Friday Funny: Well if I was a ‘denier’ I guess I’d be on notice by Barack Obama

An actual email from the “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any anti-science organization?” department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.

Organizing for Action

Friend —

It’s tough out there for climate change deniers.

One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.

They’re still grasping at myths and conspiracy theories, but deniers are on the run.

Let’s keep them there — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers.

In reality, the debate on the basics is over.

Not only do 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, but new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now.

Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast, and we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.

Instead, what you hear from climate change deniers are mostly excuses for not taking action. Some have hidden behind foreign countries, saying America can’t or shouldn’t lead on climate until someone else goes first.

Let’s set aside for a minute that this isn’t actually how we solve global problems. The fact is, President Obama is leading internationally through agreements with China and India to cut carbon pollution and expand the use of clean energy. (So there goes that denier talking point…)

Another thing you might hear from a denier is that we simply can’t get serious about cutting carbon pollution without destroying the economy. That’s just false. For example, the climate and public health benefits from President Obama’s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.

Maybe deniers doubt we have the will and ingenuity to take such a huge problem on. Well, the American people are proving them wrong: Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power. Hundreds of thousands of Americans work in clean energy today.

The arguments from deniers are getting more and more ludicrous.

We have the facts on our side — and we have to drive that message home. Because as long as deniers and polluters are blocking progress, we’re not doing all we can to combat climate change.

Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers:



Ivan Frishberg

Senior Climate Advisor

Organizing for Action


[h/t to: TheLastDemocrat]

395 thoughts on “Friday Funny: Well if I was a ‘denier’ I guess I’d be on notice by Barack Obama

      • They are getting really desperate. The Left want Abbott out of power before Paris and they want to replace him with Turnbull, who is what you would call a token right Winger on the outside, green on the inside. They’ve just voted out two right wing (in Australia its the Liberal Party) state governments and are gunning for a third. This will trigger a leadership spill in which they hope to depose Abbott.

      • This is politics, not science.
        The only question you have to ask is … who will be the beneficiary of the government largess attached to the programs they envision ?

      • John Silver
        February 20, 2015 at 3:46 pm
        OMG, how scared and desperate they are.
        If by they you mean guys and activists linked and associated with, Ivan Frishberg and with his organization, I really doubt they are desperate, they simply over opportunistic in resolving to reap-off the USA citizens falling for their scheming.
        The only problem is that they have gone too far and also have associated the name of the President with it and turn the Presidential power in a symbol, a flag for their scheming camping.
        That should make them really scared.
        I am not an American, but I can’t fail and imagine, that as we at the moment over this issue, some FBI department is already asking who this guy, Ivan Frishberg, really is.
        Is one thing to associate the name of the President with a way of fund-raising, and completely another when you get to the point of greed, cockiness and opportunity and associate the name of the President with some dirty scheme that propagates and imply division and hate through the citizens and the country, simply by thinking that the Presidents hands are and will be “tight” because of his overall position on the issue.
        I would not wish to be in the Ivan’s position and his closed associates in this one.
        Especially if I had not even the slightest credentials to call my self a climate adviser, let alone a senior climate adviser.
        To bad that Ivan has ignored the technical shield of politics, by failing to attache it to his “senior climate adviser ” claim.
        It would have been more careful and less cocky if only at least had considered him self officially as a “senior climate political adviser” in whole this mess.
        Is a very fine and fiery, the walking line under the Presidential shadow.

      • @whiten:
        I am not an American, but I can’t fail and imagine, that as we at the moment over this issue, some FBI department is already asking who this guy, Ivan Frishberg, really is.
        Nope. The entire apparatus of the federal government is thoroughly corrupt, through and through. They don’t care who he is; he’s spouting the party line and that’s all that matters. “Organizing for Action” is a propaganda organization attached to Obama.

      • Penncyl Puccer
        February 21, 2015 at 12:14 pm .
        Yes Penncyl, you totally could be right, but you see, when I see what this guy has done, and the way he has done it, I really think and believe that the system has already flagged him up for a check.
        I maybe overestimating here, but the system has and does flag-up for much less, and better this guy is as you say, just a party liner, and hopefully he checks out clear, and we keep saying that he is another zealot at most.
        Anyway, is just an opinion. Definitely you know your country much better than me.
        But everywhere in this world, in any country, if there is a lot of money involved, made or to be made, lot of money exchanging hands in a possible racketeering outcome, there then will be all kinds of “sharks” circling it .

    • JEEZ!!!…my little, trusty B. S. Detector hasn’t spazzed out , like this, since the last time I got an e-mail from Nigeria!
      Typical ham-handed, lefty pitch. I especially note that that Frishberg character can’t even get the “denier” talking-points, right. Moi, for example, I don’t “deny” that the United States could and/or should take the lead in noble endeavors, on behalf of mankind. Indeed, Americans have a long and distinguished history of that sort of thing. You know, like, how the United States led humanity in a noble and heroic crusade that ultimately defeated the mass-murdering scourge of International Communism (but I know the lefties feel left out of that big win–poor babies!).
      Rather, my “denier” talking-point is that those most convinced of the carbon-peril, most in the public-eye, and most outspoken in their calls for carbon-reduction NOW!!!, should also be those to “go first” and LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON REDUCTION!!!should also be those who PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!
      But what do any of us see, instead? Well, what we see is that those, who are most prominently talkin’ up the demon-carbon scare, are, simultaneously, among the most extravagant, gluttonous, in-your-face carbon-piggies, in both their professional and personal lives, in the whole history of mankind–you know, like Al Gore; “environmentally-conscious” royals; private-jet, jet-set, Hollywood air-heads; bought-and-sold politicos; greenwashed crony-capitalists; tenured, Gruber-wannabe, ivory-tower parasites, jetting about the globe attending their little grab-ass, gas-bag eco-confabs, which could easily be held as carbon-free tele-conferences; and lefty NGO’s, tryin’ to bring back the good ol’ days of the Holodomor, “Great Leap Forward”, and the “Cambodian Killing Fields”, using the cover of Gaia. The end point being, of course, to pick my “little guy” pocket, gut my freedoms, and crush the quality of my life while, at the same time, preserving the CO2-spew good-times and feudal privileges of my pontificating betters undisturbed. Thanks but no thanks.
      In other words, if there is really a menace to humanity posed by AGW, then what we most desperately need, at the moment, is not an effort to “call out” the “deniers”, but rather a major effort to “call out” the brazen-hypocrite carbon-oinkers who make up the nomenklatura of the “environmental” movement. And why? Well because those hypocrite, CO2 mega-spewers make the whole carbon-reduction business look like a RIP-OFF!!!SCAM!!!CON-JOB!!!HUSTLE!!! (the reading on my trusty, little B. S. detector (all caps in the original)).
      And perhaps the estimable Ivan Frishberg could take the lead–“go first”–in “calling out” his brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie betters, even if it puts Ivan at risk of biting the hand that feeds him. I mean, like, I think Ivan is up to it. I mean, like, we can all be sure that Ivan doesn’t put his trough before “the kids” and the “polar-bears”. I mean, like, that’s just not Ivan!–am I right or am I right, Ivan?

      • That “Global Warming” thing is..well..maybe you should change it to “Global Freezing”..they (stupid {Gruber} public) won’t notice the difference..and..damn, man it’s like 8 degrees here in NYC with aboutumteen inches of snow..when can I come out of my apartment? Please advise … thank you … signed, Frostbite Freddy.

    • All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. -AH

    • The arrogance and totalitarianism of this people is simply breathtaking…
      I wonder, how they will defend their small-minded “denier” witch-hunt” in about 10 – 20 years when the absurd CAGW scare mongering will be “a thing of the past” at last?
      By the way: They are still so proud of their faked “97% consensus” which is complete meaningless because of the stupid questions and categories used. But even if this 97% consensus would be real, that would have no scientific value at all, as history reveals again these last days: Did we not have an almost totally consensus in food science that cholesterol in our diet should be really bad for health during the last 40 years? And now this once so powerful consensus is simply gone with the wind:

      • “I wonder, how they will defend their small-minded “denier” witch-hunt” in about 10 – 20 years …”
        Assuming the second amendment is still valid then, it might be tough for them to do so..
        Stay warm my friend,

      • Well, if past experience from Germany is anything to go by, almost nobody will even remember that they once were climate alarmists, just as there were no more Nazis to be found after 1945 and no more communists after 1990.

      • Gentle, if the world froze over tomorrow, they would still be clinging to their CAGW mantra. Can you imagine the sheer numbers of people who are responsible for this? Can you imagine the backlash if it is ever learned that these people were knowingly lying? Just think about all the money students have paid to universities to be taught this drivel. It’s staggering. Hopefully it becomes a class action lawsuit. How about all the leftist/fascists pushing for their Agenda 21/One World Government? They know they are close with this one.
        These people are more than willing to break some eggs to get what they want. They’re too invested to stop now.

      • Paul,
        the 2nd Amendment protects the 5 fundamental freedoms found in the 1st Amendment – speech, religion press, assembly to protest, and petition for edress of grievences.

    • Except, of course, for all that McCarthy was a demagogue, there really were Soviet spies placed in the U.S. government. So there was a case to be made. AGW does not have a case.

      • Pat: It has always amazed me that this piece of historical reality is completely overlooked. McCarthy did harm to the real effort of identifying and exposing actual and active Soviet spies.

      • M Stanton Evans book “Blacklisted by History,” presents the case that McCarthy had it right, but that his style and the active propaganda campaign against him successfully created the mythology that has become a “truth.” Not too dissimilar from the Climate propaganda of today.

      • DesertYote, are you for real? ‘McCarthyism’ means the act of making an accusation of disloyalty that is unsupported by any evidence. McCarthy wrongly thought that the US had “large” numbers of Soviet spies within government. It did not. There were a few, as there were in other governments around the world. McCarthy wasn’t “right”, he was wrong. He was also an idiot, and anti-homosexual bigot, and an alcoholic.
        He was secretly gay himself, spoke to plants, and ate wallpaper. You see, that’s ‘McCarthyism’!

      • You’re right, Bernie. McCarthy and his histrionics gave anti-communism a bad name.
        Big Jim, whatever McCarthy got wrong or however he was an idiot, there were a large number of Soviet spies in the US government. The Venona papers make clear that there’d been an aggressive Soviet campaign of espionage against the US since at least the mid-1930’s. All the while that the Soviet Union was held in friendly regard by the US.
        Christina Shelton’s “Alger Hiss, why he chose treason” gives a good account of some of these people.
        It doesn’t take much investigation to realize that the whole AGW thing is just one more front of the continuing Progressive war against a free, constitutional, and entrepreneurial US.

      • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
        February 21, 2015 at 6:01 am
        “He was secretly gay himself, spoke to plants, and ate wallpaper. You see, that’s ‘McCarthyism’!”
        So I googled “Did McCarthy eat wallpaper”
        The results are surprising, try it yourself, it’s fun.

      • Ghost: The term McCarthyism was created by Marxist propagandists in the media. By the time McCarthy tried to do something about the problem, Marxist had already become dominant in Academia, the media, and the Democratic party. Your response is an indication of how successful those Marxist propagandists were at controlling public opinion.

    • Well, no ….. if you think CO2 heats Earth[*], burn fossil fuels. Exhaling just recycles and has no net effect. Warming has been demonised, but is actually beneficial in many ways, chiefly perhaps via increased plant growth and food production. It will be particularly beneficial over the next couple of decades if the global cooling occurs that some are now predicting.
      [*]I think it does, but unfortunately not by much. 1 deg C per doubled CO2 if you’re lucky.

    • … a brand new solar powered Xbox with a cell either made in China in an ecologically unsound factory or a horribly overpriced solar cell made in the USA with massive government kickbacks to donors subsidies in a factory that has now shut down due to bankruptcy.

  1. Pep talks are usually given out when you are losing. Pretty much says it all. Nothing but lies they hope the flock will accept.

  2. Click the link under the “join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers” text and you’ll get an opportunity to donate money. The choices are from $15 to $1000, although you can enter other amounts. I wonder if there is any chance of prosecuting under some kind of law against false advertising based on all the lies in the email.

  3. Just further proof that the climate campaigners are getting more and more desperate. Their blatant use of lies and strawman arguments just keeps getting more and more laughable.

    • True.

      The arguments from deniers are getting more and more ludicrous.

      They are clearly accusing thermometers of being deniers. The pause keeps on mocking the climate models.
      That Mercury in the tubes must be in league with the CO2 in the atmosphere to kill us all!
      They are both chemicals, you see.
      Have you seen anyone consorting with chemicals, or with people who use chemicals?
      Report them now!

  4. “Denier” is such a loaded term. It is discouraging to have the President of the United States’ political committee call people who disagree with them, ‘denier.’ I get his OFA emails and this isn’t about science or even climate. It’s just propaganda attacking BO’s political opponents. ‘Discouraging’ is the politest term I could think of – we have to be respectful of others when we debate. Irving Frishberg has brought a nightstick to the debate and he is swinging it in Obama’s name.

  5. It’s as if someone has distilled all the phony arguments, straw men, and misleading interpretations into one fund raising letter and aimed it at low-information voters. It’s a classic.

  6. STILL the same old recycled junk. STILL pushing Manbearpig.
    These guys are like… so NINETIES.
    Still mindlessly reproducing
    that has-been Al Gore’s stuff.
    Al Gore “I’m cereal” (youtube – South Park)

  7. I don’t find this funny at all.
    At best it’s simply one more front where real scientists and useful citizens have to direct their resources, instead of addressing real issues.
    At worst it’s a witch hunt that will destroy lives.

  8. Stupidity annoys me. And crass stupidity in high places is a crime against humanity. For a leader to undersign such a document is tantamount to a call for impeachment. He should be impeached.

  9. Add in “Net Neutrality” push and the FEC wanting to limit political speech do you think a site like this is even going to be allowed?

    • No, it won’t in its current form.
      It’ll survive, with access limited. to starve it of influence.
      Net Neutrality is too awkward an idea to be ignored by the powerful.

