrants and political mass-murderers throughout the centuries.
If anyone was watching it would be scary.

August 9, 2014 5:54 am

Ed is obviously ignorant. What makes him ugly is his committment to spreading and enforcing ignorance.

August 9, 2014 6:17 am

Don Prince, I’m glad there is at least one other Earth Science teacher out there who is able to look objectively at this topic. Keep up the great work.

August 9, 2014 6:49 am

The pronlem is that the “basic earth science course” has become the equivalent of a REDucation camp.
Had a discussion with a recent university grad about ocean acidification and sea level rise. All she could say was “that’s not what my professor said”.

August 9, 2014 7:00 am

Well Ed should immediately debate Dr. Spencer, Anthony, Lord Moncton, Willis or Dr. Lindzen (he can choose) as a start to show the world how it’s done.

August 9, 2014 7:19 am

Gary says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:14 pm
I wonder if Mr. Ed has taken [an] Earth Science course.
Wonder if he could understand it.

David L. Hagen
August 9, 2014 8:07 am

Welcome to the Green Gulag
It uses the same principles as applied in the Soviet Gulag

About 14 million people were in the Gulag labor camps from 1929 to 1953. A further 6–7 million were deported and exiled to remote areas of the USSR, and 4–5 million passed through labor colonies. . . . the actual Gulag death toll was somewhat higher, amounting to 1,258,537 in 1934-53, or 1.6 million deaths during the whole period from 1929 to 1953. Some estimates for total number deaths in the Gulag go beyond 10 million. . . .About half of political prisoners in the Gulag camps were imprisoned without trial;

It also applies the methods used in China: “Reeducation through Labor”

Estimates on the number of RTL detainees on any given year ranges from 190,000 to two million.

Dr. George Kingman
August 9, 2014 9:16 am

The sound of one alcohol soaked brain cell. It is sad that he is the one who needs enlightening.

stan stendera
August 9, 2014 9:55 am

Mea Culpa! I was mistaken in my assertion that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was married to Ed Shultz. I read it somewhere, probably on Townhall or PJ Media, that such was the case. It just makes such perfect sense that those two loudmouths would be spouses that I fell for it. That she’s married to a banker makes one wonder if her demeanor in private life is very different then her public persona. It also makes one wonder about the safety of any monies you have in his bank.
I just assumed that no one with any sense, from her public ramblings, would be able to be and stay married to her other then a left wing idiot. In case you can’t tell, I don’t like or respect DWS.

August 9, 2014 10:05 am

I taught basic earth science. I doubt he could pass my course, but if he took it, he would emerge more skeptical.

Ursa Felidae
August 9, 2014 10:38 am

I like what Mark Levin said about the hosts at MSLSD: “a conga line of freaks”

August 9, 2014 10:43 am

He’s entitled to his opinion, just like we are entitled with our opinions. The problem is that according to him, not having opinions that match his is bad and grounds for discrimination. No it isn’t. It’s just having a different opinion.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 9, 2014 11:00 am

Take it from this Ed: (forced) “re-education” is the resort of the fascist scoundrels of the left and right.

george e. smith
August 9, 2014 11:55 am

Chris Marlowe says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:44 am
News for this guy. In 2005 I completed an M.S. degree at an American university with a GPA of 4.0 .
I was a climate lukewarmer then but am now a full-fledged skeptic. I am not skeptical about the physics, specifically the role of CO2, H2O vapor and other GHGs. …..”””””
“””””…..Inspection of the Black-Body spectra for the Sun (6000K) and the Earth (250K) shows why methane (CH4) is seldom mentioned in regard to CHG. You can see that CH4 lies on the long right tail of the spectrum for the Sun and also on the long left end of the tail of the spectrum for the Earth. Methane is a GHG but its impact is small not merely because of its scarcity but also because of the location along the Black-Body spectra of Sun and Earth of its absorption and emission windows, indicated by the ordinate (height on Y axis of the graph. …..”””””
Chris, not being too critical, but I would have given you a GPA of 4.5, IF you had examined those “black body” spectra more closely.
You are correct that the CO2 bands do lie on the long right (long wavelength) end of the solar spectrum.
But a BB spectrum has NO long left end (short wavelength) tail, including that of the earth.
ALL physicists should know at their fingertips that the Planck Black Body spectrum, has almost exactly 25.0% of the total energy at wavelengths shorter than the peak wavelength, which is about 10.1 microns for earth’s 288 K near BB spectrum, and ONLY 1% at wavelengths below one half of the peak wavelength (5.05 microns for the earth.
There is no long tail at the short wavelength end of the BB spectrum; it is a steep crash dive.
By comparison, the 1% of total energy, on the long wavelength end, is at eight times the peak wavelength (81 microns for earth).
So even the 4 micron asymmetrical stretch mode band of CO2, is looking at way less than 1% of earth’s LWIR radiation spectrum.
At one tenth of the peak wavelength (1.01 microns for earth), the BB spectrum is down by 4-5 orders of magnitude, from the peak at 10.1 microns. (I don’t have the graph handy)
People should not be talking about the black body spectrum, unless they have at least some passing acquaintance with its shape (in numbers).
Otherwise, I liked your post.

