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

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

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.

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

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.

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:
CLIMAPHOBIA.
Now stop being SILLY.
Be reasonable….do it their way

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?

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?

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).

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

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.

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.. .

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?

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.
John

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

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.

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..

THAT PARROT IS (the) dED (show)….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

A little research shows Debbie Wasserman Schultz is married to Steve Schultz.
http://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/11/quiz-how-well-do-you-know-debbie-wasserman-schultz/001480-020896.html

http://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/meet-debbie/
She has been married to Steve Schultz, a banker, for 20 years.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism
http://m.psp.sagepub.com/content/38/6/808.short

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.

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:.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=goody+and+yung+Atmospheric+Radiation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ScnlU_KSMYq48gWT54D4Bg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=goody%20and%20yung%20Atmospheric%20Radiation&f=false
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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

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
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/questions-and-answers-with-george-shultz-on-climate-change-and-energy/
Former Reagan official predicts Republican skeptics will be ‘mummed’ by climate change — Monday, July 14, 2014
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002783
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.'” …

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.

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 !!

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.

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.