    • Video Drone! The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution still IS! Ivan can call us names (God bless him, heh) and we can announce truth boldly.
      If “Net neutrality” or a “hate speech” or what-EVER anti-freedom of expression unconstitutional law is passed, IT WILL NOT STAND (for long).
      Note: The U.S. Armed Forces do not swear to obey the POTUS, they pledge to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

      • Just a bit of clarification. I love your comments, and though I am a bleeding-heart liberal, I am not a Green, nor one of the more unfavorable types we have left of the aisle, any more than most of the posters and commenters here are radical anythings! So keep it up.
        However, I can say as a veteran that the armed forces do swear to obey the POTUS, in that part of their defense of the Constitution involves the broad and deep body of military law (now under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) whose structural backbone is the chain of command. In the US, every member of the armed forces can be located in one of several chains of command, with the POTUS at the top of more than one of them, and in swearing their oath, armed forces members find themselves in a binding contract under that military law to obey every single person above them in any chain (except where tactical reasons would preclude it). So the words of the swearing-in oath do not contain all of the corollary oaths to which the new member is subjecting him- or herself.
        Interestingly, once in that bind, the member also is not protected (in practice in the US) by the Bill of Rights to the extent that a civilian would hope to be. It is a very imperfect system (just ask all of us draftees during the Vietnam War), but it is a rational model of how to shape American libertarians into a fighting force. It requires the member to suspend his own expectation of American liberties during the tour of duty.
        The US military is not the best in the world solely because of expensive weaponry. When they went into Iraq, our men and women were ready (except for the lack of armor on some boondoggle vehicles and other contractor atrocities) when their feet hit the ground; now, after nearly 14 years, the Iraqi Army “may not be ready to take on ISIS”, so the US will be there with air strikes and artillery, etc. The Army is not going to depose the POTUS in our lifetimes, I would expect, because our Army is very well trained to be revolution-averse, as it should be.
        We do need to reel in the imperial presidency, but that will require rewriting a lot of laws to prevent Executive Orders that are clearly unconstitutional–but that involves changes in the SCOTUS as well as the POTUS, plus a Congress that is willing to pass rational laws (not sitting around shouting) and back them up with veto-proofing. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking.

      • Hi, Mr. Newkirk,
        And I enjoyed YOUR thoughtful comment. You are correct, however, conflict of laws analysis puts POTUS where he or she belongs, second. When what the POTUS “commands” conflicts with the Constitution of the United States of America, the controlling legal authority is the legal document that also creates the office of POTUS, the Constitution.
        No one, not Richard Nixon, not Barack Hussein Obama, no one is above the law.
        While the members of the Armed Forces have temporarily restricted liberties, to honor their oath, they must not obey any order which illegally restricts the liberties of private citizens.
        Thank you, so much, for your kind words to me. You and I (given that you are a “bleeding heart liberal”) disagree on much, but, I think we agree on more. Thank you for your generosity to someone on “the other side of the aisle.”
        Re: unconstitutional Exec. Orders, it is often a slow process, but, civil litigation will take them to the SCOTUS where the Constitution will ultimately control. In the meantime, patriotic/liberty minded citizens can find creative ways to do a “slow down” of those anti-liberty orders… . Messages get garbled and sometimes supplies are mistakenly sent 1,000 miles in the opposite direction… and well…. :). We citizens are NOT passive and we will NOT take this (we just need to be careful in how we maneuver at times).
        I am, to make myself clear here, NOT calling for the military to remove the current POTUS from office. I do not think this is necessary to preserve and protect our liberties (as bad as things are looking). America will outlive this administration and come back, stronger than ever. Just a matter of time.
        Hang in there, everyone who cares about our great nation — good things, MANY good things, are ahead. The best is yet to be! (“… the last {centuries}, for which the first {were} made.” R. Browning.)
        Your Ally for Truth in Science and FOR LIBERTY!,

      • From a time when Giants walk the earth The Newburgh Affair 1783
        George Washington
        He hesitated for a moment as he looked down at the letter before fumbling to retrieve a pair of spectacles from his pocket. Before reading the letter, Washington, in an almost apologetic tone said, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.” The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.
        nuff said

      • Enlistment Oath – “I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
        The orders given by “the President of the United States and orders of the officers appointed over me” have to be lawful under the Constitution or the service person that follows them will be in violation of their oath. And that is, stated as simply as possible, is the bottom line. We who served swore our oath to the PEOPLE as represented by the Constitution and not the Government or the NCA (National Command Authority).
        Based on some surveys done of service members this distinction is generally not understood by first term enlisted. But the majority of NCOs of Officers do understand it. The authority of the NCA is not absolute, but that of the Constitution which is in fact the representation of the people, is.

      • Well, hoo-rah, Rah! #(:))
        Well put. Thank you for sharing that — and thank you for your service to our country! We owe you. Military life is hard, even if you never saw “action,” (and that you were willing to endure to the utmost for America was wonderful — thank you, thank you).
        If you are RAH the truck driver — stay safe. I have a list of “professional drivers” I pray for DAILY. You (or “RAH,” anyway) are on it.
        Take care, out there on those snowy roads!

      • Yes Janice I’m the truck driver. And thank you for your prayers. This winter I’ve needed every edge I could get. Toughest in my 10 years of OTR driving. As for my service? It gave back to me every bit as much as I put into it.

      • Janice; rah; I’m in ignorance please enlighten me. rah janice can vouch for me.
        I study History… military history. also I’m also by trade a machinist. Most of my career I made things that go bump and slaughter in the night To drop a name Sikorsky aircraft. much of the family worked there.

      • You know Mike, all one has to do to get a handle on it is to remember that the Government owes it’s existence to, and gets it’s Legal authority from, the same Constitution the military is sworn to protect and defend.

      • BTW Mike you and I have a similar interest. I to am an amateur Military Historian concentrating on primarily the wars our own country has fought but also on some others. I would judge my most extensive knowledge is of our Civil War and WW II. Will be returning to Gettysburg for the 6th time this summer. Have spent about a month there in total previously and still have things to learn. Have been to all the Major battlefields of that war and most of them from Germany to Normandy, France and a few in Northern Italy, studying WW II.

      • Oh, dear Mike, the dedicated, scholarly, machinist — of COURSE I will vouch for you!
        You and rah (thanks for sharing about yourself, O scholarly driver) oughta become pen pals!

      • “I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
        One can not both support and defend the constitution and obey the orders of a criminal president, or any commander.
        Not sure how one can be veteran or military man and vote into office a fraudulent law breaking, insecure, impotent, masochistic, and psychopath neurotic narcissist who openly “fears” veterans as part of his regimes enemy list. The same person who has militarized his puppet agencies with automatic weapons and hollow point ammunition to be used solely on its citizenry. The same person who has divided rather than joined.

      • highflight56433
        Be assured I certainly did not either time. Last presidential election night I went to sleep in my sleeper in the Pilot truck stop in Waco, TX. Woke up early the next morning, heard the results, went in and filled my thermos with coffee and hit the road. Didn’t even unplug my head set from the charger. I was taking no calls. Did not stop until I got to the Flying J in Charleston, MO on I-57. Went in to the Huddle House there to eat and intending to take my next 10 hour break. Ordered a glass of chocolate milk while I decided. The girls working there were so exuberant with the election results I lost my appetite. While paying for my Chocolate milk another trucker paying at the register looked at me with his moist eyes, shook his head, and simply said “unbelievable”. I drove back to my home terminal in Anderson, IN from there without stopping. Yea, I violated the hours of service rules that day. That night when I got home I took the flag down from my 30′ pole in the front yard. The pole remained bare for 6 months until my wife told me: “Honey, that’s just not YOU!” She was right. It went back up but under it then still today flies a ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ flag.

      • Rah, rest assured my comment is pointed not at you, but at the bigots who talk patriotism, then vote for the anti-constitutional traitors liken to J Kerry; who single handedly with the help of Jane Fonda followers etc. turned veterans and active military personnel into murderous criminal thugs. Resulting in risking your life when wearing the uniform in public. I remember clearly those moments; not bitter, but cognizant of the wickedness in character of the socialist left. The post like this are another example of the creeps who seek to destroy rather than build. Stay vigilant. Keep those flags flying!

  10. The debate is between those that have faith in climate models that cannot be validated by empirical data and those that look at the data. The issue is that the climate models do not agree with empirical data.

  11. Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power…

    … and, pop quiz time, what fraction do wind and solar combined constitute of US energy use, in spite of spending an enormous amount of money on them compared to fuel-based alternatives?
    Oh, wait, is that less than 2%? It is, isn’t it.
    Which means what, exactly? If wind and solar were capable of supporting the base load in energy demand that is there at night, in the winter, and at times and places that the wind doesn’t blow even if they DO let companies place giant wind turbines in MBY’s across the country — which they are not — and we we added 2% every five years at the cost of around half a trillion dollars — then in 50 years we would be providing 100% of our energy from these sources, at a cost of 25 trillion dollars, except that if our economy actually grew over this time instead of collapsing as we tried to survive on energy that simply goes away or isn’t available in places where there is no wind or sufficient sunshine we’d still be only halfway there as our energy needs might reasonably double over 50 years otherwise.
    Or maybe the intent is to cause the economy to tank in equal measure to the increase in “renewable” energy sources and meet somewhere in the middle, or maybe even back to the early 20th century levels so that only the wealthy can afford to turn on their lights at night.
    But I digress. And don’t care. Only — this isn’t very funny, Friday or not…

    • Don’t you mean 100% of our energy for 7 hours a day if the sun is out and the wind is blowing fast enough (but not too fast) and it never, ever stops?

    • Re: The Myth of Solar Energy
      Ozzie Zehner video: “Green Illusions” (youtube)

      (I do NOT endorse ALL of its content — some is highly accurate, however)
      [6:55] — As of 2012, less than ONE TENTH OF 1%, i.e., less than .001% (< .1 Quads), of total energy (114 Quads. for N. America) is supplied by solar. [7:11] — Graphic of N. American total energy v. solar (tiny dot v. big bucket).
      Caveat re: Mr. Zehner: He is an irrationally anti-nuclear power, Church of Anti-consumption (albeit good-intentioned) religious zealot, BUT, he knows his stuff about solar power and makes a good point about the gross ineffectiveness and hypocrisy of solar/wind. They will NEVER be cost-effective and they promote not reduce fossil fuels/CO2 = not “green” = hypocrisy.

      • And excellent expose of the fallacy of windpower/solar power is found in Peter Huber’s book, Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists: A Conservative** Manifesto:
        **”Conservative” means “conservationist,” not politically conservative (although, most “conservatives” would likely agree with Mr. Huber).

      • What always seems to be lost in this whole argument is that “wind mills’ were never ever meant to generate electricity even 6000 years ago people used the for the sole reason to pump water and to grind cereals . Even then those people were logical thinkers,

      • Good point, A Sybot.
        Lol, come to think of it… why didn’t Western Telegraph… or American Telephone & Telegraph… or Thomas Edison & Co….. not hook their equipment up to windmills? Just think where they would be today if they had! 🙂

      • Heh, heh, thanks for the laugh, Harold. #(:))
        And, just in case someone currently being duped by the Enviroprofiteers takes you seriously (leaving aside the Moore’s law quip, lol), here’s why Boeing’s plants are not EVER going to be powered to any meaningful degree by windmills:
        DOOMED to failure.
        @ All windmill venture investors: Sell now — while your stock is still worth anything at all.

  12. When you don’t have logic, reason, or facts on your side, attack the person.
    On the other hand, their list is a group of people we should support.

    • They don’t have anything else.

      The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

      – Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)”
      The 97% l1e has been resoundingly refuted.
      Hint to All the Gullibles:
      That’s — why — Ivan — is — screaming — so — loudly.

      • 97% is useful as it implies those whom you respect think this is true.
        But “What is truth?”
        Those who don’t know will always seek any answer that’s available.
        And they will do anything – without morality – if they grab a convenient answer.

      • Sorry Janice, I thought you would know the reference.
        The Lie is Useful. It serves a purpose. Yes, it does; it serves a purpose.
        But the purpose is expedient – it helps the liar in the immediate term for obvious reasons.
        Yet, it misses the big picture. It doesn’t see whole.
        And the example I referenced with “What is truth”?
        This, John Chapter 18 Verse 38.
        Which was a rather bad crime to commit for good intentions.

      • And re: Pontius Pilate’s words: “What is truth?” He MEANT that truth is well and good, but politics and mob rule (such as that which he was dealing with at that moment) trump truth when cowardly leaders cave into them.
        That quote is often misused to promote nihilism, so I took the opportunity to try to inform, here. Truth is fact. It may not be known (e.g., how many stars are there? why do people have only two eyes at most? what if …. :)), but it is knowable (by God, if by no one else). L1es sometimes win the day… but,
        Truth is.
        And, in the end, the truth Pilate sacrificed to the shouts of the crowd triumphed in spite of him.
        The tomb is empty.

      • Yes, Mr. Courtney (eye roll with a smile), I knew that reference. I just don’t see how pointing that out does anything to either support or refute the AGWers except to say: They l1e because it is useful.
        So be it. 🙂
        Truth WILL win!

      • Truth hardly ever wins. I’m not quite sure why some people keep posting that “Truth will win.”
        Perhaps “Truth will win for a season.” But the fight against dogmatic superstition based totalitarianism has been, is now, and always will be a battle. And by ‘truth’, I mean evidence based reasoning. The bible quotes and references are a huge turn-off for those of us non-religious science based people… or at least this one in particular…
        ‘Truth’ – meaning evidence based reasoning – has lost in almost every civilization during nearly every point in history. This very time moment, there are millions, perhaps billions, of humans being taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that any thought against this ‘fact’ is a Western lie… truth doesn’t win. Guns, money, and violence win. Science and evidence based reasoning may win in times of peace, prosperity, and plenty, but the ‘win’ is usually rather short lived historically speaking. Eventually the hemlock is administered to the ‘truth.’