August 9, 2014 11:56 am

Ugly is the correct word for almost everything that comes out of Ed,s mouth.

Brian H
August 9, 2014 12:57 pm

William Mason says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Their true colors are showing. I believe re-education camps were something the Soviet Union used to deal with anyone not towing the party line. It’s scary where things are these days.

toeing the Party Line
You can be sure he has specific content and emphasis in mind when preparing the course; of course, he undoubtedly has a very special definition of “Earth Science”.

August 9, 2014 1:05 pm

Putting dissenters into reeducation camps? The far left is rearing it’s ugly head in the United States.
Actually I remember a large survey of geoscientists and engineers that showed a majority of them were skeptical of global warming alarmism. What could they learn in a basic science class?

August 9, 2014 2:24 pm

Looking at this Ed Show segment from MSNBC and a Guardian article ( referenced at the top of a WUWT post from today (, I’m sensing a common “conservatives need to be educated, why won’t they just learn science?” theme out there in the progressive media. Is there a shadow CAGW strategy group that decides the theme of the moment and then sends it out to all the MSNBCs and Guardians of the world to promote it?

August 9, 2014 5:11 pm

I just don’t understand where you guys’ heads at. You need to pay attention with your own party and Ed’s ‘daddy’, GEORGE SCHULTZ! He wants Republicans to lead the way on green liberalism. I been trying to tell you that mostly both parties are in on this shyt. You cannot depend on what they might tell you to the contrary.
A Republican Secretary of State Urges Action on Climate Change – Scientific American
Former Reagan official predicts Republican skeptics will be ‘mummed’ by climate change — Monday, July 14, 2014
Senior GOP statesman George Shultz urged Republicans on Friday to be proactive on climate change, calling it an “obvious risk” to the economy and national security.
The former secretary of State for President Reagan says that rising temperatures could be addressed through an inexpensive “insurance policy,” similar to Reagan’s support for restrictions on gases that degraded the ozone layer in the 1970s and ’80s.
In this case, Shultz supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would begin small and slowly increase. He often points to melting sea ice in the Arctic as a sign of changes to the climate.
“I think the people who say the climate isn’t changing are going to be mummed by reality,” Shultz said in a webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Climate CoLab.
“It’s changing, and there’s all sorts of evidence out there,” he added. “And it isn’t just the science and it isn’t one-off events like a hot summer or something. With the Arctic Ocean being created, that’s a trend line. These huge melts all over the place, that’s a trend. Greenland is becoming green. So the climate is changing, and the most plausible explanation is the CO2 explanation. So I come back to President Ronald Reagan’s approach. Why don’t we take out an insurance policy?”
Shultz, 93, first proposed a carbon tax last year, joining a handful of other conservative economists, analysts and former lawmakers who believe that pricing the gas can benefit their political party, address environmental concerns and end energy subsidies. A condition of their support includes enacting tax cuts on income and businesses.
Can a Republican president push a carbon tax? …
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, believes there could be more room for the GOP to consider the tax plan after the November elections. Better yet, he predicted that climate action could accelerate if a Republican president is elected in 2016.
“The Great Recession is letting up. Barack Obama is going to be a lame duck after … November. So Obama rejectionism is going to decline,” Inglis said on the webinar. “We’ve got an opportunity at that point to push forward on a very different proposal, different than cap and trade, and give conservatives the opportunity to actually lead on this.”
He added later: “I know this is sort of a strange thing to say, but I wonder if we’d be further along on climate action if Mitt Romney had won” the presidency in 2012. “Perhaps it’s only a Republican who could touch climate change. Because then people will think, ‘OK, he or she’s not overreacting. They’re not going with apocalyptic visions.'” …

Reply to  Ed Martin
August 9, 2014 5:38 pm

George Shultz is not Ed Schultz’s “Daddy”. You didn’t even notice their last names are spelled differently did you?

August 9, 2014 5:35 pm

A tiger on the tail.

August 9, 2014 5:42 pm

I was just checking to see if you guys would fall for it. 😀 heh!

Reply to  Ed Martin
August 9, 2014 5:52 pm

“I was just checking to see if you guys would fall for it. 😀 heh!”
What possible motivation would you have for doing that?