      • Dear Not Laughing,
        Yes, the War for Truth is perennial. Truth, in the end, DOES win EVERY battle, nevertheless. Are we burning “witches”? Are slaves still being imported from Africa? Are we bleeding people to cure them? Can women vote? Did the Axis powers win WWII? Did their vile Superior Race (whether the Japanese or the German brand) propaganda enslave the world in perpetual hatred? Are we still treating stomach ulcers with a glass of milk? Is the Berlin Wall still standing?
        That there are l1es being taught in obscure corners of the world’s battlefield about the Sun or other long-known science does not negate Truth’s triumph on main front.
        So, too, with the AGW Gang, they — have — lost. The are fighting a war of desperation on the very fringes of the battlefield of ideas. We must keep up a permanent guard, however. Sites like this will be truth’s valiant outposts to keep the ly1ng rats in their holes.
        Re: my passing reference to Jesus’ resurrection, just ignore it and other Bible texts. I manage to ignore a LOT of stuff that is said on this site in the interests of camaraderie and promotion of science facts. I’ll bet you can do it, too.
        And try laughing — it helps keep things in perspective. #(:))
        Your jolly ally for truth,

      • @Janice:
        I admire your sunny disposition. However, it is far from reality. WWII or its like can and will occur again. The scientific method is not common sense. Evidence based reasoning is not a natural human tendency. In fact, humans, like most animals, are natural statisticians with a high tendency toward false positive response. We naturally see and assign ‘intent’ to disconnected events. This means that all evidence based knowledge is always at risk of falling prey to be discarded and disregarded by human society and civilizations.
        In short, superstition is our ‘natural’ state – it is and always will be easier to convince a room full of humans that the burned toast was ‘meant’ to look like Jesus – rather than simply your brain assembling coincidental disparate splotches into a facial impression because that’s what brains do… And this is the heart of the problem of CAGW. Sure, there are ‘bad actor’ scientists and propaganda machines working to exploit the fear, uncertainty, and doubt — but the basic issue is one of a natural human tendency for anthropocentric thought and decision making. The same forces are at work in astrology as well as CAGW as well as in Cargo Cults and all religions. This is why name calling is always hypocritical. And it is always wrong to pigeon-hole individuals. Calling for conservatives to rise up and fight liberals is just as preposterous as the reverse. Not all conservatives are pro-science, not all liberals are CAGW propagandists — not all liberals are evolutions [which is pro-science] and not all conservatives are creationists [which is anti-science] — not all Ivy League college graduates are liberals nor even wealthy nor smart, and not all State-college graduates are poor conservatives nor not-smart.
        Say instead – join in the fight against superstition where ever it is found — because as Dawkins writes – superstition is the enemy of reason. And the enemies of reason are enemies of science and ‘progress’ whatever that term might mean.
        ‘Truth’ is hard won and easily lost. Don’t underestimate the combined power of natural born human superstition, political strength and will, along with the wealth and means to control and deliver the message. And always remember that science and math are hard – it takes time and practice to understand these things – and very few actually wish to spend that time or work hard in practice.

      • @Janice:
        ” I manage to ignore a LOT of stuff that is said on this site in the interests of camaraderie and promotion of science facts. I’ll bet you can do it, too.
        And try laughing — it helps keep things in perspective. #(:))”
        Thank you Janice. As a commited atheist, I find it good to see someone with different ideas to my own still ready to ignor our differences and work together to fight the evil that is CAGW zealotry.
        And have a laugh as well 🙂

      • Dear David Smith,
        Thank YOU. And, oh, boy, I had to ignore a LOT of poor ol’ Not’s comment, as you can see! Thanks for taking the time to smile at me. Much appreciated.
        Your Ally for Truth in Science,
        P.S. You will consider it a waste of time, but I will (and just did!) be praying you will not only realize God is, but that God loves you and wants to be your Abba, not just your Creator. Okay! I won’t bring THAT up again! …. er… with YOU, I mean… heh. #(:)) Thanks for not spitting. Just got my sweater back from the cleaners… .

    • Janice, that they lie because it is useful – that is the point.
      We don’t lie, despite it being useful to do so, because the truth is important.
      They do. They do lie.
      And the impact of that call is immeasurably expensive.
      It requires talk of the infinite and the eternal to encompass the value of truth.
      Truth is real.
      It’s worth stating this because the observers who visit here should know our values.
      Although we are not in full Communion, I know.

      • It’s hard to know though what fraction truly, if lazily and naively, believes, and what fraction actually lies consciously and intentionally. I personally know quite a few highly educated people who believe every word of it and simply don’t take the time to check the facts, or even think, for themselves.

      • I know several scientists who mouth this stuff about AGW and when asked they will say “I don’t have time to research it so I have to believe the researchers who do.” It isn’t apathy per se, but rather that they know that they publish only real findings and find it very difficult to believe that another scientist might not put the same care into their methodologies and conclusions that they themselves do in a totally unrelated field. It is a real predicament to convince those who are very busy in another field of science to look at the data and spend the time to think about it. I don’t know what can be done to fix that either because their casual belief is misleading their students who tend to hang on every off-hand remark because that PhD behind the name means they know more…the students have no idea that these folks have never looked into it past the press releases.

      • “Although we are not in full Communion, I know.”
        This sums up WUWT entirely. I know MCourtney has taken a lot of flack from other WUWT commenters for his left-leaning views, but I know we.respect him for standing by his convictions.
        However, at SkS he would have been banned for not agreeing with the ‘concensus’…

  13. Skills
    Grassroots Organizing
    Policy Analysis
    Speech Writing
    Legislative Relations
    Project Planning
    Community Outreach
    Environmental Advocacy
    Public Relations
    Political Consulting
    Political Campaigns
    Public Policy
    Program Development
    Message Development
    Strategic Planning
    Political Communication
    Crisis Communications
    Public Speaking
    Program Evaluation
    Event Planning
    Strategic Communications
    Higher Education
    Environmental Policy
    Social Networking
    Press Releases
    Volunteer Management
    Community Organizing
    Community Development
    Political Science
    Energy Policy
    Media Relations
    International Relations
    Grant Writing
    Climate Change…
    Social Media
    Imagine that. The only science I see on our Real School of Government Graduate of Genius is Political Science.

    • “Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers:”
      So, if they are taking us “to task”, and “calling out” our “myths and conspiracy theories”, they should certainly be interesting in a PUBLIC DEBATE, where they can show how morally superior, their scientific methods are. They can expose our ” ludicrous arguments” for all to see.
      I won’t hold my breath, because we know, and more importantly, THEY KNOW, how that would turn out.
      Only the dead-enders are foolish enough to still be flogging this dead horse. Ivan Frishberg you have be Grubbered!

    • Todd, a long way to say you have no real skills. It used to be called smoke shoveling. An engineer would probably list 3 or 4.

    China has no plans on abating emissions under the agreement at all. They will continue until 2026 when they agreed to hold them at that level. In the meantime China is pushing on with developing new technology in their coal powered generators and further development of nuclear power. In other words Obama sold out a bit more sovereignty to China for nothing in return.
    India flatly refused as they want to bring electricity to another 300million people. India have banned Greenpeace and or other climate activists as acting against India’s interests.
    Even Canada has listed the worst of climate activists as dangerous.
    Far from knocking down sceptical arguments, the warmists have fired all their bullets and are now releasing cartoonish repeats and combinations of failed models. It is like kicking a car that has run out of fuel. Not going to make it go one more inch but will show you up as an idiot.
    They repeat the dismally wrong 97% figure. Really shows how desperate they are. Obama has seen his CCX membership decline to zero, so like any door to door encyclopaedia salesman he is knocking on email doors with any old thing he can cobble together.
    Sad Sack redefined.

  15. Still don’t get the point, do they? Few deny that climate changes. Many question it’s causes and what it’s actual course has been, and the kneejerk legislation masquerading as assurance of it’s future control. Some pretend to know it’s future course and will work as long as the funding holds out, to try and match current events of weather to the doom-saying that, if moderated, would hold the attention of only a few on the fringes of science.
    I saw well chosen rhetoric here, glossing over a hidden agenda, with no actual data presented or cited.

    • Actually Dawtgtomis, I think they know exactly what they are doing and part of that is to keep repeating their ridiculous mantras until the naive, after hearing it so often, will believe it to be true. To my thinking, they have collected and organized their talking points so, like little robots, they are all regurgitating the much same nonsense.
      When you attempt to communicate with them, the response is nearly always some version of “Na-Na-Na-Na, I can’t hear you, you denier.”
      In short, how could an intelligent person possibly communicate with someone who believes that there are accurate records of global temperatures (to the hundredth of a degree) from the early 1900s (or late 1800s) or even in 2014? That thinking alone tells you all you need to know about the person’s intelligence and reasoning ability.

  16. We can’t call ISIS Islamic, we can hardly can call them terrorists, we certainly can’t make a cartoon of the profit (sic), but we sure can call people who disagree with us “deniers.”

  17. I notice that Mr. Frishberg doesn’t provide any links to back up his claims.
    I wonder why not.
    Unless of course he can’t because there aren’t any.

    • Oh, man, Kim, for laughing out loud. DON’T WORRY.
      “They” can barely balance their checkbook, much less figure out where “we” are.
      And, they really aren’t “many.” Most people do not give one rat’s toothbrush about “climate change.” That’s why Ivan is screaming his lungs out. People keep just brushing past him on the sidewalk, bumping into his plastic chair, and giving him dirty looks for getting in their way. Just laugh and ignore him (and “them”).

  18. Having seen Ivan’s website I reckon he is guilty of hate speech. But in the land of the free it seems he is free to be a bigot.

  19. Does someone need to start making a list of climate fraudsters, for when the world wakes up to this scam?
    Obama et al would have to be near the top.

  20. Oh no! “new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now!”
    As opposed to my youth when there were no climate or extreme weather impacts;) Not actionable lies, just idiot fodder.
    Note my use of an emoticon. I saw another new report which proved that those who use emoticons have more sex and I figured it couldn’t hurt, much;)

    • Ah, yes. Those sacrine flavored days of my youth, when the sun was shining and the weather was sweet. And never a cloud darkened my day. How I’ve missed them so. Can’t we all spare a dime (or 30, minimum) for our dear Brother Ivan, So he can bring back those perfect days.
      Also, 🙂 🙂 😀 :o) :] :3 :c) :> =] 8) =) :} :^) :っ) 😀 8-D 8D x-D xD X-D XD =-D =D =-3 =3 B^D 😉 🙁 :p x_x >^_^_<

  21. Unfortunately, it’s only a matter of time before people will begin to be arrested for sedition and/or incitement to riot for posting actual data showing the stability of the global climate or for supporting the view that CAGW is not factual.

  22. I am a “denier” because I read the real peer reviewed science, the ones that give their sources and references, Wonder how he derived the 97% and what was the actual question that they were asked.

  23. It’s so characteristic of the totalitarian, Orwellian US administration to out right lie to the public.
    By facts on their side do they refer to the 17 year plateau? Or perhaps do they refer to the IPCC themselves distancing themselves from the CO2 extreme weather link which they push in this piece of effluent.
    They must still be using the debunked 97% consensus figure just to piss off the skeptics.

  24. I see his climate policy is as clever as his Middle Eastern policy.
    Often times bad policy doesn’t blow up around your ears before you even get out of office, unless it’s especially stupid.

  25. Hundreds of thousands of Americans work in clean energy today.

    …vs. how many jobs lost in the fossil fuels sector and green tech. related job exports? Not to mention government programs cut in order to fund climate research.
    …does this include the carbon credit brokers as well?

    • I got a survey about green jobs. It includes trash collection and dealing with regulations as “green”–not exactly productive work, eh?

  26. Regressing back to medieval times. Guess we skeptics should all be hunted down and burned at the stake. (Climate denial witches! Climate denial witches!) Sounds as though they’re getting to that stage.

    • They already are, as in prosecuting people using frivolous lawsuits. ( like Steyn is and others are on that list as well)

    • Have to admit that when he’s getting rolled by China and India on climate negotiations he’s doing less harm than when his getting rolled on really important foreign policy decisions.

      • If the US was bound to follow his agreements it would be economic disaster. Fortunately we are not so bound, and will not follow them.

  27. Memo:-
    From:- Gaia Gestapo HQ
    To:- All Earthian eco apparatchiks
    By the order of the Earth Fuehrer Collective, the eco- einzatsgruppen are ready for action mein kameraden!

  28. My reply to Ivan:

    Ivan – ‘Friend’, thank you for your recent communication, the contents of which have been noted.
    Please don’t be upset if I have to turn down your kind offer “to join your team”. You see, I have always been very careful about following my Mom’s advice: “don’t play with Nazis”. She also thought that people like you have very small winkles (my Mom was very old-fashioned) and that’s why you tend to over-compensate.
    Furthermore, it was always thought that men (I use the term advisably) like you, who hide behind a leader’s honourable name (note: no matter what we think of Obama, POTUS is an honourable estate) are lower than the stuff I stepped in the other day.
    One of life’s 3percenters.

    • Just a lurker here and my comment is not very relevant to the conversation. Although i have always used “winkle” to describe a male’s lower appendage, I haven’t heard or read anyone else use it for over 50 years. .

  29. The green economy is really like the earth being held up by four Elephants standing up on the back of a Turtle being supported by lies. And it’s Lies all the way down from there

  30. We have facts on our side. Our facts refuse to be paraded in public. Instead of exposing them, we would rather expose our opponents – and anybody who is not 100% with us is our opponent.

      • And, fortunately, the response of the “average American” will be:
        “Yo — Ivan. Keep it down over there, we’re tryin’ to watch the game.”
        Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaa!

  31. This is just alarmist desperation. They saw the results of the 2014 election and they know what is coming in 2016.

  32. If they didn’t seem to be enjoying their exalted status so much, I might feel sorry for them.
    Instead I despise them.
    I’ll have to bite my tongue now, seeing as this a family-oriented blog.

    • I get what you’re saying, u.k.(us), however…. take a step back and think about it.
      They, in the grand scheme of things, are dust. And their “glory” is fading as we speak.
      You CAN do the one thing they hate most in the world:
      They LOVE to be screamed at — they feed off your anger. Attention, per se, feeds their bloated egos.
      I-G-N-O-R-E T-H-E-M.
      Like you do the cow pie in the field across the road.
      Yes, yes, they can reform and once again join the human race and we will welcome them back — until then, they are making dung piles of themselves and should be treated accordingly.

      • Hi Janice, it’s been awhile…
        Ummm, you say ignore them, and also they like to be screamed at.
        I say give them no quarter and grind them into the dust, problem solved.
        The only thing that gives me pause, is my motivations.

  33. The letter sounds like a desperate attempt to keep the dopes duped.
    (or should that be “the duped dopes”? 😎

      • And forced to toe the party line of be thrown under the bus by Executive Order to remain silent about any conflicting science… EPA administrator once told staff that should they not believe in CAGW they were in her sights to be fired and to get out… She is such the benevolent dictator under Obama..

    • warren the ignorant, be so kind as to provide me with the study saying 97% of scientist agree that mankind’s CO2 contributions to the atmosphere will result in catastrophic global disaster.

      • David the Offensive: Can you falsify this much simpler metric?
        ALL the National Science Academies of the world, plus NASA and NOAA, conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ or similar.
        The world awaits your yes/no answer to this simplest of questions.

      • Oh, Warren Pound…,
        Leaving aside the fact that your reply to David A. was rudely non-responsive ….
        Let’s cut to the chase, to the underlying fact issue (which is not what ANY organization “concludes” about human CO2 emissions),
        the issue is: is there any proof making AGW likely?
        Thus, you skipped a step.
        First, YOU, the proposer, need to prove:
        1. The earth is warming.
        2. The warming earth was caused by human CO2 emissions.
        3. A warming earth is likely to be “strongly negative or similar.”
        Until then, I would not expect David A. nor anyone else to waste their time responding.
        @ David A. — in case you read this…
        you may find this comment refuting the 97% l1e of interest:

      • @David A.
        You say “Still awaiting your reply….”.
        Sorry, I never said anything about 97% of Scientists. I cited a FACT about 100% of the Science Academies.
        Can you falsify that FACT?
        If not, that Truth stands.

      • Warren needs to learn and understand that we live in a world today where science and scientific, academic and government institutions are all willingly and easily corrupted by politics, massive amounts of money and activist (secular religious) agendas. Warren is sadly one of those who is foolish, naive and gullible enough to think that such a thing is not possible or likely.
        Warren, human nature is at play here were lots of people can and do willingly become corrupted in the presence of massive amounts of money (billions) as well as the political power to advance there cause(s). If you can show us Warren where the same amount of money is is flowing in to the skeptic camp (and from where), I would like to see it. Please cite your evidence.
        It is frustrating to see so many people like Warren in the world who are waaaay to trusting of the wrong people.

      • @CD153.
        You say “It is frustrating to see so many people like Warren in the world who are waaaay to trusting of the wrong people.”.
        I’m sorry you’re so frustrated. I’m not. I know what to trust – science from Scientists and B**S from amateurs that think all the world’s scientific institutions are in a conspiracy against them. Reminds me of Chemtrails, 9-11 Truthers, and those that believe LBJ killed JFK.

      • @DBStealey.
        Astronauts as authorities on AGW? How about the Marines as authorities on Astronomy? Or, how’s that amateur hip replacement working for you?

      • @warrenlb,
        Every astronaut is required to have a degree in the hard sciences. That makes them AUTHORITIES, whether you like it or not.
        But of course, someone as pathetically ignorant as you would not know that. So you wrongly assume that astronauts are not authorities.
        You don’t know much, do you, warrenlb? Not much at all. That’s why you always fall back on your appeal to your own corrupted authorities.
        And how about the consensus here? If you look, you will see that you don’t have (m)any supporters here at the internet’s Best Science site. Why do you think that is, warrenlb? I’ll tell you why:
        You come from a True Believer background, not a SCIENCE background. Catastrophic AGW is your RELIGION, whether you will admit it or not. You exactly fit Dr. Michael Crichton’s example of a religious lemming. Everything you write has the taint of your religious cult. Your religion causes you to get it wrong.
        I don’t know of a single person you have convinced here. You are wasting your time, and you are wasting the time of everyone else here. Your arguments are a bunch of carp — they are almost entirely based on your appeals to corrupted authorities. The only true Authority is Planet Earth — and the planet has been busy debunking everything you believe in for the past 18+ years.
        You are not fooling anyone, warrenlb. You are not convincing anyone, either. You are a major time sink here, constantly trolling with your logical fallacies.
        Really, what good are you?

      • Warren says:
        “I’m sorry you’re so frustrated. I’m not. I know what to trust – science from Scientists and B**S from amateurs that think all the world’s scientific institutions are in a conspiracy against them. Reminds me of Chemtrails, 9-11 Truthers, and those that believe LBJ killed JFK.”
        Oh my, Warren. How easily you twist my words. I said nothing about a conspiracy against anyone. I talked about corruption and why it is happening. I have to laugh if you are naive enough to believe that government and its agencies are totally honest (i.e. NOAA and NASA) and never lie to us about anything—including climate change. NOAA and NASA have no choice but to toe whatever political party line on the subject of climate that the White House tells them to. Their funding and their jobs depend on it.
        Believe it or not, money DOES talk Warren–whether you like it or not. When billions of $$ are pouring into academia, science and its institutions from government, those scientists and their institutions listen, and they will toe whatever party line the money tells them to. If you expect me to believe that the health of their bank accounts are not vitally important to them and doesn’t affect their behavior, well…think again. This easily explains why this website and many of its commenters can poke enough holes in climate alarmism to make it look like a block of Swiss cheese. That is why this website is so popular. The job has to be done somewhere.
        As for calling me an amateur, it is patently obvious to me that there are considerable emotions at play here on your part. Probably hate and mistrust mainly. Emotions often prevent us from objectively looking at things and believing what is true when we choose not to. If you left your emotions out of this and understood and respected science properly and how it operates, what you are saying here would be very different.
        Again, I’m talking corruption here for the purpose of driving agendas, not conspiracies against people. And no, I don’t believe in chemtrail B.S., nor the 9-11Truthers or that LBJ killed Kennedy.

      • @CD 153.
        Those that reject the findings of ALL the Academies often claim a universal conspiracy to deceive, either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, those same individuals who reject peer-reviewed science do not submit their own work (if they have any) to peer-review for publication, and many claim fraud or conspiracy and impugn those that do the heavy lifting. Perhaps you do not. But it’s not an admirable performance by those that do.

      • warrenlb says:
        … the findings of ALL the Academies…
        warrenlb is a parody of himself, constantly arguing with the only tool in his shed: the Appeal to Authority FALLACY.
        It didn’t work with Albert Einstein, and it doesn’t work here.
        warrenlb has no credible facts, so he uses fallacies. No wonder he’s lost the debate.

  34. The Climate Jihadists will surely begin … The Inquisition. Ha Ha Queue Mel and the orchestra.

  35. It’s a cult. A pseudo religion with a distinctly material emphasis, where ostensibly rational and reasonable men and women defer their dignity to mortal gods. For a material return, of course. Their cause is helped by modern “scientists” common departure from the scientific domain. With politicians, educators, and scientists indulging in principles of uniformity and independence, and unqualified use of inference, it’s not surprising that many people do not understand the limits of the scientific domain, and the scientific method’s design and purpose to separate science, philosophy, and faith.
    That said, deny rational, deny reasonable, deny science… deny thy mother and father. Send money. Submit.

  36. “…and we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.”
    The Administration

    The Federal spending is a system of slush funds, set up to induce states to adopt Climate Change policies in the near future – sight unseen.
    It is really shameless that this spending is used as evidence of changes in earth’s climate.
    ref: “NEW HAVEN >> There’s a slice of $1 billion awaiting those with the best prepared states and communities when it comes to climate change and severe weather.
    It’s the National Disaster Resilience Competition, and there was a chance Wednesday at Yale University’s Kroon Hall for the public to see the ideas and talk up the best practices that will go into Connecticut’s entry.
    “This is a competition that the federal government is having to figure out better ways to build that are more resilient in the face of rising sea levels and increasing storms,” said Kathleen Dorgan of Dorgan Architecture and Planning, one of the participants in Wednesday’s public hearing.”

        • Dawtgtomis

          Pardon my ignorance, but what is a “belief system”?

          His religion. His ideas are based on what he believes to be true, on what he wants things to be true, not on what the evidence and data show to be true. Thus, to some, the Bible is literally and completely true – not a series of literatures of poetry, songs, stories and parables, histories and – in the middle of these – the Revealed Truth. In warrenlb’s faith-based indoctrination inside Big Government and Big Science and Big Finance (well, his religion), he actually believes that “science” is Written Wholly Formed in the Per Review Literature and – only then, after it appears in words on paper – is the Truth Revealed.
          further, he believes that All Science is unbiased and unafraid to confront anomalies and controversies in political goals.

      • RACookPE1978
        Isn’t YOUR religion based on the beliefs of free markets, limited government, individualism, and patriotic militarism ?
        I guess that your belief system is no different than warrenlb’s belief system.

      • Sorry if i missed some dry humor, but as a retired university staff member it raised my curiosity. although i do see the statement in a delightfully sarcastic manor, when I look again.

      • Socrates says:
        I guess that your belief system is no different than warrenlb’s belief system.
        Another wrong guess from the peanut gallery…
        …but thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

      • Wrong again, ROFLOL! #(:))
        Even I have read enough WUWT comments to know D.B. and R.A. have some shared beliefs but most certainly do NOT share a “religion.”
        ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
        OBTW: Free market economic theories have been proven by experiment to create the most wealth for the most people. Socialist experiments have proven that they inevitably shrink economies and end up a “dictatorship of the elite” — every time. And there are a LOT of atheists who are: 1. Free market proponents; and 2. For a strong military/peace through strength and very patriotic.

      • rodmol says:
        Oh…and if I am not mistaken, you and RACook both subscribe to the same religion.
        As a matter of fact, yes rodney, you are sadly mistaken — as usual:

        Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
        Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
        There’s an initial Eden; a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature. There’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion; that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.
        Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday — these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs
        And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.


        The antithesis of a religious belief is the Scientific Method — something completely rejected by the alarmist cult. Thus, the beliefs of the enviro-cult are ipso facto a religion, while the position of scientific skeptics is science, which is the Un-Religion.
        I don’t expect Socrates to understand that difference. He is simply incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Logical thought is beyond him. But for skeptics — the large majority of those who are posting here, and the large majority of lurkers reading these articles and threads — their rational analysis leads them to the inescapable conclusion that the religious alarmist cult has never proven it’s case. Not even close.

      • Socrates says:
        Still bird dogging me?
        Shall I post the original thread, where you came out of nowhere, and started attacking me?
        That proves two things beyond any doubt:
        First, that you are fixated on my comments. You can’t help yourself. I can also link to both comments showing where I first pointed out that you have been bird-dogging my posts. Would you like for me to do that?
        You’re just an impotent little chihuahua trying to nip at my heels, but you can never seem to come up with any credible facts. So you just copy my own comments. Sad and pathetic, no?
        Can you come up with an original comment? Ever? Or are you so completely unimaginitive that you are incapable of doing anything but being a copycat? Plagiarizing the comments of others is just one more reprehensible problem you have.
        And second: I have easily thrashed you like a rented mule every time you’ve tried to debate me. You don’t have either the necessary facts, or the ability to hold your own. If I didn’t enjoy playing Whack-A-Mole, I would just disregard your juvenile nonsense. But I do enjoy playing Whack-A-Mole, and I get pleasure out of knocking you around every chance I get. As you can see.
        Trot along now back to Hotwhopper, or wherever you get your usual misinformation from. You’re still a long way from wearing your bigboy pants, and you are way out of your depth here.
        Your religion is a case in point. As Dr. Crichton makes clear, you are a religious acolyte. That is 180º away from being a scientific skeptic like RACook, me, and many others here. We are skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists. But you are just a religious lemming; an enviro-cult member who wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a… nkle.

      • Rodney says:
        Go bother Gates and leave me alone.
        You wish. Until you start answering questions, I will take pleasure in pointing out your sad inadequacies.
        I’ve repeatedly answered your questions. But so far, you have never answered any of mine. Not a single one. The reason is clear: you are not capable of answering. All you are capable of doing is emitting nonsense. As long as you tuck tail and run away from answering questions, you will never get to wear your bigboy pants. Maybe you don’t want to be mature. Your juvenile comments make that pretty clear.
        Now, isn’t it about time for you to run to momma moderator again, and cry about being picked on? Answer some questions, and the big dogs might leave you alone.
        OK, since I’ve answered all your questions, here are two questions from me, for starters:
        1. Can you produce any measurements of AGW? Even one? And…
        2. What are your credentials? What’s your CV? Do you even have a CV? Others have asked you that question, now it’s my turn. What qualifies you to be anything more than a member of the peanut gallery?
        It’s your turn, “Socrates”. I’ve answered, but you have just hidden out. Time to put up…

      • @”Socrates/rodmol”:
        Answer some questions, jamoke. And do try, at least, to come up with something original, instead of copying my ‘bird-dog’ comment. IF you can.
        But if you can’t, I’ll take pleasure in pointing out that all you’re doing is copying what I originally told you. Twice.
        Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So keep imitating me, I enjoy seeing it.

      • Sure. Just answer the questions, jamoke.
        [FYI: a jamoke is someone who sits around in a coffee shop all day, solving the world’s problems instead of working at a productive job. He has no credibility — and everyone knows it.]
        If you think that’s calling you names, that’s about as mild as they come. It is far milder than “contrarian”, or “denialist”. And you never seeme concerned that one of your alarmist pals constantly labels me “dishonest” and “stupid” — both of those names are far worse than ‘jamoke’. Isn’t that so, you delicate little flower?
        Answer my questions, Socrates. Then I won’t call you a jamoke.☺

      • “rodmol” sez:
        I am truly sorry Mr Dbstealey.
        No, you’re not. And you deserve no respect — sockpuppet.
        Do you think people here are stupid?? You’re not sorry in the least. I think you’re a lowlife sockpuppet who goes by the screen names of ‘beckleybud’, and ‘David Socrates’, and ‘Edward Richardson’, and lots of others. Your M.O. is just too easy to spot. I can smoke you out no matter what sockpuppet name you use. It only takes a few of your comments. You’re not too smart, are you?
        You are here only to run interference, trying to cause trouble at the internet’s Best Science site.
        Well, you fail as always. Get a life. Quit acting like such a loser, “Socrates”.
        [If I am mistaken, my sincere apologies. I could be wrong; I’m human, after all].
        But I’m not mistaken, am I, “Gordon Ford”? No, your style is too easy to spot. From the first time you first posted [incorrectly] attacking my grammar under your current sockpuppet name, I suspected you were just another sockpuppet. I’m right, am I not?
        Yes, Mr. Jamoke, I am right. You’re just a site pest. No bigboy pants for you, dummy! ☺

      • Janice Moore
        ” Socialist experiments have proven that they inevitably shrink economies” (replying to Janice Moore)

        How are the “socialist” Interstate highways doing for you?

        Not too bad. By the way, they were paid off a long time ago, but the ever-higher highway “maintenance” gas taxes? Got diverted to pay for other things Big Government wanted. Still not paying for the maintenance. Western dams and canals and highways? Getting torn up now by eastern socialists.

        How are the “socialist” public schools doing for you?

        Failing. The students don’t know anything, but the socialist bureaucrats outnumber the teachers.

        How is the “socialist” Social Security System doing for you?

        Going bankrupt. Even faster now with additional withdrawals to pay for extra claimants as disabled, youngsters added to the roles, etc. It will fail. Is failing.

        How is the “socialist” Federal Reserve doing for you?

        Propping up central banks, and looking for 30 trillion in carbon trading futures, 150 trillion in futures trading in other commodities, and causing inflation. As usual.

        How is the “socialist” unemployment compensation doing for you?

        About 1/2 the workforce is sitting at home in Obola’s economy. And not minding it at all.

        How is the “socialist” Medicaid doing for you?

        Going bankrupt even faster than Social Security. What? About 5 years now to crumble, since Obola’s ObomaCare is taking money from Medicare to reduce the first 10 years funding needed for ObamaCare.

      • rodmol/socks says:
        If that is all you can do……good luck.
        Socrates, at least I use my real name. But you post under lots of sockpuppet names. You are a site pest who always tries to interfere here. You never really discuss science, you just keep posting about how wrong everyone is, and about your tender feelings.
        How about posting under your real name for once? That would start you on the road to honesty. You have a long road ahead of you. You can start by taking that first step…

      • All you really need to know about rodmol is his sick answers to RACook’s response about the socialized US.

    • The Australian fishing vessel Antarctic Chieftain was rescued Tuesday (Feb 17) when the US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Star broke through 150 miles (240 km) of ice and towed the damaged vessel free.
      The Reuters story here correctly notes the Polar Star (WAGB-10 — commissioned 1976) is almost 40 years old and the only US heavy icebreaker suitable for this job. Her sister ship Polar Sea (WAGB-11 — commissioned 1977) has been out of service since 2010 due to complete failure of 5 of her 6 diesel engines. A report submitted in 2013 claimed it was possible to refit and reactivate her, but to my knowledge has not been acted on.
      You want a climate change plan? How about: build more icebreakers, preferably nuclear powered.

    • I have an idea for the rising seas. Everyone living within 2 miles of the coast gets a canoe, a bottle of water, and 2 cans of beans. Don’t know of my idea for increasing storms is worth it since storms aren’t increasing. But if they insist, everyone gets a free umbrella and galoshes.
      Where do I pick up my check?

    • February 20, 2015 at 7:16 pm
      PS Janice Moore
      With regard to your ““dictatorship of the elite”

      The USA is a plutocracy……
      rodmol Oh do please ..define “plutocracy”, I wish to make sure you and I have the same understanding of the word…
      p.s. so so many throw out these type of words with out understanding them and instead have a problem with them fact that a majority of the population simply does not buy their point of view or sees it as a non issue.

      • Hi, Mike — #(:)). (and R.A., too) — Thanks for the back up. I got tired of punching a pillow pretty quick.

      • rodmol/beckleybud sez:
        The USA is a plutocracy……
        Face it Mr Cook, we live in a socialist system.
        First off, there is nothing wrong with a plutocracy, so long as opportunities exist for anyone becoming plutocrats. In the U.S. that happens all the time. It’s called ‘churn’, and it allows everyone the opportunity to get rich.
        Next: to the extent the U.S. has become socialist, it has denied opportunities to individuals, and it has reduced our national wealth. It’s like the old joke: “Looks good, but feels bad”.
        Socialism is for losers, not for winners. No wonder rodmol/Socrates likes it.

      • Hi janice he seems to have called it a night. is he Socrates under a new name?
        oh and look up the newburgh affair 1783. if you have head of it The continental army war was bordering on mutiny.The war was won but now the peace was at risk. Anyone can write laws but it is traditions that carve them into stone
        It seemed appropriate to what you were discussing.

      • Dear Mike,
        How did you know I was wondering why… . 🙂 I vaguely remembered reading about the Newburgh Affair … . Well! I just looked it up and, yes, I think I finally see your fine point: the heart is the seat of wisdom and the key to true valor. The American soldier (or sailor or marine or airperson) can be counted on to do the right thing. Just as the Constitution supercedes all conflicting mandates of a president, so, too, when selfish (pardonably) interest (whether to protect their retirement benefits or another interest or to get paid as Washington’s troops wanted) says to obey what the letter of the law demands, they will follow a Higher Law and instead of serving self, serve Love (of country/of others). There are many modern examples that show this noble spirit is alive and well in the U. S. Armed Forces (that Capt. Mark Philips is alive bears witness to one of them).
        The Revolutionary troops’ brains’ icy, just, conclusion (“You owe me.”) melted away before love’s tears. Love is the highest wisdom. True love is never in conflict with the facts; it simply places them in their proper light. Love makes us do the right thing with what we know.
        Thank you for sharing some of your excellent scholarship and for persevering in getting me to understand.

    Ivan Frishberg has 20 years of organizing and advocacy experience, including public interest, environmental and electoral campaigns. He is the national Political Director for Environment America, and works to develop the organization’s political and campaign strategies. His prior experience includes working on legislative programs and strategies for the State PIRGs, federal advocacy on higher education policy and consulting for a wide range of campaigns and organizations including Rock the Vote, John Edwards for President, the Center for American Progress and the Democratic National Committee.
    On the same page. . . .
    Find out more about this exciting 1Sky/ merger and how you can stay involved with the climate movement at

  38. The political left has succeeded in bullying and intimidating people into silence. What they have failed to do is to persuade people to their position. And, by blurring the lines between science and politics, Climate Science, as an institution, has rendered itself un-trustworthy. I don’t think that climate science can ever recover from the damage they have done to themselves.

    • They can recover, but requires politics first losing interest in them and their science and then climate scientists getting a passing grade in a remedial course in Science Principles 101.

    • The political left has succeeded in bullying and intimidating people into silence. What they have failed to do is to persuade people to their position.
      That’s not necessary. Someone bullied into silence can be ignored.

  39. We are definitely moving into the twilight zone. If facts and analysis supports your theory pound the facts, if the facts do not support your theory, try name calling and repeating your rhetoric.
    Reality check for warmist scientists. After no warming for 18 years, there is now suddenly record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the year and a recover of sea ice (including multiyear sea ice) in the Arctic. What caused the past warming and cooling cycles in the paleo record? Did you guys notice the sun was at its highest activity level in 8000 years during the global warming period?
    Could a warmist scientist explain why there has been almost no tropical warming?
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

  40. Unfortunately Obama is incredibly divisive. It is ironic because his platform was about “uniting” the country. Anyone who looked at his political career in Chicago would know politically he was a back-stabbing SOB. In order to wrest the nomination from Hillary, the Obama campaign had to turn Bill Clinton into a racist. That took some doing, but he managed it. He needed 90% of the black vote to win and he got it.
    This letter is not unusual, it is typical Obama. Slanderous, dishonest, ugly and of course divisive. He has no scruples when it comes to making political points. This is a guy who publicly communicated his grandma was a racist. He is just another creepy politician, have no idea why so few do not see through the facade.
    Also do not understand why they haven’t dropped the Obama logo. It looks like a label for bottled water. Probably designed by the same outfit that does Poland Springs.

    • Well he is keeping his promise to “fundamentally change America”. The MSM did not bother to ask what those changes would be. Hope we don’t get fooled again.

    • Obama is the “front” man. it is the people like Ayers, Jarret, Dorn and others that drive the agenda. Fritshberg is just another mouthpiece. Very similar people of his ilk are now driving Clinton’s campaign. This is really, really ugly and going to get worse. Just see how they are attacking people that are center right and it is not only happening in the US MSM, it is becoming a worldwide campaign. They are scared and are now using the lowest vile attacks. It seems we are always on the defensive ( as the DB/rolmod ” debate” shows) and thanks DB and as usual it ended with nothing from the guy that made any sense, if he had a point to make I am still looking for it.

    • asybot,
      I think you’re right. They’re scared.
      Sockpuppets like beckleybud/Socrates/rodmol are running interference.
      “Rodmol” is a perennial site pest here, banned repeatedly for his despicable sockpuppetry. After only a few comments, I can spot him now.
      He is the type that runs interference since M. Mann and the rest of the alarmist crowd now decline to debate. Since Mann and the rest of his ilk have lost every debate with skeptical scientists, now they hide out in their Twitter accounts, and issue press releases — anything except man up and debate.
      They leave that for their lemmings, like the rodmol/Socrates jamoke. There isn’t a stand-up guy among them.

      • Thank you dbstealey. The whack a mole session demonstrated your point so effectively that it’s doubtful warmists volunteer you another opportunity very soon. Either way there is now one more reason to read the discussions here in full. Great work.

      • Thank you, Jaakko. I appreciate your support. It is tedious fighting trolls like ‘rodmol’. But the misinformation they post cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.

      • For every valid point there is a mountain of misinformation. Just look at the comments on economics, social security, etc., where RACook runs circles around him.

  41. I would say 99% of climate change is Natural. Extreme weather events have natural causes. However if you asked me if Carbon Dioxide was a significant factor in global warming over the last century I would agree with the 97%. Having a technical background the word significant means “contributing factor”. Most people that misquote the 97% number are not bright enough to realize that it only pertains to a subset of the global warming of the last 100 years. The 97% number includes people that believe CO2 is a minor part of the problem or do not believe the problem requires any action. In other words the 97% consensus INCLUDES DENIERS.

  42. It’s been depressing me for a long time. Since this blog started and was a ray of hope. I changed my views in the 90s when my understanding of biology just didn’t add up to the claims made back then by global warming. I realised this would be a generational time scale. Like eugenics. I listen to people talk about becoming lawyers to sort out the science. I listen to people that have less of an idea about science than I do spout off about what they don’t know. it’s depressing to see science subverted, distorted and driven by consensus. I want to swear. I hardly bother anymore. Just listen and read in silent disbelief. I visit here as a reassuring comfort that some people are still fight. Still, it’s sad sad sad how ignorant and mythical it becomes. I still think of the weather bloke from Oregon that last his position over a decade ago. Because, of #insert swear word of choice# politics! One screamer there. Very restrained of me!!!!!

  43. join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers.
    Hunt them down, persecute them, re-educate them.
    I am reminded of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

  44. Actually, I find this reassuring. Nice to know that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with their “arguments”. It looks like they are down to stupid, anecdotal “evidence”. Only a moron would believe this stuff and they are going to believe it no matter what.
    Not worried by this.

  45. This is the most loathsome thing I’ve seen. Why not just have Holder round all the deniers up put in in a re-education camp.

  46. Same old, same old, if you can’t have a sensible science debate just talk about the ‘enemy’ in derogatory terms and try to radicalise more impressionable people.
    ISIS would be proud.
    In fact, if ISIS supported their ridiculous ‘team’ they would probably be stupid enough to put a link to their site and say “Sponsored by ISIS”. After all, don’t these idiots think “climate change is a bigger threat to humanity”?

  47. Please help me out here. This is a joke, isn’t it? As english isn’t my native language, I just have to ask.
    A simple No / Yes answer will do.

    • Andre,
      The email appears to be real and it appears to be from Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front. That means it is a joke to independent thinkers who are scientifically critical of the claims of the climate change cause’s observationally challenged theory of significant warming by CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Real life does sometimes imitate comedy. I am LMAO.

    • The author is a joke! He is serious, but seriously delusional. So the simple answer is: a joke, wrote a fundraiser full of whoppers, aimed at folks willing to be bamboozled.

  48. Extremely threadbare and preposterous are the shouted arguments – this guy wouldn’t fare too well in any debate. I especially like that “Six times more cost effective” line. One can only imagine the crazy assumptions behind that piece of nonsense.

    • “Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power…”
      To me if you start with zero and multiply it with 10 it is still zero. Okay I’ll give the benefit of doubt if you start with 0.001% and multiply it by ten what do you get??

  49. Wow. Desperation at it’s finest. This will turn out to be the best thing ever. An ultimatum of epic proportions. I think you fine group of open minded, level headed, rag tag, logical cross section of humanity may have finally won. I can hardly wait to see the backlash this is going to bring.

  50. “One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.”
    Uh…no, unless you meant to say the climate alarmist’s arguments.
    “In reality, the debate on the basics is over.”
    Agree, the debate on the basics is over. CO2 cannot cause the kind of temperature response claimed by alarmists.
    “we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.”
    Agreed that billions are being wasted – just not on climate related disaster relief.
    This kind of nonsense really gets me wondering how much money the organizers are being paid.

    • “we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.”
      You are right Ivan I’ll give you that, Most “climate related disasters ” are created by climate. Your spending of billions of dollars were created by taxpayers.

  51. Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . . . your missive resonates with despair as if from the fallen climate alarm fortress of Obama Oreskes** ‘Ozymandias’. The following poem paints a verbal picture of the obvious fate of the fortress of climate alarm.

    “. . .
    Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away”.
    -Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley

    ** Oreske’s book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ has strangely close parallels to Ivan’s missive

  52. They haven’t answered this argument:
    Plants/plankton use photosynthesis to turn CO2 & sunlight into food. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist absent Carbon Dioxide. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitude; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall and save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile and life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.
    By Occupy Wall Street standards, CAGW folks are plant-starving, Gaia-hating baby killers.

  53. I hear-bye nominate Ivan Frishberg, for the prestigious:
    GutterSnipe of the Year Award, for his morally bankrupt methods, at separating fools from their money.

  54. Well I’m a d nier. Proud of it too. I deny false science paraded and touted as “the consensus” and that the debate is over. They wish.

  55. The extraordinary thing about this email is that it hardly attempts to give reasons we should believe in AGW, with the exception of one sentence “Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast……”. Nowhere does not say the temperature of the earth is rising or ice caps are melting. (It is as if the writer knows these arguments are so far fetched that he cannot use them any more).
    Having pretty much failed to make the argument for why we should believe in AGW the writer goes on to tell us the politicians are fixing the problem, as if this political activity was the clinching evidence that teh science is correct. I suppose the logic is that if there was no science to back up the theory of AGW the politicians would not be fixing it, but the word politician tells us that politicians do things for political reasons, so how can their activity be evidence that the things they doing are based on scientific evidence?

  56. the debate on the basics is over.

    Is this another morph of CAGW language as the usual mantra is “The debate is over”.
    There has been much made about the LACK of debate and that science is never static, therefore debate should be the norm. Could this be a deliberate attempt to have people believe that the ‘basics’ no longer requires debate, with the presumption that the basics confirm CAGW? The ‘debate’ is merely between the scientists over detail while the populace can get one with ‘fixing’ the problem.

    • The basics to me are: the size and type of the star that a given planet orbits, the size and composition of the planet, the distance from the star and orbital eccentricities of the planet, and the energy that star is emitting at any given wavelength. The climatic feedbacks, then, include the makeup of the atmosphere and hydrology (if any) of the planet and it’s tectonic characteristics, along with the combined albedo of all surface features. This could hardly be settled from what I’ve seen presented.

      • On further thought, I’d have to admit the magnetic field of the planet is another important feedback feature, highly dependent upon the composition and temperature of the core.

  57. The news of the cold weather enveloping the greater part of the north-eastern US for the last week or so has not been readily found on major on-line news sites of entities such as NY Times and LA Times; it is found only occasionally on the BBC and CNN; the ABC website is the best by far. I have yet to find a mention in the Age in Australia. It’s a strange contrast to the latest news that ‘2014 was warmest year on record’ (by a full 0.01degrees, with silence on the plus or minus 0.005 degrees). It looks like deception by omission.

  58. Don Newkirk, U.S. Armed Forces Officers do not “swear to obey the POTUS”. Only the enlisted swear to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”. Instead officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Here is the Army Officer oath in full below:
    Oath of Commissioned Officers
    I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    • ” I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”
      So will the army now stand by their oath & rise up to throw out the domestic enemies currently in Washington DC ???

      • So revolution/civil war is what you seek? It has happened before of course. The US Army, Navy, and USMC are all older than the Constitution they defend.
        Birthday US Army 14, June 1775
        Birthday US Navy 13, October 1775
        Birthday USMC 10, November 1775
        Date the US Constitution came into effect March 4, 1789
        In the end we may suffer a revolution but I suspect it will not be from our Military but one in which the states begin to split off. Though I’m not much of a fan of Ron Paul I believe his scenario of states ignoring Federal Law, essentially an insurrection based on the idea of states rights, is probably the most likely way the revolution.Civil War will begin. To begin such a course will of course require popularity with a significant majority in the states that follow such a path and thus be sustained. And all the would be Kings horses and all the would be Kings men, including those that consider themselves to be in the 4th branch of government, will not be able to stop it. From there the least bloody result would be an agreement for a new Constitutional Convention but I am highly doubtful that course will be taken because the division, our differences in the vision of what this nation was and is to be, between the people is so broad. Where it goes from there? Who knows?

  59. So, Obama and this eco-apparatchik are unable to differentiate between those few who are climate change denier and those who are denier of dangerous human caused climate change.It is not the same thing.
    Oh, and we are to believe that CO2 is the main cause of asthma?
    Dumbing down of America, and it goes all the way up to the president!
    If you read this Obama, enjoy the snow!

  60. Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . . . so do you recommend to your ‘friend[s]’ who are opponents of the skeptics (skeptics who are critical of your unscientific view that the ‘debate-is-over-on-climate’) should make significant investments in companies that will make the needed black helicopters to enforce the veiled threat in your email missive?

  61. I see they’ve dropped the lie that 97% believe CC is real AND DANGEROUS as even the Cook hoax paper didn’t comment on perceived severity.
    So yes, 97% of everyone whether on the gravy train or not believe a part of the imperceptible post 1950 warming includes a fraction due to CO2.

  62. Dear Ivan Frishberg
    Senior Climate Advisor
    Organizing for Action
    Hey Ivan, here I am, come and find me (hint call the NSA first, do not call your ISP they are too busy figuring out how to circumvent the new FCC rules).
    Heck, the thought that a goverment that sent out ~800,000 wrong “tax forms” to a subsidized health insurance customer base of ~ 10,000,000 (an error rate of 8%) can make the interwebs “neutral”, or “control” the climate is the biggest laugh of all…..
    So Ivan, when will I see my lawn again ? April, May, June of 2015, or the year 2073 ?
    Any more “Global Warming” and my parrot is going to start making that squeaky sound that really cold snow makes when you walk on it….
    Take care Ivan, try to stay warm, maybe hyperventilating about Republicans might help….
    Cheers, KevinK

  63. “Climate change deniers” are heretics. You have to realize we are not dealing with science here, only the imitation of science. The hypothetical idea of “global warming” was seized up by socialist globalists, like Margaret Meade and Maurice Strong, in the 1970s, as the most plausible fiction to create the illusion of a world-wide problem that would take a “global governance” (Algore’s term) to solve. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, creating a movement of True Believers, in the academies, the universities, the media, and government, of which the President and his advisors are fervent advocates.
    At this point the Climatist True Believers in power are constrained by the American Constitution from taking the kind of measures the Church used to use on heretics, or the Soviets on those who denied the validity of Dialectical Materialism. But even America is not immune from fanaticism of those in power. When Mr. Frishberg writes, “Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers,” that is a threat. And threats from the highest reaches of political power should not be taken lightly. Don’t let them get control of the Internet.
    /Mr Lynn

  64. Paris 2015

    “The rats had crept out of their holes to look on, and they remained looking on for hours; soldiers and police often passing between them and the spectacle, and making a barrier behind which they slunk, and through which they peeped. The father had long ago taken up his bundle and hidden himself away with it, when the women who had tended the bundle while it lay on the base of the fountain, sat there watching the running of the water and the rolling of the Fancy Ball – when the one woman who had stood conspicuous, knitting, still knitted on with the steadfastness of Fate. The water of the fountain ran, the swift river ran, the day ran into evening, so much life ran in the city ran into death according to rule, time and tide waited for no man, the rats were sleeping close together in their dark holes again, the Fancy Ball was lighted up at supper, all things ran their course”

    ― Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

  65. …and this man is your President….? Who voted for this McCarthyistic tactic? Vote carefully next time….

      • david I must humbly disagree
        Brown, sickeningly sweet, and completely hollow. No he is definitely full of something

  66. The “97%” consensus myth is the last rusty leg of the CAGW pogo stick that still allows it to jump around the potholes of reality.
    As long as the aggressively-ignorant masses believe this “97%” myth to be true, any irrefutable empirical evidence falsifying the CAGW hypothesis will simply be robotically countered with, “Well, since “97%” of all scientists in the world believe Climate Change is an existential threat, I’ll stick with the ‘science’.”……..
    Oh, the studity……it hurts….
    It’s no use countering this silly “97%” meme by explaining all the rules of logic and the Scientific Method this “97%” meme breaks, because they’ll just circularly repeat the “97%” meme, at which point, your head explodes…
    As more and more scientists outside the climatology field start expressing their skepticism of CAGW, the more people will realize the “97%” myth was just propaganda and will eventually understand CAGW is a scam. When this happens, CAGW becomes a political liability, the research grants stop and CAGW dies.
    Granted, under such a scenario, CAGW will die for all the wrong reasons, but hey, a win is a win…

    • We should ask for the list of ‘climate scientists’ who are for or against this consensus every time they state the figure. Don’t let the conversation proceed further until they provide this or their source.

  67. see 2012 – 015 The Great Global Warming Fraud.   If anyone can find any errors in the text please let me know. Mick G From: Watts Up With That? To: Sent: Friday, 20 February 2015, 21:14 Subject: [New post] Friday Funny: Well if I was a ‘denier’ I guess I’d be on notice by Barack Obama #yiv2927340058 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2927340058 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2927340058 a.yiv2927340058primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2927340058 a.yiv2927340058primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2927340058 a.yiv2927340058primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2927340058 a.yiv2927340058primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2927340058 | Anthony Watts posted: “An actual email from the “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any anti-science organization?” department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.Friend –It’s tough out there for climate change deniers.One by one, literal” | |

  68. horrors,
    Brain Washing at its most malignant,
    Hard for me to believe that this site is for real, especially if you have researched at least one of their so called ‘facts”. eg reading Cook on the 97% of scientists claim and the exhortations to target “dissenting” politicians.
    We can only hope the the US public at large can see through this site and recognize it for what it is.

  69. It is likely that a substantial amount of money will be raised, given the total media domination by the pro-AGW camp.
    Are there rules in the US about how it is audited. I could not see on the link exactly how it would be used or to whom it would be distributed.
    Do such matters not concern US regulatory bodies – I think that they would in the UK or we would all be setting up websites to gather in money for heart – tugging good causes and then buying villas somewhere warm along the Med.

    • mikewaite

      It is likely that a substantial amount of money will be raised, given the total media domination by the pro-AGW camp.
      Are there rules in the US about how it is audited. I could not see on the link exactly how it would be used or to whom it would be distributed.

      No. But it is worse than you think. Like the other writer who noted that the form “was already filled out” … The political parties and their agents and publicists receiving this money DON’T WANT TO KNOW who is “donating” (giving) them money so they can deny accountability. They also, if foreign money is coming in – and it foes! – via anonymous “too low to require disclosure amounts” then the foreign net billions in foreign money can be accumulated with no repercussions nor acknowledgement.
      And, if there is no statement about “how” the money is to be used, it can be used for anything, right?
      A nice little “game” the democrats play, isn’t it?

    • Yes. Since he won re-election, he morphed his campaign msocial media apparatus into this group and site, with permission to post using his name. Officially sanctioned. Sad, but true.

  70. “All kneel before the great storm god Baal! Unbelievers will be dealt with! Bring your tithes and offerings to the temple so Baal will be merciful to you, and for the support of Baal’s priests, lest Baal strike the land with storms!”
    Not much has changed in 3000 years, has it? Humanity still fears and collects idols in its own image, except larger, and lets itself be led by false prophets and priests who claim they can set the world right. Ironically, it’s those idol-worshipping cultures that live in chains as they destroy their environment.

    • It’s the pathological messianic self-importance and judgementalism of these people that astounds. When did the archangel anoint this special one to save humanity again? Oh, you mean there was never any of that? He’s just acting on pure ego ignorance and arrogance for a community organizer in-chief? Oh, yeah? Well, that’s OK then. Whew, I almost took him for an over-zealous radical crackpot extremist there for a moment.

    • “We’re doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That’s what it is to be alive. It’s pretty dense kids who haven’t figured that out by the time they’re ten…. Most kids can’t afford to go to Harvard and be misinformed.”
      ― Kurt Vonnegut, Bluebeard

  71. I tried replying, but they request donations of at least $3.00 . It looks sort of like a “Nigerian Bank” con game to me.

  72. aaaahhh!! What a disappointment that. I tried to participate, to call out myself. I figured the right answer to that is to try and overwhelm them. And to get one’s name up there to able to say I told you so. But of course you can’t call out anyone unless you’re willing to pay 3$ for the privilige. Well, I guess that would work. I’m not going to donate so that I can get a label on my name. The campaign is aimed at people who’d shell out money for a political organization so that they can rat on their neighbours. Great direction from a peace nobelist. Maybe use the info for directing propaganda, maybe save for later when one needs the scapegoats when the climate presumably has deteriorated unbearably.

  73. Went to the link above to check it out. I was concerned about leaving my info there, but the name and zipcode blanks were already filled in with someone else’s information. Clicking to enter that information leads to a page asking for a donation, as Alan McIntyre mentions. Seems like they must be making multiple entry counts from the same information. If the email address that was automatically filled in was a legitimate address, they are making people’s email addresses public. More bad programming.

  74. Why on earth would action be taken against people because they disagree? Why is it important to force dissenters to go along with things? Shouldn’t they just write us off as ignoramuses? or dinosaurs? and get on with what they want with 97% support. An earlier generation would never have contemplated such an action. The only explanation I think of is that they are sliding, failing badly. All the polls say there are too many people against to put into jails. Yes, ironically, they are becoming the “D”nyers.

    • It is not that hard to figure out. Jews (an others) were massacred to frighten the population at large into compliance. It’s a tactic often used by political organizations with access to institutional power. Deniers are simply convenient scapegoats. The goal is intimidation and the target the electorate.

  75. “We have the facts on our side”
    I wish they would list them instead of keeping the facts to themselves. These people must be out of their minds, Why do they detest anyone who disagrees with the global warming fanatics? Is it because they have no case to answer, or Is it perhaps because they are making a great deal of money from spouting their untruths? in which case their lies have some purpose to them.

  76. A total straw man letter, with enough reasonably sounding quips to sound like it’s coming from a position armed with “facts”.

    Not only do 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, but new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now.

    Notwithstanding the “97%” meme, the second part of the sentence, meant to cause alarm, is a “true” statement. As commented on earlier, climate and extreme weather have ALWAYS affected “us”. The above was carefully worded, to imply that humans are now the cause of the “extreme” part of weather.
    I had a “conversation” yesterday with someone, and was surprised to find out that this person thought that d3ni3rs do not believe that the climate NATURALLY changes!!?? The non-interested person or child on the street appears to have no clue to what the debate is about. The only information they get is from letters like the above that attempts to make anyone questioning the warming orthodoxy sound absurd. This is just an observation, but I think the vast majority of people who are “concerned” with AGW (although they’ve never heard the term) unwittingly use straw man arguments, because that is all they’re ever presented with.

  77. Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . .
    You have the ‘totalitarian’s dilemma’ in which the necessary secret police force and its informers must be surveilled as well and the surveillers must be surveilled ad nauseum. Your missive promotes self-absorbing climate change paranoia when all you need to do is to actively promote the free and open marketplace of climate focused scientific ideas in a broadly balanced multitude of very public venues.

  78. Propaganda comes in two forms. The lies they tell and the truth they withhold. How can so many on the left so easily fall for one for or the other?

  79. Just got this email from the White House:
    The President’s science advisor is at your fingertips:
    Have a question about our changing climate? You’ve got the President’s science advisor at your fingertips.
    Since November, Dr. John Holdren has been encouraging the public to ask him anything about climate change on social media using the hashtag #AskDrH. You’ve been asking — and he’s been answering.
    Most recently, students asked what the U.S. is doing to prepare for future storms, and how we can cut carbon dioxide emissions without hurting our economy — among other critical questions.
    You should watch his responses. Listen to what Dr. Holdren had to say, and make sure to pass these responses on.
    “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
    That’s what the President said in his State of the Union address last month.
    The fact is that there’s a lot of misinformation out there about our climate, and it’s on all of us to do our part to set the record straight and make sure people are as informed and knowledgeable about the very real effects of climate change as possible.
    Check out Dr. Holdren’s video answers here, and share them with anyone else — young or old — who has questions about our changing climate.

  80. In fact I am a member presently of one of the most blatantly “anti-science” organizations ever. I am a registered Democrat!
    Changes happen from the inside.

  81. “One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.”
    ahh I see, its opposite day. I was getting confused for a bit.

  82. Ivan Frishberg
    Senior Climate Advisor
    Organizing for Action
    Dear Ivan,
    I am standing with my back to you, pants around my ankles. Now kiss my exposure.
    Climate realist

  83. Over 20 years ago I was involved in an auto accident. (I know you’re thinking, so what?’) Anyway, in the state I lived in at the time there was a rule that in an auto accident all parties involved would share at least some level of liability. Thus, even if a motorist was hit from behind, that motorist would still be assigned liability; in that case the rear-ended driver probably about 10% with the other driver assigned 90%.
    Anyway, I was responsibly motoring along when, at an intersection, another vehicle took a left immediately in front of me. Whump. Screech. Pssst.
    Now, this was clearly the other vehicle’s fault. But, true to form, I didn’t have auto insurance at the time. And, with the shared liability provision in my state (well, it wasn’t really my state – I didn’t build it), coupled with my lack of insurance, the first thought that popped to my mind was, “I’m really screwed.”
    Anyway, the police shortly showed up. They immediately had the other driver walk a line. In my rattled state I didn’t realize what was happening at first. Then it dawned on me: oh, please she’s drunk; oh, please she’s drunk.
    Oh, she was alright: 0.18 BAC. (This was a more involved accident than I’m describing but I’m already taking waaay too long to get to the punch line.)
    Anyway, due to the fact I didn’t have insurance I was advised by my therapist (did I just admit that?) to seek legal counsel. My therapist (there I go again) referred me to one.
    (I’m almost done.)
    Anyway, subsequently at the lawyer’s office I arrived, accident report in hand. Not one to mince words, and possessed of an hilariously foul mouth my attorney looked at the first name of the drunk driver and said: “Charvela … Charvela? What kind of f…..g name is that?
    Reading this report I have little doubt his response would be: Ivan Frishberg … Ivan Frishberg? What kind of f…..g name is that?

    • Hey, Tom J,
      Lol, after the 20th (or so) time reading down this thread, I began thinking the same thing. Poetic justice or what. Now, every time I scan down this thread and see “Ivan, Ivan…” I think of “The Oscar Song” (sung by Felix Unger for his pal Oscar Madison on an “Odd Couple” episode in the 1970’s) and sing to myself, “I – van, I – van, I-I-I-I – I – van” (lololol). And, generally speaking, Ivan has never struck me as a silly name. Too bad for all Ivans from now on… the content of this guy’s character is so repulsive that people will now judge all Ivans by the color of that name.
      Tom, you are a really cool guy. I don’t know ANY — one who does NOT need therapy. We ALL have issues we are not addressing (time/money being the reasons I don’t go). Good for you to admit you needed help. You only proved that you were: 1. Wise and 2. Humble. And 1. + 2. = “cool.”
      I am so sorry for what that drunk’s selfishness did to you. Your lucid, worthwhile, intelligent, comments, generous-spiritedness, and witty sense of humor show that while she damaged your body (and that neat little car 🙁 ), she did not destroy “you.”
      I’m glad you are here.
      Take care (and get out to a car race or two this summer),
      P.S. And DRAW. That’s an order. If you can’t use your hands, use your mouth, like Joni Eareckson-Tada (for info. see her website — she has some really cool videos to watch)

  84. Is this for real?
    If yes, why are they still in power? I know Americans aren’t very bright in general but you have to be REAL dumb to let these charlatans do this openly.

    • Just out of curiosity, and without discounting that “Americans aren’t very bright in general”, where are you writing from ?

    • I’ll have to agree with your “Americans aren’t very bright in general”.
      And for sake of full disclosure, I live in the US and have done so continuously for the past 44 years.

      • And you know what?
        Half of self-called, self-selected government-paid “climate scientists” are below average! But all of them are paid more than they are worth.
        More accurately.
        1/2 of Government-paid “scientists” are below average.
        4/10 of the Government-paid politicians in the US are democrat party, and do not think. (Well, are not allowed to think, if they do think at all.)
        9/10 of the self-selected news media are biased partisan democrat party supporters, promoters and voters.
        1/2 of all of the politicians in the US are below average.
        Therefore, when a democrat party politician quotes a climate scientist about national policy to a biased news media propagandist in the United States, 98.5% of the time he is wrong. Don’t get me wrong. Some of them may actually believe fervently in what their religion wants them to say. But they are nevertheless, wrong 98.5% of the time.

    • You’ve been brainwashed like the clueless masses, Paul.
      Could you please produce ONE scientific paper that contains this “well accepted science” you proclaim has been found?
      (We’re talking about anthropogenic climate change, by the way, and a bunch of opinions do not qualify as an acceptable answer.)
      We’ll all be waiting.

  85. Sorry to be late to this one. One good sign, the Senior Climate advisor for OA writes and evidently thinks at the same (low) level as our resident trolls. If Ivan is as bad at fundraising as he is at critical thinking, OA will be as successful as a Bialystock production. Surely such lies won’t go far before being exposed by the cynical press?

  86. Warren says:
    “Those that reject the findings of ALL the Academies often claim a universal conspiracy to deceive, either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, those same individuals who reject peer-reviewed science do not submit their own work (if they have any) to peer-review for publication, and many claim fraud or conspiracy and impugn those that do the heavy lifting. Perhaps you do not. But it’s not an admirable performance by those that do.”
    Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school? The reason I ask is because you are once again using the word “conspiracy” rather than addressing what I actually talked about. I suggest you check out the definition of “corruption” and “conspiracy” in your nearest dictionary to try and understand the difference.
    Do you know for a fact that ALL scientific institutions are toeing the alarmist party line? Where did you hear that from? Did you merely accept it on blind faith when someone told you?
    The peer-review process in science can easily be corrupted itself when there is a lot of money involved. Only fellow climate alarmists are allowed to peer-review. Skeptics not welcome. Do you really believe that scientists and scientific institutions on the alarmist side of this issue will not apply and maintain the necessary pressure on fellow scientists to toe the party line when the multi-billion $$$ gravy train is at stake? All the contradictory scientific evidence that has been presented here at WUWT and elsewhere over the years means nothing to them (and apparently to you). All that matters to them is the health of their bank accounts. Gotta keep that gravy train flowing.
    Yes, there are many scientists that have produced scientific papers that contradict the alarmist party line. It is not at all difficult to understand that these papers are seen as a serious threat to the multi-billion $$$ gravy train in the eyes of everyone that is on that gravy train and are hell-bent on keeping it going. So naturally it is not easy for the skeptics to get published. If you question the existence of the skeptic papers, you are not looking very hard and need to pay attention to the postings at this website. This website and many of its commenters also do an admirable job of shooting down alarmist papers that you have blind unquestioning faith in. All you have to do is read them. God knows I’ve read enough of the alarmist doo-doo at this website.
    Warren, one of the biggest mistakes you and everyone else can make in science and in one’s life generally is to blindly accept everything (or most everything) one reads and hears. I realize how much of a shock this probably is to you Warren, but skepticism (as I understand it) is the supposed to be the basis (or part of it) for scientific discourse and the scientific method. Really Warren, it is. If in fact it is missing to a significant degree from the climate debate, then it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that something very odd and unusual is going on. Instead of proof, the alarmists are giving us something unscientific called “consensus” which is not a replacement for proof of a theory. If ALL scientific institutions toe the alarmist party line (as you say) and they are ignoring the contrary evidence from websites like this one, then they have largely abandoned the basis for scientific discourse. Again, very odd. And they have done it for reasons I have been trying to get you to understand. Whether you like it or not Warren, what is admirable in science is defending and keeping alive this basis for scientific discourse.
    If you however have that reading comprehension problem I talked about, I am wasting my time and effort trying to get you to comprehend and accept the point in the previous paragraph and everything else that is fishy in the climate debate. In which case, there is no point in arguing with you any longer. End of discussion.

    • Well, the entire “97% of all climate scientists” claim is based on only 75 out of 77 responses selected from the “government-paid scientists” from over 14,000 surveys mailed out.
      So, the vaunted conspiracy only needs 77 people. ALL of whom receive ALL of their money from Big Government and Big Finance.

  87. Warren has yet to produce ANY evidence that a consensus of climate scientist (atmospheric specialist) or for that matter a consensus of any group of scientist have stipulated that human emissions of CO2 will cause catastrophic global disaster of ANY kind.
    Warren has failed to produce any statements from any scientific organizations stipulating that human emissions of CO2 will cause catastrophic global disaster of ANY kind.

    • You now make an even more absurd argument: That the world’s Scientific Institutions, which All conclude AGW, are not in a conspiracy, but that they are ALL somehow knowingly produce fraudulent work products. That’s a distinction without a difference. In your attempts to defend the indefensible, your reach has truly exceeded your grasp.
      You want a list of Academies concluding AGW? Here’s a starter list for your impossible dream of finding falsifying data:
      And No scientists use the term CAGW. Did you forget.. Again?

      • warrenlb says [again]:
        …the world’s Scientific Institutions, which…&blah, blah, etc.
        warrenlb cannot post without falling back on that logical fallacy. His entire argument is based on a fallacy. Thus, he loses the argument.
        As David A says:
        Warren has yet to produce ANY evidence…
        That is warrenlb’s problem. If he were to comment without using his fallacy, he wouldn’t have much to say, because he has no credible evidence. So he falls back on his fallacy in just about every comment.
        Give it up, warrenlb. If you cannot debate without relying on a logical fallacy, you are at the wrong site. I suggest you trot on back to Hotwhopper or SkS instead. They just love illogical arguments like yours.
        Here at the internet’s Best Science site, we want scientific evidence and logical arguments. You have yet to start.

  88. “the climate and public health benefits from President Obama’s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.”
    Because one of the guys on our team said so after pulling numbers out of his ass.

  89. CD153 says:
    Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school?
    I get the same impression. In almost every comment, warrenlb demonstrates the need to trot out his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It’s all he has. But he has no understanding of human nature, or of how very easy it is for one activist to divert a Board of Directors onto a new course of action, such as buying into the man-mad global warming [MMGW] narrative.
    Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has written about that here. [See Sec. 2].
    warrenlb is so naive that he believes a small group of directors is immune from enticements. Once they buy into the board activist’s suggestion, they are rewarded from all directions. That feels good! So next time it’s much easier to adopt the activist proposal. In no time at all, the organization has adopted the position that MMGW is a fact — a very minor part of its remit, but a major coup for the MMGW narrative. The fact remains that there is not a bit of verifiable evidence showing that MMGW exists. But so what? The organization is now on record, and like any organization from the SCOTUS on down, it hates to admit it was ever wrong. So when the decision is made, it is cast in granite.
    warrenlb doesn’t understand human nature, or how each organization has been courrupted in turn. He will not ask himself how a preposterous 100% [!!] of all those diverse disciplines could come to believe the same thing, or why they would go out of their way to take an official stand on something that is unconnected with their disciplines. All warenlb sees is what is being spoon-fed to him: propaganda with a veneer of science.
    The propaganda has been successful. It’s a geeat talking point. But as Albert Einstein replied when the Russian Academy wrote an open letter ridiculing his Theory of Relativity, it did not require 100 scientists — but only one fact. So far, there is not one measurable fact supporting MMGW. But that doesn’t matter to warrenlb. He has his talking point. And he repeats it in every comment.

    • So the only thing DBStealey has left is — ‘they’re all corrupt (except me)’. If anything exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas, it’s that single argument.

      • No, warrenlb, that is not what I said.
        CD153 wrote:
        Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school?
        That still applies to warrenlb, the chief head-nodder whenever the ‘consensus’ is mentioned.
        warrenlb is hopeless. He has no understanding of human nature, and he probably never will. He’s the perfect target for the purveyors of pseudo-science, eagerly lapping up their talking points. That requires no thinking at all, just a mindless naivete.
        So whom should we believe? Prof. Richard Lindzen, who is not afraid to name names, and who shows exactly how the various Boards are commandeered? Or the naive warrenlb; easily one of the most credulous True Believers on this site?
        He actually believes that no one is able to be corrupted. What a quaint idea. But it doesn’t apply to the real world, and it never did.

        • (correcting dbstealey)

          So whom should we believe? Prof. Richard Lindzen, who is not afraid to name names, and who shows exactly how the various Boards are commandeered? Or the naive warrenlb; easily one of the most credulous True Believers on this site?
          He actually believes that no one is able to be corrupted. What a quaint idea. But it doesn’t apply to the real world, and it never did.

          No, no. warrenlb believes EVERYBODY who does not believe his religion HAS ALREADY BEEN utterly corrupted (by money that does not exist) and CANNOT be trusted in any way. The Leaders of his religion are the ones demanding that non-believers be killed or segregated, imprisoned, jailed, and ostracized from society. I have not (yet) read warrenlb actually calling for death to non-believers, but his policies and deliberate actions DO cause those millions of deaths from energy deprivation and poverty worldwide.

      • RACOOKPE1978 says:
        “He [warrenlb] actually believes that no one is able to be corrupted.”
        No, I never said nor believe that no one can be corrupted. I said it was absurd to claim ALL the World’s Academies of Science (eg, NAS, AAS, Royal Society, Germany, France, China, Japan, etc, etc) are corrupt.
        I have no trouble believing that one or two individuals might be screwed up!

      • “Corruption” is an emotive word. It implies knowingly adopting a false position for personal gain. Institutions don’t do that. They are not personal. That’s why we use them to store ‘truth’.
        “Moved from the norm” is a more useful concept. It implies that the “norm” is universally agreed and justified and that moving from it is therefore noticeable.
        But the “norm” is not universally agreed (in the science of chaotic systems, little is) and then, we come to justified.
        No-one can determine what temperature change is natural and what is man-made. So the “norm” is not justified.
        But it is still the “norm” for illogical reasons (politics and echoes of Millennial fears mainly).
        It is politically and socially acceptable to believe the world is ending due to CO2. This isn’t open to debate – the attribution problem would make the debate laughably short. We just don’t know.
        But try asking why the models all are wrong according to IPCC AR5 and there will be more convoluted excuses than Ptolemy could throw round the Earth.
        Yet it is not absurd to claim ALL the World’s Academies of Science (e.g., NAS, AAS, Royal Society, Germany, France, China, Japan, etc., etc.) are going to stick with the “norm”. That is what Academies do.
        Scientists do science and Academies defend the orthodoxy. That’s the point of Academies. They are the inertia that science works to move – not dynamic seekers of truth.

      • MCourtney says:
        Institutions don’t do that.
        Then what do you call it when an institution is corrupt?
        It certainly happens. If there’s another name for it, I’ll use that. But it happens, there is no doubt.

    • Thanks for the Lindzen link. I liked Holdren’s response:
      “The FEW climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.”
      And “Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that: The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action. This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.”

      • Holdren says:
        …out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments.
        Ooh! That stings, doesn’t it, warrenlb? To think that a few scientific skeptics are torpedoeing the bogus alarmist narrative. And all Holdren can do is snivel about it.
        But of course Holdren is wrong as always. Scientific skeptics of the man-made global warming [MMGW] narrative far outnumber the alarmist clique — which is the true “fringe”.
        And warrenlb wouldn’t be warrenlb if he didn’t trot out his usual logical fallacy. But his “overwhelming majority” never seems to have any names attached, unlike the 32,000 OISM names.
        So how about naming them, warrenlb? Post the names of your “majority”.
        heh. You can’t, because they are just a small clique of self-serving riders on the grant gravy train.
        But give it your best shot, warrenlb: I challenge you to list the names of your putative “majority”. If you cannot post the names of more than 32,000 scientists who believe in MMGW, then all your words mean nothing. You lose.
        There’s your challenge, warrenlb. Put up or shut up.

      • @DBStealey, You still ignore the FACT that all the Science Academies conclude AGW. NO exceptions. You saw Holdren’s list, and my link to the Wikipeida list of the Academies. Now its your turn to find just ONE Academy that doesn’t. Good luck on your impossible search, from your perch as one of the FEW in the FRINGE.

        • Yeah, yeah, yeah.
          Show me ONE “society” that actually did an unbiased survey of ALL of its members with reasonable questions about global warming and notional political positions BEFORE issuing their political statements in support of the Big Government’s political goals. Each “society” issuing these statements – like the Tau Beta Pi honor society – wrote the statement, wrote the tens of issues of its society’s monthly reports FROM Washington FROM its headquarters FOR its head quarter’s staff BY its head quarter’s staff expressly FOR future political use exactly as you are using it.
          Oh wait! “97% of climate scientists” = 75 out of 13,500
          (who were sent a 5-question survey in the mail, who answered 2 of the 5 questions asked. Does that mean 97% in climate science = 150 “correct” answers out of 67,500 questions asked?)

      • And, Warren Pound,
        LOL, “you still ignore the FACT” that none of those “Science Academies” has ever proven human CO2 emissions can do ANYTHING to alter the climate of the earth.
        You STILL have not answered that issue RESPONSIVELY :
        After two days, all you have proven is what a fool you are.
        Good for target practice.
        And that’s about it, Pound.

      • @JAnice Moore.
        So YOU, a random amateur scientist, claim you have proven AGW does not exist, and NONE of The Science Academies — NAS, AAAS, Royal Society, Japan, France, Germany, China, and many more — have it right? You aren’t to be taken seriously.

      • WP: There’s an invisible cat on that chair.
        WUWT: Prove it.
        WP: You prove there ISN’T an invisible cat on that chair.
        WUWT: There is no observable data that proves it exists. It exists in your imagination only.
        WP: Ah! There you go! You can’t see it!
        WUWT: ?

      • warrenlb is the one not to be taken seriously here. As Robert Cook points out, none of the false authorities that warrenlb mentions have ever conducted a fair and unbiased poll of their membership. A small clique of directors, usually 6 – 12 individuals, presumes to speak for thousands — and sometimes tens of thousands — of dues paying members. But the members are kept out of the decision-making. They are barred from expressing their views.
        As Dr. Lindzen shows, all it takes is one activist on the board to put the organization on record. Lindzen names names; something that warrenlb ignores: warrenlb has never responded to my challenge to him. He can’t.
        It is very interesting that every organization has taken exactly the same position. There are no diferences at all between them. warrenlb is totally naive and credulous, but most folks aren’t. It is preposterous to believe that EVERY organization is in lock-step on the position of MMGW. How likely is that? Even on a position such as vaccination for children, there is not such a totality of lock-step opinion. But on the wide open question of whether human emissions are the primary cause of global warming — something for which there is no measurable evidence at all — EVERY organization is in lock-step. So the credulous warrenlb drinks their Kool Aid. warrenlb is clearly stupid, but most readers here are not.
        The fact that warrenlb is so incredibly naive does not change things. Those institutions have been corrupted, there is no doubt. Otherwise, they would ask their membership. But they don’t, because they damn well know what the answer would be — and it would not be that MMGW is the dominant cause of global changes in temperature.
        Why not? Because the members are scientists and engineers. They understand the scientific method, including the climate Null Hypothesis: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. The global climate is exactly the same now as it was a century ago. If human emissions made any difference, there would be measurements of the changes. But there are none. There is not one credible measurement of AGW.
        So once again warrenlb hides behind his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Take away that logical fallacy, and what does warrenlb have? He has NOTHING. That’s why warrenlb constantly parrots his favorite fallacy.
        Why don’t YOU tell us what you have besides your incessant fallacy, warrenlb?
        Make it good. Base it on testable measurements. I’ll wait here, while you trot back to your favorite alarmist blog for your latest misinformation.

  90. I am so, so, so very tired of carbon zealots like Ivan Frishberg telling me carbon dioxide is pollution.

  91. warrenlb says:
    You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?
    warrenlb, do you want a list from just one (1) source contradicting your short list?
    Check out the OISM Petition. It contains the names of more than 32,000 scientists and engineers, who state that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, and that it is harmless.
    That is the ‘consensus’, warrenlb. And since you live and die by your ‘consensus’, you lose the argument.
    warrenlb has been repeatedly challenged to try and make a credible argument by leaving out his incessant ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies. He cannot do it. warrenlb is apparently not capable of commenting without using that crutch. It forms the basis for his entire argument. He seems to think it matters. It doesn’t.
    When a logical fallacy is all that someone has, then they lose the debate. warrenlb seems to believe that by constantly falling back on his fallacy, that he will convince readers of his belief system.
    It hasn’t worked, as evenryone can see. Warrenlb has yet to convince anyone — except himself. He certainly has me scratching my head: why would someone expend so much energy trying to promote a logical fallacy?
    I can’t answer that. Maybe warrenlb could explain it for us.

    • Oh that’s rich, DBStealey — citing the Oregon petition as a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE?
      No, a PETITION doesn’t qualify as the US National Academy of Science, or the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, or the French Academy, or the Royal Academy (UK), or the German Academy, or the Chinese Academy, or the Japan Academy. Or any other.
      And this ‘Oregon Petition’ had no decent verification of the signers, and pranksters successfully submitted Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and got them included on the list! LOL
      Now you have descended into abject silliness.

      • Yo, warren–I want to know if YOU are more than just an “amateur scientist”.
        What’s your CV? What credentials do YOU have?
        (By the way, I find it is better to be an “amateur” climate scientist (defined as one who engages in a pursuit on an unpaid basis) than a government-paid tough-feeding ideologue that probably wouldn’t have a job if not for government grants.)
        But back to my question–what are your qualifications?

        • RockyRoad (challenging warrrenlb)

          Yo, warren–I want to know if YOU are more than just an “amateur scientist”.
          What’s your CV? What credentials do YOU have?
          (By the way, I find it is better to be an “amateur” climate scientist (defined as one who engages in a pursuit on an unpaid basis) than a government-paid tough-feeding ideologue that probably wouldn’t have a job if not for government grants.)
          But back to my question–what are your qualifications?

          I personnaly do not really care what his “own” credentials are, though I would like to know how qualified he (she ?) is in addressing technical points or questions. It does help in talking with some (or across somebody, since warrenlb has now over 320 comments here, only 18 of which have said anything except:
          “All of the priests of my religion are well-paid to say something that only benefits the priests of my religion! Therefore, it must be true despite all the evidence against it.”
          But, to date, warrenlb has refused to even tell us how many of his religious texts and papers he has actually read! (Much less understood, researched, written, critiqued, or corrected and discussed with the authors.) Why a religion, not “science”? Because it is a faith-based doctrine based on beliefs that is maintained without evidence, and, thus far, despite all the evidence against it.
          So, we do not know anything except what he (she ?) has been told to say. Which is:
          “The high priests of my religion say we must destroy the world’s economies and harm billions of people for 85 years to avoid a future that benefits everybody. Except the priests of my religion and the politicians they support, and the politicians who pay them.”
          We do know, however, that at least 97% of the priests of his religion (that is, 75 out of 13,500 asked one time) do believe in his religion. We just do not know who they are. And they refuse to tell us.

      • warrenlb says:
        Oh that’s rich, DBStealey — …citing the Oregon petition as a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE?
        I did not cite them as such; warrenlb did.
        But since warrenlb has apparently not even looked at the OISM site, I’ll help him out: the past President of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES produced the OISM petition, with the able assistance of many other members of the NAS.
        warrenlb claims that isn’t credible. I’ll leave it to readers to make up their own minds as to which is credible — the past President, and members of the NAS, or warrenlb.

    • @warrenlb:
      I am comparing your 6 – 12 anonymous, self-serving board members, with more than 32,000 named scientists and engineers — including more than 9,000 PhD’s. THAT is the comparison.
      But as usual, you cannot name even one percent of alarmist scientists who contradict the OISM co-signers. Not even 1%!! And you have again tucked tail, and run away from my challenge to you.
      warrenlb says:
      …this ‘Oregon Petition’ had no decent verification of the signers, and pranksters successfully submitted Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and got them included on the list!
      Show us those names on the OISM website. Produce a link! You constantly perpetuate your lie, even after I called you on it. Why do you feel the need to lie about it, warrenlb?
      Readers right here have posted that they are OISM co-signers. But you ignore them. And every scientist and engineer is listed on the OISM website by name. If there was even one false name, you can bet that your Chicken Little pals would have found it by now. So instead, you lie about it.
      Why do you feel the need to lie, warrenlb? Because it is clear: you are lying.
      Is that how low you have sunk? You have no credible scientific argument; all you ever post is your stupid ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacies. And now you are telling lies.
      That’s all you’ve got, warrenlb: logical fallacies, and your lies. At first, it was just your fallacies. Now you are lying. Despicable. No wonder you get no respect.

      • I said ‘You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?’, and I and included a link to multiple pages listing all the Scientific Institutions, including the Academies, concluding AGW.
        Then you said: “warrenlb, do you want a list from just one (1) source contradicting your short list? Check out the OISM Petition.”
        And I repeat: The OISM is not one of the World’s Science Academies. Do you not know what a National Academy of Science is? Do you need a link?

      • The OISM has more credibility than any of the world’s science academies, warren.
        Because they’re all a bunch of independently-thinking people whose job doesn’t depend on them marching in lock-step with governments or other groups who excel in confirmation bias.
        But I’m still waiting for YOUR CV, warren.
        Pray tell, what gives you the acumen to determine if anything in climate science is valid or not?
        What are YOUR qualifications?
        (This is the second time I’ve asked, and if you have no answer, you obviously have no qualifications.)

      • warrenlb says:
        I said ‘You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?’…
        No. My challenge to you was to produce a list of 32,000 names of scientists and engineers who contradict/dispute the OISM statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Show us your ‘consensus’.
        You never responded with any names.
        Then, I asked you to post the names of just 10% of the OISM’s numbers.
        You never responded with any names.
        Then I challenged you to produce just one percent ot the OISM’s numbers, by name, disputing the OISM’s conclusions
        You have never produced even one name. Not one!
        All you ever do is repeatedly post your ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. But when push comes to shove, you don’t have a single name to suppport your belief. You’re like the Black Knight with his arms and legs cut off, with just a head on the dirt, saying, “‘Tis but a scratch!”
        You’re out of gas, warrenlb. You’ve got nothin’.

      • @RockyRoad.
        You said: “The OISM has more credibility than any of the world’s science academies, warren.”
        I say:
        If you admire Random amateurs, Engineers, PhDs with no involvement in research in the field — and no vetting of signatures –eg, Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, were included on the list’, then I suppose you might say so.

  92. I posted this Frishberg letter in “tips and notes” (Feb 20, 6:14pm). I guess Anthony is on the same email list – I did not get a hat tip here.
    [Fixed. Sorry for the oversight. ~mod.]

  93. The part I liked was this “President Obama is leading … ”
    If so, it will be the first time he’s done so as President. I seriously doubt our President could lead people out of a burning building. More likely he’d stand in front of the exit and lecture everyone on how important it was not to panic and that he and his administration would take a leading position on helping those less mobile to get to the front of the exit line.
    Then he’d duck out the door.

Comments are closed.