August 9, 2014 5:47 pm

I’m not a republican, primarily because I see them and Democrats as two sides of the same, corroded coin. As a geologist with 28 years experience, I’m trying to figure out what basic earth science course I could take that would convince me I should deny the scientific method and accept what is handed to me by people like this.

August 9, 2014 5:49 pm

Ed, neither George Shultz nor Bob Inglis are voting members of congress. Inglis lost his seat in the House because of his idiotic stances on public issues, climate change being one of them. Stupid crosses all party lines, all ages, races, zip codes. I’ve never seen anyone here state that Republicans aren’t just as good at it as anyone else is.

August 9, 2014 6:13 pm

Is that the best MSNBC can do?… mmmm, yes.

August 9, 2014 6:27 pm

John Coleman says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:30 am
..”How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses? ”
You are doing it right now (internet).
I grew up watching your Chicago forecasts as a young weather geek.
This is the new medium.
Don’t give up now !!

August 9, 2014 7:14 pm

David Lloyd George – July 1914
The majority did not want to argue.
Argument never makes headway against conviction,
and conviction takes no part in argument.
Because – it knows.

This, apparently, is not a new problem.

Brock Way
August 9, 2014 7:18 pm

The best thing ever was Ed getting completely clownpwn3d by the “Media Bias” graphic (Zimmerman-Martin) that Ed put on his show and STILL didn’t get, even though it was right in the title of the graphic in 72-point font. Too funny.

August 9, 2014 7:21 pm

Oh I’m just bored, Aphan, this little ice age has me rained in with another huge downpour. Almost completed the house improvements to get it able to withstand the ice age. The operations manager where I work called the other day, they’re offering me a bonus to return by the end of August. Just need about a week, if it would please just quit raining all the time!
So I used to listen to Ed and I remember him talking about his father, George. Talking about living in Minnesota and being 100% for the Bakken & fossil fuels, gun owners and bringing people up out of poverty. He’s done fundraisers for people going through hard times. He was going to run for political office first as a Republican, then as a Democrat, but decided the talking head gig was more lucrative.
So I’m actually looking to vote Republican, because third party voting since ‘Poppy’ Bush feels like stupidest of all. I guess it was just a silly idea for amusement. Keep you guys sharp.

Reply to  Ed Martin
August 9, 2014 7:27 pm

I totally empathize with the rain thing, my poor tomatoes are so confused. But I get tired of the booby traps set by the opposition (not to mention the boobs who set them) so I’m less inclined to be amused by silly ones I guess. 🙂

Olaf Koenders
August 9, 2014 8:47 pm

“America’s still a great country. We’re losing our grip on that.”

Forget about losing “grip” – Ed Schultz has lost the entire plot.

August 10, 2014 12:19 am

Some people love the limelight, and when that fades they bring up something outrageous just to get publicity again. “I’m still here – didn’t yer know?” I remember a friend who was attached to show biz, she was a really pretty woman, and all of a sudden headlines read, ‘(name) daughter nearly falls under train’ Actually the lass just stumbled when she got off the train. But her name was just in the MSM again.

August 10, 2014 3:37 am

A donkey in a suit is still a donkey. Ugly tie, btw.

Bruce Cobb
August 10, 2014 7:13 am

When he says Earth Science, what he really means is Environmental “Science”. The misdirection is deliberate. It is similar to the Alarmist ploy of stating that manmade warming/climate change is “simple physics”.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 10, 2014 9:44 pm

Was he paid to appear? Then it is waste of money. Since the internet took of in full steam, people have done their own research if lay persons, and there is a trend throughout the world, that the faith in politicians, the media, and warmsters is lacking trust and credibility. It hasn’t sunk in yet, that whatever you do, one can’t change the climate or weather. All one can do is to try and stem pollution of our air, water resources and land.

August 10, 2014 2:28 pm

Here’s a good political cartoon to spread around.
If you don’t vote a few people with lots of money will speak for you.comment image

Dr. Strangelove
August 10, 2014 10:58 pm

I bet the people who voted YES thought earth science is taught by Al Gore since that’s their only exposure to “science.” And Ed thought Al had a B.S. on earth science. Al has a lot of “B.S.” but not bachelor of science.

August 11, 2014 8:31 am

…agenda to drive down wages…
…poverty created by trickle down economics…
For so-called skeptics, there’s a lot of buying into propaganda going around. I’m not a Republican but I at least don’t mischaracterize their economic policies. But then, I tend not to accept propaganda in general, whatever it’s about.

August 11, 2014 1:04 pm

For those wondering who this guy is, here is a sample:
It is one of his milder moments.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights