Dana Nuccitelli: “Climate denial caters to … old, white, conservative, American men”

In Search Of Global Cooling
Screenshot from Leonard Nimoy’s “The Coming Ice Age”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Dana Nuccitelli, climate “denial” will end when the current generation of “deniers” die off. But Nuccitelli glosses over why older people are so skeptical of climate claims.

A generation gap, when it comes to climate change?
By Dana Nuccitelli, March 15, 2019

(Editor’s Note: Judging from recent letters to the editor, there seem to be a lot of young people who will be skipping class today to go on strike against climate change. And a lot of older people who are accusing them of just wanting an excuse to walk out of school on a Friday. It seems that there is a climate change generation gap going on. So we thought this would be a good time to re-print this 2016 article by climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli, about this little-acknowledged angle to the climate change discussion.)

A record number of Americans now view global warming as a serious threatand blame human activities as the cause. But there is apparently a generation gap out there when it comes to accepting the scientific evidence. And an ethnic gap, a gender gap, and a gap in political leaning—along with whether one can be considered one of society’s “haves” or “have nots.” So, who are these climate deniers? What is their profile?

A June 2014 Washington Post-ABC News poll asked a nationally representative sample of American respondents several questions about their support for climate policies. Specifically, those surveyed were asked whether they would be in favor of government greenhouse gas regulations that increased their monthly energy expenses by $20 per month. Overall, 63 percent of respondents expressed support for the proposed policy, including 51 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.

Interestingly, there was a significant age gap among the responses. For Democrats under age 40, support for the policy proposal was 78 percent, as compared to 62 percent over age 65. Among Republicans, 61 percent under age 50 supported the proposed regulations, as compared to 44 percent over age 50. According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities.

The climate acceptance age gap. Unfortunately, there’s been little research that investigates the causes of this age gap. It is tempting to speculate that perhaps younger minds are more open to new ideas—such as the potential for humans to alter something as large and complex as the Earth’s climate, ushering in a new “Anthropocene” geological epoch. Perhaps our educational system is succeeding in teaching these concepts to younger generations.

Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men. As with global temperatures, American acceptance of and concern about human-caused climate change is currently at record levels, and is certain to keep rising in the long-term.

Read more: https://thebulletin.org/2019/03/a-generation-gap-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/

The cutoff at age 40 seems to be quite sharp – a 17% difference for Republicans, 16% for Democrats. Although Democrat belief in climate alarm is stronger, the difference is almost as pronounced amongst Democrats as it is amongst Republicans.

One possible explanation for the skepticism amongst older people is the 1970s global cooling scare.

In 1978, Leonard Nimoy‘s iconic documentary “In Search of – The Coming Ice Age” aired on TVs across the world. I clearly remember seeing it on TV in Australia, my parents were worried about global cooling, everyone was talking about it.

Nimoy’s “In Search Of” series was wildly popular at the time, the Ice Age episode was arguably the most talked about episode of the entire series.

1978 was just over 40 years ago.

Older people are more skeptical because we’ve heard this nonsense before – but with the plot reversed, with human induced global cooling the villain, rather than global warming.

Nuccitelli wonders why there has been “little research that investigates the causes of this gap”, why older people’s lack of acceptance of climate messages hasn’t received more attention – though Dana leaps to the conclusion that the the skeptic demographic is ageing, despite not understanding the reasons for their skepticism.

It seems implausible that the gap has received so little attention, given the strong political motivation to increase acceptance of the need for more taxes to save the planet. More likely researchers know what the problem is, and don’t want to draw attention to it.

What does this mean for the future? Given climate scientists’ track record of disappointment with their defective predictions, I suspect the younger generation’s “In Search of” moment is rapidly approaching, at least for the older members of that demographic. Years of watching corrupt politicians trouser political donations from friends who are recipients of government climate subsidies and loan guarantees, and failed scientific prediction after failed prediction, can wear at even the most accepting minds.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 17, 2019 9:11 pm

Yes I haven’t seen the Nimoy video for a while but I think I remember one quote like ”scientists have been recording falling temps for 30 years” , or words to that effect. How quickly we (humans) forget!

george Tetley
Reply to  Mike
March 18, 2019 12:28 am

It’s at 82 years old , I remember when.

David A
Reply to  george Tetley
March 18, 2019 4:22 am

It is easy to drive the statist like Dana of the world crazy. Simply ask, “Did President Trump cause global warming, or did global warming cause President Trump?”

Then watch their faces contort as their brain freezes, unable to form a cogent response, doubly true because you said PRESIDENT Trump twice in one sentence, they walk away never to speak to you again,
leaving your world a little more peaceful.

Bryan A
Reply to  David A
March 18, 2019 10:21 am

If you are over 20 and not a Democrat, you don’t think with your heart.
If you are over 40 and still a Democrat, you have learned nothing from lifes lessons and don’t think with your head.

Reply to  Mike
March 18, 2019 2:46 am

Luckily they have managed to “correct” that embarrassing 30 years of cooling. Now it is just a “plateau”.

It’s amazing to here the same media presentation the same “climate experts” logging data measuring and projecting linear “trends” of a few decades centuries or millennia into the future, yet the story line is the complete opposite.

Maybe unwarrented extrapolation of the linear trend is not the ultimate statistical prediction tool after all.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Mike
March 18, 2019 8:37 am

Its not surprising that an entertainment industry that is totally devoid of ideas has rebooted “In Search of…”

And, being even more devoid of casting ides, the “New Spock” is hosting.

I will bet a kabillion bitcoins that they will NOT have a “Coming Ice Age” episode.

March 17, 2019 9:14 pm

“But there is apparently a generation gap out there when it comes to accepting the scientific evidence”

Yes sir. They must accept the scientific evidence. Here are two links. They present the scientific evidence that everyone had a moral obligation to accept.



Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 17, 2019 10:29 pm

Come on, you know those are done using cherry picked data. They started the murder data in 1898 to avoid the the Whitechapel killings in 1888. Talk about dodgy data just to avoid the “Ripper” spike.

Reply to  JohnB
March 18, 2019 12:37 am

I didn’t know you were here John. I would have been more careful had I known.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 18, 2019 7:40 am

The “gap” is in critical thinking ability and education. As long as the youth insist on maintaining Stupid and ignorant while getting all news from Comedy Central we are doomed

March 17, 2019 9:15 pm

30 years ago, we were told that climate disaster awaited us as sure as death and taxes if we didn’t radically change our energy use within the next 10 years. 30 years later, we’re told we have 12 years. we may be old now, but we’re not senile yet.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  rwisrael
March 18, 2019 9:33 am

One of the major reasons older folk are suspect of the alarm is that they remember well the ridiculous claims about a population bomb, which was much more believable than a global warming-induced catastrophe. “Hard winters” are only good for killing pine beetles. The rest of the biosphere, not so much.

Glaciations are bad for children and other living things.

(Life-veterans will remember that slogan in a slightly different form.)

Patrick T
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 18, 2019 3:44 pm


In addition to being old enough to remember all the old – and contradictory – scares, none of which came to pass, we remember the various iterations of the present global warming narrative, including goodbye, snow and global-warming-causes-increased-snow. But more importantly, we also learned history in school. It’s a shame that as a result of racism, old non-white people received poor education that didn’t cover history very well. But history is history, and in this case, the climate history is very well documented – it’s not something that “deniers” or “denialists” or whatever skeptics are called these days conjured up after the fact. Prior climate shifts are part of the historical record, and there is voluminous physical evidence of what grew where, and who could travel where, and when, and how, and where massive droughts occurred, all through the MWP and LIA. These events have been accepted since they occurred – and while we’re old, we’re not 1,000 years old!

The FACT of a MWP that was centuries long and as warm as it is today doesn’t mean that the present warmth wasn’t caused by us. But it does mean that the present warmth isn’t unprecedented, and thus cannot be assumed to be on the verge of causing a calamity that resembles a Hollywood movie. No such calamity occurred 1,000 years ago.

This episode also speaks to the credibility of the people trying to erase or re-write history. Look – the climate was not a political issue 1,000 years ago. There’s no reason for people to have faked all the evidence of warmer temperatures. And conservatives and oil company executives don’t have time machines. The people who tell us that we can expect more “bomb cyclones snowstorms” are the same people who said that snow would be something we would tell our grandkids about. But they’re also the same people who are actively trying to rewrite history. How can we believe the predictions of people who lie about the past?

Jimmy Haigh
March 17, 2019 9:18 pm

Wrong again Nutter. I’ve been a “climate denier” ever since I was a young, white, liberal, Scotsman. I”ve since grown up and become a conservative.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
March 18, 2019 8:31 am

It’s not the climate that we deny, that would be silly. What the alarmists called ‘denial’ is the refusal by skeptics to accept the IPCC as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science.

It’s irresponsible to allow a self serving bureaucracy with an agenda that requires significant man made climate change to have this much control over the science that will either support or preclude their reason to existence. Why isn’t this obvious conflict of interest first page news?

FYI, when I was young and stupid, the climate hysteria was just getting of the ground and as a freshly minted scientist, who was I to question other ostensibly intelligent scientists. That is until I did my own due diligence and I’ve been a skeptic ever since.

The only thing that could change my mind is a rational answer to the following question.

How can the climate system tell the difference between the next Joule per second of solar forcing and all the others so that the next one results in the 4.4 Joules per second of surface emissions required by an 0.8C temperature increase while all the others result in surface emissions of only about 1.62 Joules per second?

It’s not rocket science, it’s barely even simple arithmetic.

Richard Hill
March 17, 2019 9:19 pm

Yet more preaching to the choir.
Anthony, please slow the flow of this type of posts.
Richard Hill

Reply to  Richard Hill
March 17, 2019 9:29 pm

Don’t read if it bores/offends you.
I appreciate each and every post

Reply to  Richard Hill
March 18, 2019 2:30 am

Why does it so offend you to be reminded of the Great Cooling Scare of the 1970’s?

John Endicott
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 18, 2019 5:08 am

He’s not offended, he’s just a “concern troll”. Don’t feed the trolls.

March 17, 2019 9:22 pm

“According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities.”

No bias here. Just hurling elephants with a side of dog-whistle bigotry.

White”. As if melanin content is a critical factor in understanding Climate.
“Male”. “Old”, ‘Conservative”. Why not throw in “Christian” and attach all of the trigger words to get the full emotional reaction desired?

Good to see that the spirit of “The Eternal Jew” is still alive and well in the hearts of Leftists Propagandists.

Reply to  AWG
March 18, 2019 7:34 am

Three of my four girls were in High School in the year(s) after Gore’s movie was released. In one semester they were forced to watch it FIVE times in different teachers classes. Luckily they had a educated dad who sat down with them and went over the errors and propaganda. Sadly most kids did not have that grounding.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  sendergreen
March 18, 2019 8:42 am

In another thread, I pointed out that as an old white guy, I’m looking forward when an entire generation realizes its been hoodwinked. I’ll live large on the schadenfreude because I’m a bad man (I’m told this every day in many ways, might was well milk it).

In the 80s I had to read “Entropy” and “The Fate of the Earth”. We had to watch “The Day After”, which is about nuclear war (the big thing back then), not “The Day After Tomorrow”, or DAFT, which was somehow made even though by the year 2000, even if we hadn’t blown ourselves up, we were going to all starve, or get killed by bugs, or run out of oil, or…or…or.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
March 18, 2019 11:15 am

They will never know. It will just quietly go away.

March 17, 2019 9:24 pm

Hmm, old, white, conservative Americans. Well, Dana, 3 for 4 isn’t too bad.

Maybe it’s because we still have the ability to think independently, having avoided the propaganda in schools. Maybe its because, as said above, we remember “global cooling”. Maybe it’s because some of us have a technical education (without propaganda) and can actually see through the rubbish. Maybe it’s because some of us took thermodynamics and actually learned it. Maybe it’s because we read the ClimateGate E-Mails and see the perfidy behind the “settled science”.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 18, 2019 1:57 am

Excellent ,good to know there are others who see ” the perfidy”. Having a fresh look at the evidence by the “Red Team” may allow others to ” see through the rubbish”.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 18, 2019 3:56 am

Maybe it’s at least partially due to the fact that those of us who have now reached an advanced age came from parents and grandparents and had teachers in school who had all lived through the “reality” of the great depression and many of whom had experienced the reality of combat action in WWII. Those fading memories that were passed on to me seem to harbor no rosy scenario delusions or illusions about life on planet Earth.
At virtually the exact time that I was being born and coming into this world, my Dad was marching into the city of Naples, Italy on the day that the Nazis surrendered the city to the allied forces.

Reply to  ThomasJK
March 18, 2019 8:55 am

It has nothing to do with age or race, but is the consequence of a far left leaning media with it’s constant drone of alarmist propaganda in support of its political benefactors. It’s exactly as Goebbels said. Repeat the same big lie over and over and people start to believe it and there’s no bigger lie than the feigned support for climate alarmism.

R Shearer
March 17, 2019 9:35 pm

I hope to outlast the older white guy alarmists like Gore, Nye, Wirth, Hansen, Ehrlich, Mann, Oreskes, McKibben, etc. who are all older and whiter than me. Nuccitelli ought to look into a mirror himself.

But I think the important thing is the truth will out.

Reply to  R Shearer
March 18, 2019 2:57 am

I think you’ll find Hansen is “black” actually. According to liberal assessments where Colin Powell was penned to be a potential “black” presidential hopeful.

Bill McKibben bemoan not being black, so he could play the victim role. So that probable means he self-identifies as being at least non white.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  R Shearer
March 18, 2019 2:58 am

If any of those named looked in a mirror they would see no reflection.

Rich Davis
Reply to  R Shearer
March 18, 2019 3:28 am

Naomi Oreskes is an older white guy? Are you being naughty, RS?

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 18, 2019 4:35 am

That’s how we identify it.

R Shearer
Reply to  Rich Davis
March 18, 2019 5:57 am

Must have been a slip, perhaps from my inner Roseanne.

Greg Woods
Reply to  R Shearer
March 18, 2019 6:25 am

I think that Reality will out…

Hoyt Clagwell
March 17, 2019 9:48 pm

Maybe it’s just that old, white, conservative, American men are the hardest people to fool.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
March 17, 2019 10:06 pm

It’s not that their harder to fool, it’s that they have been fooled before.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
March 17, 2019 11:01 pm

Exactly. The longer one has lived the more failed predictions of every kind and sort have been experienced. Also, the longer one has lived the more one understands just how biased people, including PhD’s, can be when their professional and financial interests are involved.

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
March 18, 2019 5:12 am

It’s not that their harder to fool, it’s that they have been fooled before.

for some reason that brought to mine that famous (mis)statement “fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again”

March 17, 2019 9:49 pm

If “Climate Denial caters to old, white, conservative, American Men”, what does Climate Alarmism cater to?

Reply to  Greg
March 18, 2019 2:19 am

If “Climate Denial caters to old, white, conservative, American Men”, what does Climate Alarmism cater to?

Young white gullible alarmist American women?


Reply to  Leo Smith
March 18, 2019 2:43 am


Reply to  Greg
March 18, 2019 3:34 am

ITYM Climate Hysteria.

It’s reasonable to be alarmed about something. It’s unreasonable to be hysterical about it. Which do you think describes them? Alarmed or hysterical?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Russ Nelson
March 18, 2019 9:39 am

There is nothing wrong with having fears. The challenge is to be afraid of the appropriate things.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 18, 2019 9:47 am

As I’ve said before: if more people were better at math, they’d be less afraid of most things the MSM and politicians (sorry for the redundancy) were going on about, and perhaps a little more afraid of some other things.

Seriously, I’d put CAWG well behind “super volcano popping off” or “electrical grid failing widely”, but that’s just from 30 years of using healthcare statistics day-to-day, what do I know?

Reply to  Greg
March 18, 2019 4:42 am

The simple minded.

March 17, 2019 9:58 pm

Speaking of those who adore old white guys-

‘on Tuesday the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Guy Debelle, delivered a speech titled “Climate Change and the Economy”.
It was a landmark speech that sets a precise point from which you can say you are with reality or you have thrown in your lot with idiocy and avarice.
The RBA is not an institution given to radicalism, and so when one of its most senior members states that “both the physical impact of climate change and the transition are likely to have first-order economic effects” it’s a big deal.’
‘Leadership requires boldness – a boldness now supported by very clear warnings from our most sober economic institution.’

Whenever it suits eh Dana, et al?

Bruce Clark
Reply to  observa
March 17, 2019 11:00 pm

“old, white, conservative, American men”

Where do middle aged, white, non-aligned Australian men fit in? Some of them don’t exactly fit in CAGW believer’s camp despite what our Reserve Bank says. Droughts and floods at the same time. I would like to see that.

Oh well back to “the rotting carcass of climate-change denialism” Not for profit mind you, just a stubborn reluctance to accept that .004% of anything can push the remaining 99.996% around.

Reply to  Bruce Clark
March 18, 2019 8:44 am

…until you realize that the “.004%” are climate alarmists who are attempting to push the “99.996%” around (and perhaps right off a cliff). They may not succeed, yet the effort will not be without be without significant unnecessary costs of self-imposed hobbles.

March 17, 2019 10:02 pm

Well, my kids all grew up, went to college (saw through the liberal garbage, too. phhhewww!), got jobs, started traveling on their own, decided that Mother Earth is doing just fine, and settled down. All the disaster scenarios they had been afraid of, the bad stuff they were taught they were doing, hasn’t happened in their real lives. They’ve figured it out.

Javert Chip
March 17, 2019 10:05 pm

You want to see a generation gap?

Put little boy Dana and any set of current “climate scientists” up against Einstein and Feynman.

There’s your “generation gap” (and both Einstein & Feynman actually have Nobel prizes).

John Brookes
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 17, 2019 10:55 pm

Einstein and Feynman would be smart enough to see the danger of global warming. As would Galileo.

I don’t know why you think that these titans would support the fossil fuel agenda.

Earl Smith
Reply to  John Brookes
March 17, 2019 11:41 pm

Both Einstein and Feynman are noted for saying that just ONE fact that disagrees with the hypothesis is sufficient to shoot down the idea completely.

The Sun is a variable star, not as wild as the Mira variables but still it can vary by a few percent.

Back in the 70s we had the environmental movement that mandated we clean up the atmosphere. All those sulfate particles thrown high in the air were unhealthy and blocked the beneficial sunlight. So we had a massive clean up effort that removed the radiation blocking sulfates, an lo the sunlight reached the surface and was adsorbed. Thus providing the global warmers with “proof” that the end was neigh. Forget the fact that astronomers had discovered that just about every planet and moon with an atmosphere was warming, and that there was more CO2 above every square foot on Mars than there was on Earth, but no run away heat action.

I am a real scientist (chemist) so I try to assign cause and effect. Manmade Global Warming is real, we did it by removing the sulfates which some propose to reverse to stop the warming that has not happened in over 20 years but which is forecast to happen real soon

One error found in the hypothesis, thus any true scientist is compelled to reject the hypothesis as stated.

Reply to  Earl Smith
March 18, 2019 3:36 am

“true scientist”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  John Brookes
March 17, 2019 11:56 pm

John Brookes thinks he has paranormal powers.
John, what is the “fossil fuel agenda” and where can I find it?
No-one is forced to use fossil fuels, why not try living without using anything produced by or with fossil fuels for just one day.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 18, 2019 9:51 am

The “fossil fuel agenda” is to find, produce and sell coal, oil and natural gas to consumers for the purpose of generating a profit for the owners of fossil fuel companies. If Einstein and Feynman drove automobiles, heated their homes and made use of electricity, they supported the fossil fuel agenda… 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
March 18, 2019 12:06 pm

Gee, and I thought all along that the Fossil Fuel agenda was to sell, at a reasonable profit, reliable affordable energy sources to the general public

Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 2:26 am

Einstein and Feynman would be smart enough to see the danger of global warming. As would Galileo.

Indeed. Galileo especially knew the dangers of religious orthodoxy standing up against a model that was shown to be supported by the data as the”no perceptible human effect on the climate” model is…

And Einstein and Feynman would have been familiar with Karl Poppers work and have defined AGW as ‘metaphysics’ and not science at all.

The great danger of ‘climate change’ is that it has dragged science into the gutter and stamped on its face, and when science – proper science – identifies a real crisis the reaction is likely to be a chortle and ‘climate science is it? hahahahaha!’.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 18, 2019 4:42 am

Propaganda is beneath us all, and consuming it diminishes the consumer. As such, romanticizing Galileo helps nobody. Galileo ran aground *because* he tried to invoke religious orthodoxy; which incidentally was actually why he was censured.

Indeed, his theory was, in loose generalities, correct. Even so, his case has a number of flaws:

1. He demanded that the heliocentric orbits were perfect circles. This actually made for some glaring holes in calculating the celestial position of the planets. Galileo’s model was thus, comparatively inconsistent with the observational data in his day.

2. Pope Urban VIII was no slouch in mathematics and the sciences. He was, after all, the guy paying for Galileo’s research. That said, the greatest case against heliocentrism was the observational lack of a parallax, not some appeal to scripture or doctrine.

3. Having no rebuttal to the issue of the missing parallax, he published anyways. Not only that, he included an insult to Pope Urban VIII (again, the guy paying his bills).

It’s not like Galileo was the only scientist on the payroll, nor was the political scene in Rome purely religious. There were factions and rivalries. Even the Pope’s own position wasn’t secure – there was an attempt to unseat him in favor of the Spanish faction. In such an unstable environment, making unnecessary enemies does not make one a martyr.

Reply to  Patrick
March 18, 2019 11:11 am

Saint Galileo insisted on circles even Kepler had proved it was ellipses…

Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 2:38 am

John Brookes

Because they, like you, would be unable to find a credible, empirical, scientifically acceptable study which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm. That’s not one, ever.

They would also observe, as NASA has, that the planet has greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations, 70% of which is the only observable manifestation directly attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 and likely believe that, on balance, what little warming there has been is entirely beneficial.

Imagine that. According to one contributing NASA scientist, that’s two continents the size of mainland USA worth of extra vegetation thanks to an increase of ~50 ppm Atmospheric CO2.

The only danger were at risk of running is that over the next 35 years and hopefully, another 50ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, is that we’ll be mowing our lawns every day!

They would also doubtless conclude, like Tyndall (remember him – the first man to correctly identify the radiative qualities of greenhouse gases) that water vapour is by far the dominant greenhouse gas (@~95% of all greenhouse gases, with CO2 ~3% and 0.04% of the atmosphere) and that man’s contribution to the atmosphere @~0.012% is inconsequential.

And the usual juvenile response to these obvious facts are that:

1) Bacteria can multiply from much lower concentrations – Except that bacteria is a self replicating organism, CO2 isn’t, and;

2) A small concentration of cyanide will kill a person – Except that CO2 is not poisonous to man at levels below 10,000 ppm atmospheric concentration.

Maintaining that atmospheric CO2 is the single control knob of the earth’s climate is the most preposterous concept ever conceived. It is not logical, it is not scientific nor has it been empirically demonstrated to acceptable scientific standards.

And, according to this puerile ABC News Poll, as Einstein and Feynman died old men they would entirely likely fall into the category of ‘deniers’ simply because they were old, white, men.

*SNIP* are you smoking?

Reply to  HotScot
March 18, 2019 10:28 am

Excellently written. May I borrow this for an appropriate moment in my next online discussion with alarmists? I would be happy to properly attribute it to you as the source, but I understand you may not wish to put a real email or name out in public. If you are ok with this let me know at biker@ourstrand.com.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 4:56 am

” don’t know why you think that these titans would support the fossil fuel agenda.”

They would have no reason not to support using fossil fuels. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing any harm to the Earth’s climate. Einstein and Feynman would require some evidence before giving a “thumbs down” to fossil fuels.

I assume from your reply that you think there is such evidence. If that’s the case, then you ought to be able to provide that evidence to us, and then we might see things like you do. Give us one piece of evidence that establishes that CO2 is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to do things it wouldn’t otherwise do, and then all of us will stop being skeptical. Until that time, we remain skeptics.

I don’t expect that you will provide any evidence. You could prove me wrong. No, on second thought, you cannot, because there is no evidence for you to provide, so you can’t prove me wrong. But you can try.

The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 18, 2019 6:41 am

Just an FYI:

If this is the same “John Brookes” who spent years at JoNova’s, don’t waste your time on him. He is a complete, true “believer” in the Anthropogenic Global Warming (or climate change — — whatever this week’s meme is) myth, so no amount of evidence or data will ever persuade him to open his mind and see the myth.

By the way, John, Anthony has graciously kept Bill Illis’ 750-million-year’ chart of CO2 vs. Temperature. It is kept under the “Reference Pages”, and ‘Paleoclimate’ tab. You can easily run a cross-correlation between CO2 and temperature, and report your results.

So funny how no one will ever report their correlation coefficient to me. I can’t help but wonder, is it because the two are anti-correlated that I never find out the “believers” result?

Regards to all,

The Depraved-est and MOST Deplorable-est Vlad the Impaler-est, a crashing-est bore-est and and even bigger-est bully-est (according to C.T. at JoNova)

Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 9:12 am


There’s no ‘fossil fuels’ agenda except if you mean the agenda of the IPCC/UNFCCC to gain global economic control by constraining energy supplies with green nonsense which is supported by demonizing the competition, i.e. the fossil fuel industry.

Mankind’s development of a fossil fuels based economy is exactly why you can sit at your keyboard and spout meaningless tripe whose only purpose is to make you feel good about yourself. Otherwise, you would be pursuing a primitive hunter/gatherer existence and most likely be dead by the ripe old age of 35.

R Shearer
Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 10:54 am

Feynman considered the question and believed that CO2 was insignificant.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  John Brookes
March 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Einstein and Feynman would recognize the “consensus science” surrounding climate science today for what it is… not science.

paul courtney
Reply to  John Brookes
March 19, 2019 10:09 am

John Brookes: Congrats! Your appeal to authority has put us all in our place. I was very skeptical, but when you explained the titan’s position, it was an epiphany. How can I oppose Einstein and Feynman and (gulp) Galileo? If you could just post here more often, the whole skeptic crowd would simply melt away, I bet.

Did I mention I’m, like, the world’s worst gambler?

Chris Hanley
March 17, 2019 10:13 pm

“At the beginning of 2012, the world population surpassed 7 billion with people under the age of 30 accounting for more than half of this number (50.5%). According to the survey, 89.7% of people under 30 lived in emerging and developing economies, particularly in the Middle East and Africa” (UNESCO).
A bit out of date but I doubt the general demographics have changed much.
My point is that 90% of the world’s under 30s most likely are profoundly disinterested in that First World obsession aka Climate Change™.
Since Dana Nuccitelli’s article in 2016 the global av. temperature has fallen ~0.4C.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Given the fact (reported here in Watts Up With That) that, in a UN poll of a fairly large number of people around the world (maybe 10,000,000, if I recall correctly), when asked about their priorities on a number of issues the UN presented to them, climate change/global warming finished dead last (this despite the fact that the UN tried to stack the deck by putting climate change/global warming at the top of their given list), I have my doubts about a “generation gap” anywhere else in the world save for Europe and the U.S. The rest of the world isn’t listening to our naive and gullible children. It takes enough just for the rest of the world to survive every day.

I also have my doubts about that WaPo poll from 2014 as well.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 18, 2019 5:04 am

“Since Dana Nuccitelli’s article in 2016 the global av. temperature has fallen ~0.4C.”

Good point! CO2 is rising and temperatures are falling.

I’m ready for Spring! 🙂

John Robertson
March 17, 2019 10:15 pm

Given the natural tendency of our progressive comrades to lie,project and get reality 180 degrees out of phase…Dana is right.
The Cult of Climate Crying is fading away,the 1st quality wailers have all cashed in and exited the stage.
Leaving the real second stringer,like Dana,s and true believers hanging.
Guess who are going to be the scapegoats of choice as the worm turns.
Poor Dana his moment of relevance..was never.

Gary Pearse
March 17, 2019 10:21 pm

The Old Whiteman Angle is little acknowledged!!! He is blamed for everything for crysakes! A sinister report from Germany almost a decade ago was noting that the old folk in Germany had the highest carbon footprint, sending a chill down my spine!!

The unspoken crime really is creating the Age of Enlightenment/The Rennaisance and a few technological revolutions which gave us the modern world, the very things they want to scrap to return us to Dark Age serfdom.

The odd thing is, that all this diversity, ugly identity politics, a dozen genders, the invention of catastrophic athropo global warming, the scientists that support it, the heads of nearly all new left institutions, NGOs, the Champagne socialist billionaires, foundations, university heads and the faculty heads of the social sciences and global warming science are are all lefty white folk, mostly men, most of the protesters are white women…WUWT??

This ignominious group with their patronizing social revolution and so-called standing up for diversity are witlessly imbued with the most insidious form of racism which is expressed in the form of an imperative for whitefolk of their particular stripe to protect and advocate for those of the other races.

I was heartened by the recent report here that the government in Papua New Guinea has said to hell with the CO2 game, they are going to burn coal to provide the cheap abundant energy they have to lift their poor people out of poverty and into prosperity. I was also heartened by Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Khaleda Zia who argued at the latest climate klatch that their new coal fired electricity was essential to keep expanding their economy. India isn’t buying the scam either.

Serge Wright
March 17, 2019 10:30 pm

It’s amusing to note the contuous labeling of denier to anyone that is not a full blown end-of-world / die hard alarmist. The label also refers to conservative older white males, making the climate alarmist camp a pseudo environmental / racist, ageist and sexist movement.

Reply to  Serge Wright
March 17, 2019 10:38 pm

A lot of it has to do with class hatred of white males, which is a foundation of the modern Democrat party. Another part has to do with hatred of older people.

John Endicott
Reply to  Serge Wright
March 18, 2019 5:20 am

making the climate alarmist camp a pseudo environmental / racist, ageist and sexist movement.

The climate alarmist camp is filled with intersectional leftists. Intersectionalism is inherently racist, ageist and sexist.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
March 17, 2019 10:35 pm

I hate to disappoint the liar Dana Nuccitelli, but I for one am still a ways from 60 yrs old.
And I’m healthy. And my family has moocho longevity in our DNA.
I’ll be around to cause him and his climate hustlers problems for decades.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2019 8:54 am

No, you won’t cause them problems for decades. You will be around, but they will eventually wise up.

Especially if we start asking them what the best temperature for human longevity and biosphere abundance and diversity would be. (Used to be called “climate optimum,” but that is a warm period, so newer geologists are lied to about that word).

March 17, 2019 10:37 pm

Live to be old enough to see climate predictions fail, and for more than one climate cycle of wet to dry to occur, and for more than one hurricane or tornado outbreak to occur, and the scares don’t register.

March 17, 2019 10:53 pm

The group that is convinced that global warming is a good thing is in good company: Svante Arrhenius himself wrote that global warming would keep mankind away from the next dreadful ice age.
Yes he was a white old man.

March 17, 2019 11:12 pm

This sort of post provides a great deal of light relief and humour to all the rational readers.

Tombstone Gabby
March 17, 2019 11:42 pm

As an old, male WASP, gringo, honky, paleface, round eye, deplorable, denier, racist, homophobic, pro-life, gun-nut, xenophobic, infidel, rapist, misogynist, conservative living in fly-over country….. and those are just some of the ‘clean’ ones…..

Might I say that too many of today’s youngsters have had little or no experience of the ‘real world’. Walk to and from school – or ride public transportation – give up your seat to an adult. Wear a school uniform and be proud of it . Chores. Take responsibility for your words and actions. Outdoor sports activities. Corporal punishment. Meeting and interacting with more than just a group of peers. We’re in the fourth generation of children raised according to Dr Spock. It’s tragic….. (Disclaimer: born 1941.)

John Endicott
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
March 18, 2019 5:26 am

Might I say that too many of today’s youngsters have had little or no experience of the ‘real world’.

Bingo. nail hit squarely on the head. The reason there is an “age gap” is because children don’t have experience of the real world, all they have are what their parent and teachers have been teaching (indoctrinating into) them. You fill their heads with climate alarmism and they’ll believe it because they don’t have the experience to know better. They haven’t lived long enough to see the contradictory predictions (Coming ice age vs global warming) and failed predictions (snow thing of the past, Hurricanes more frequent/intense, permeant drought, etc) come to pass. As they get older and wiser, many of them will grow up to be old, conservative, “climate deniers” as they realize they’ve been lied to.

March 17, 2019 11:49 pm

Twenty dollars was far too low a figure, that’s a cup of coffee and a cake figure, this is serious stuff, a potential life and death scenario.

So how much is your life really worth, lets start at 500 dollars a month, it will not be all that much per month, especially with such a serious mat ter at stake.

But my bet is that this figure would change the poll results quite a lot, because its a big enough amount to cause you to think about what you are agreeing to do.

And lets say ” Old white conservative men”., less the word American. Those persons over the period from say 1950 have created the world that you presently enjoy, and yes older aged persons have one big advantage over theyoung, because we have been there, done that, and we remember.

I myself at 92 can remember far back to reading about the hoax of Piltdown man, the mix of a modern lower part of the skull with a older upper part.

The ice age prediction is still fresh in our memories, and as for the Climate gate affair, despite the frantic efforts to whitewash it, clearly shows that our oh so responsible and caring scientists , clearly think that that their so called “Cause” is far more important than the facts about Planet Earth.

As for the United Nations and its very biased organization the IPCC. It is intent on destroying our ” Western” way of life, and it should be de–funded right now.


Reply to  Michael
March 18, 2019 2:42 am


92 years old.

With a mind as sharp as a rapier.

Much respect sir.

D Johnson
Reply to  Michael
March 18, 2019 5:47 am

I’m only ten years your junior, and my thinking parallels yours.

March 17, 2019 11:58 pm

I find it interesting the way white has been added to the list of characteristics. No data is presented that measures the race of the respondents. So this is clearly just a dog whistle for racists.

The idea that climate alarmism rejection will decline as the old people die off assumes that people hold the same views for their entire life. In reality we are all born ignorant and so easily mislead, as we grow we become more knowledgeable and so better at filtering out lies.

Reply to  BillP
March 18, 2019 5:17 am

because you can insult/blame/accuse anyone white of anything and thats fine.
rayciss is only when anyone on the pale side says anything any snowflake gets upset by

as an older white female non yank..i find nuttercelli an annoying jumped up brainless twit

Reply to  BillP
March 18, 2019 9:35 am

Thank you for pointing out the anti-white bigotry. That is a major reality of our time, and we must stop tolerating it. For one thing, it is ungrateful. Ingratitude is a sin (shortcoming) that causes anxiety, heart problems, indigestion and lowers competence. Whites (mostly males–another bigotry that needs to stop) invented washing machines, permanent press clothes, cars, airplanes, computers and many other things. They raised the life expectancy of every race by 20 years or more.

Ingratitude for such things is insane. Today, other races are contributing to making the world a better place. You don’t have to buy into supremacy theories to be grateful for blessings.

Esther Cook
Lady Life Grows

March 18, 2019 1:17 am

Abe Lincoln said it best, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time…..”

March 18, 2019 1:22 am

As an ageing white English woman, politically neutral, I think the ‘problem’ is that the oldies have seen a lot of extreme weather variations in our lifetimes and can’t get excited each time there’s a dry summer or a bit of flooding.

March 18, 2019 1:41 am

Can you imagine say a discussion about Quantum Mechanics being conducted in terms of nationality ,age,colour of skin?
This is what separates climate science from all other real science.
Climate Science is pseudo science and its practitioners are clearly quacks.

March 18, 2019 1:52 am

I did wonder if having lost his Guardian gig is his paymaster would be still willing to but up the cash. Well it seems they are still happy to write the cheques, but they are a very rich person so perhaps it small beer to them. But it is till largely wasted money because Nuccitelli is still working at well below his paygrade.

E J Zuiderwijk
March 18, 2019 2:12 am

The words Danny is looking for are: life’s experience.

Hocus Locus
March 18, 2019 2:13 am

“When I was a boy of 33, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 40 I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
~Mark Twain [+19]

AGES IN QUOTE ADJUSTED from historical corrections to NOAA/NASA surface temp data.

Reply to  Hocus Locus
March 18, 2019 2:50 am

Hocus Locus

Man, can I ever identify with that sentiment.

Doug Huffman(@doughuffman)
March 18, 2019 2:16 am

Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness.
The Works of George Santayana

Harry Passfield
March 18, 2019 2:42 am

First, I thought nuccitelli had retired the field. It has been so good not to have to read his nonsense for the last ten(?) years.

Secondly, if I was an old, black, sceptic, I would be offended that he thinks – subliminally – that black people are AGW believers and takes them for granted.

Thirdly, if he feels that his arguments will only come to fruition by the deaths of many millions of sceptics, why doesn’t fall back to the methods of his historical heroes: the Stalins and the Maos of this world. They could certainly inform him on how to speed up the demise of desenters.

Fourthly, he such an arrogant little sh…

March 18, 2019 2:50 am

The ones who are most skeptical is the suckers who are expected to pay for the changes. The young, unemployed and stupid don’t really need to think about because they have been told the fact they were born made them entitled to some percentage of the worlds resources. It will take a few harsh life lessons before reality sets in.

March 18, 2019 3:00 am

I also remember the ozone hole and acid rain. Both were going to end life on the planet.

March 18, 2019 3:07 am

“old, white, conservative, American men”
are a constantly renewing resource.

“When I was 18 my father was so ignorant I could scarcely bear his company. When I was 25 I was astonished by what he had learned in those few years”, attrib. Twain; yes, sometimes with age comes wisdom and understanding, if not of climate then of our fellow men.

March 18, 2019 3:09 am

Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men.

I just don’t get how in 2019, it is ok to be ageist, racist, sexist and “xenophobic”as long as it is in the service of politics!

Reply to  Scott W Bennett
March 18, 2019 11:53 am

“ageist, racist, sexist and “xenophobic” only apples if you are an “old, white, conservative, man.”

Peta of Newark
March 18, 2019 3:24 am

An old article by Dana innit but..
Dana was behaving like a child throwing a tantrum – at his parents effectively.

Then, the group he’s railing at are surely (in the US anyway), in The Minority.
By definition, 50% are female, don’t count and how many Hispanics, Latinos, and People of Colour have you got in there?
But, you throw a tantrum at any one of those minority groups and you’ll get some kick back.

So Dana aims his raving at a ‘soft’ target = one that will take it.
(The behaviour of a flat-out coward if ever there was)

Does that make it a Soft Target – or …. what sort of target?
Discretion is the Better Part of Valour, etc etc


children with less enamel recorded higher levels of behavioural problems such as aggression and having problems concentrating.

“Aggression and problems concentrating”
Sounds like Kwashkior to me..

And you want <b<*REALLY* scary – these kids are getting it in the womb
From here: https://inews.co.uk/news/science/why-milk-teeth-give-clues-into-your-childs-mental-health/

Pretty sad and horrible indictment of the health of the mother innit?

When they are actually delivered, what do we find if not formula milk makers pushing their product…

Maybe the hapless brats do make it to some sort of adulthood, to be greeted by this…

People with diabetes are more likely to have mental health issues like depression and anxiety.

From WebMD but before you go there, you’re looking for a Cause & Effect situation – what caused what?
Does depression cause diabetes or does diabetes cause depression?

There are those amongst us who will assert that diabetes actually starts from the very moment you are first introduced to sugar… possibly= a hard line white male conservative who was fed saturated fat during his formative (age=0 thro 16) years.
Anyone else in that group around here?
Its easy to tell which girls are in that group – they are tall, slim, intelligent AND are actually capable of delivering their own babies without epic medical intervention.

There’s a real puzzle, why can’t short girls with phat asses deliver babies?
How long has that been going on we wonder?
A program on BBC 4 this week said, by reference to Henry 8’s wife Jane, at least 500 years.
Ehrlich was, shall we say, a bit late with his prediction. Malthus also.
(Jane died from complications 2 weeks after delivering Henry’s only viable son Edward = King for 6 years until TB took him out at age 15)

Are we any closer to understanding Dana, his ilk and maybe even what is maybe REALLY happening out there?
Also a lot of other sh1t – such as life expectancy – on its way down and has been for 20+ years?

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 18, 2019 3:36 am

a bit of clarification on Jane…

OK ok, humans have big brains and (need) big heads to put them in BUT – are you REALLY saying that Ma Nature evolved us to a point where something like 25%+ of girls and their babies died during childbirth.

YMMV but personally, I find that utterly insane. It is evolutionary catastrophe just waiting to happen.

David Chappell
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 18, 2019 4:55 am

Given that today the infant and maternal death rate is nowhere near 25% suggests that the problem in the past was a lack of hygiene and not Ma Nature’s evolutionary foolishness.

Scott W Bennett
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 18, 2019 4:22 am

Admins, why are these off topic and obviously insane posts by Peta of Newark allowed to continue to pollute rational discourse here!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scott W Bennett
March 18, 2019 6:31 pm

Been asking myself that for a long time.

March 18, 2019 3:55 am

So… 40 years ago we stopped teaching people to think.

Reply to  Cube
March 18, 2019 5:00 am

40 odd years ago we removed our children from the state educational system. A colleague said: “ Never mind your kids, think of those left behind, they will be running the country in 40 years time”
I often think of that these days.

Tom Abbott
March 18, 2019 4:23 am

From the article: “According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities.”

Younger Americans are more easily duped than are more experienced, older Americans.

Tom Abbott
March 18, 2019 4:34 am

“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men.”

The Left hates the White Race. Even though a lot of people on the Left are white. The Left has to have a demon to focus their anger and hate on and at the current time, that demon is the White Race.

Don’t listen to these self-haters. They not only hate themselves, they hate everyone who doesn’t agree with their view of the world and accuse those they hate of racism.

The facts are that it is the Left who are the racists. They accuse others of racism as part of their political tactics. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the Left is a racist, according to the Left.

The Dispicable Left, always spewing hate and division and racism. What a destructive force they are on our society. And their insanity is broadcast far and wide by the hateful Leftwing News Media.

March 18, 2019 4:35 am

The thought of a loser sporting a degree in Poli Sci striking a pose to stop the 4.7 billion year old process of climate change caters to … young, ditzy, Democrat, American women.

Good we cleared that up.

Jimmy Haigh
March 18, 2019 4:38 am

If a subject has to explicitlely state “science” in its name, it is not a science. If one of its practitioners has to clame that he/she/ it is a “scientist”, he/she/it is not a scientist.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
March 18, 2019 4:39 am

And I wish I could edit that… Bloody mobile phones…

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
March 18, 2019 4:50 am

In the forthcoming AOCene period your problem will disappear, the technology will itself become extinct.

David Chappell
Reply to  PeterGB
March 18, 2019 4:57 am

…together with the human race.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
March 18, 2019 9:55 am

The exceptions would be Earth Science and geoscientist.

March 18, 2019 4:55 am

my guess is that actual education has not been taught for several generations yielding ignorant, compliant and easily manipulated under 40 people and they can vote

March 18, 2019 4:55 am

“For Democrats under age 40…
Among Republicans, 61 percent under age 50…”

Hmmm…wonder why they used different age cutoffs for D’s vs R’s? Perhaps to “massage” the data into fitting their narrative?

I’m no scientist or statistician, but even I can see that there’s something fishy there.

1. As mentioned in the article, older people remember when the latest “the end of the world is nigh so give us money” scientific scam was the coming of the next ice age. We also remember the population bomb, and peak oil, and the ozone hole, and any number of other similar shrill screeches from the scientific community. Experience tends to make one less gullible over time.

2. We are old enough to have a series of memories of past extreme weather events to compare modern events with. I remember blizzards, and droughts and floods and heat waves and cold snaps etc etc etc from my youth. I know from experience that not only are the events of today NOT unheard of, but that we seem to me to be experiencing less of them than when I was young.

3. We havn’t had “global warming, global warming, global warming” pounded into our consciousness like a pile driver since birth. Our kids are propagandized about this stuff daily and incessantly both through the public school indoctrination they receive and even things like kid’s TV shows. The fact that younger people are more prone to believe what they’ve been programmed to believe all their lives is a surprise to any researcher is a bit far-fetched to me.

4. Older people have seen enough government boondoggles to know that it wouldn’t stop with $20 a month. Naive youngsters would say “$20 bucks is nothing, even if it fails, it’s worth the investment to give it a chance”. We fogies have seen this bait and switch many times before and fully understand that $20 a month would only be the beginning, not the end. Ask them the real question: Would you be willing to start out paying an extra $20 a month, with that amount rising regularly, without end, resulting in large numbers of Americans suffering the crippling energy poverty that is happening in other nations that have bought into the scam?

Sometimes listening to your elders is a good idea.

March 18, 2019 5:07 am

“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, ……. American men”

I.e., those who follow the scientific method, and don’t see it as a tool for colonial & neo-colonial oppression.

March 18, 2019 5:12 am

Are these climate wackos mostly Capricorns? Just askin’ because Capricorns are the ultimate control freak who get their undies in a bunch if you don’t knuckle under to them.

This panic-attack stuck has a life span and while it appears to be hitting the repetitive/cracked record state, it’ll probably be around under the Church of Control of Climate entereth its illusory state of sainthood designations.

Anyone besides me remember that “tilt & wobble” property the Earth has, wobbling slightly while our little blue marble revolves around the Sun? The “wobble” means that the celestial North Pole (GEOGRAPHIC, not magnetic) moves one degree in space every 72 years. (It’s now pointing toward the Teapot.) That means that the angle at which the planet receives sunlight changes just slightly, and at some point, changes enough to have a real effect on weather (short term). Over the long term, the effect increases, and the ice line moves in the general direction of the equator. (Climate, in case you were wondering -> long term change overall.)

I’d love to be around when Big Ice Sheets squish the domiciles of these squawking, cash-grabbing, attentionmongers, but — well, we all might just live long enough to see them and their claims deflated by hard reality. Hang in there. Just keep an eye on them, and make notes of the more silly things they say.

March 18, 2019 5:24 am

Dana Nuccitelli has taken his fair share of money from big oil.

“Dana Nuccitelli’s ‘vested interest’ ? – oil and gas”


Don Jindra
March 18, 2019 5:25 am

We also remember the old “population explosion” hysteria. Global Warming is pretty much an extension of that.

Reply to  Don Jindra
March 18, 2019 6:02 am

It was followed by peak oil which underpinned movies like mad max. It then extended to the great resource shortage and the rise of David Suziki an his one minute to midnight

It’s all part of the normal cults that take hold from time to time

Stephen Skinner
March 18, 2019 5:47 am

There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
March 18, 2019 6:40 am

CO2 feeds plants
Plants feed animals – feeds us
CO2 is cool

Jeff Alberts
March 18, 2019 6:44 am

“climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli”

Wow, really? That must make me a Nukyuler Fiz…Phys… Dude.

Walt D.
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 18, 2019 8:39 am

Six munths ago I could not even spell Climut Sientist. Now I are one!

M__ S__
March 18, 2019 6:48 am

OR . . . . People who have experience thinking for themselves and who are used to demanding actual proof of assertions tend to be more discriminating and less lemming like in their thinking.

Bruce Cobb
March 18, 2019 7:23 am

“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men.”
No. Climate Realism is a trait of those willing and able to think independently and rationally, while Climate Belief is a trait of the weak-minded, and those susceptible to brainwashing and group-think. Nuttysilly is a prime example of the latter.

Erl Happ(@erlhapp)
March 18, 2019 7:54 am

The hypothetical carbon dioxide back radiation, surface warming effect, has been absent across the southern hemisphere for thirty years in the month of January. Carbon dioxide is well mixed, and it’s supposed effects should manifest across and around the entire globe in every month of the year. It doesn’t go on holiday for Christmas.

In the world of science, a single exception invalidates a hypothesis.

Here is the data for the southern hemisphere. In January, the average temperature by the decade:
1979-88 was 17.71°C,
1989-98 was 17.42°C,
1999-2008 was 17.5°C
2009-18 was 17.69°C

Source of data: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=1000&lat1=0&lat2=-90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries

This realization should kill the AGW hypothesis.

Reply to  Erl Happ
March 18, 2019 9:23 am

“Invalidation of a hypothesis”, testing a hypothesis, observational proofs, developing a hypothesis into a theory, are, unfortunately, concepts of which 99% of the population are unaware. All the validation in their lives comes from gazing into their iphone screen as they amble through life. The counter-argument to AGW does not have a stage to which they have access and is even being no platformed by such as the BBC. It is now a propaganda war, Distasteful as that is, unequipped as genuine science is, that is now the only way forward.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Erl Happ
March 18, 2019 6:33 pm

Erl! My man! Where you been??

Joel Snider
March 18, 2019 8:26 am

So that leaves… what? Progressive metrosexuals like Nuccitelli – how soon does the human race go extinct after that?

March 18, 2019 8:38 am

At age 64 I have seen so many of the Chicken Little predictions fail to come true that I am very skeptical of these type of predictions. Not only did I survive the climate cooling scare, but also peak oil, the population bomb, the coming great famine, the horrors of GMO food, Three Mile Island, and the dangers of the ozone hole. Even with climate warming, I have lived past, and even enjoyed, the warming that we were told was going to be irreversible in 10, no 15, no 20 years time.

My advise to the children and grandchildren is to enjoy the warmth. No one moves to North Dakota for retirement. It is not the warming that mankind has to fear, but the cooling.

March 18, 2019 8:44 am

According to Dana Nuccitelli, climate “denial” will end when the current generation of “deniers” die off.

He says that because the younger generation is being brain washed in public schools at tax payers expense. The next generation may not be as gullible as he thinks. Then if he is around he will be looking at the next generation after for support.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Olen
March 18, 2019 6:35 pm

I figure I’ve got maybe 30 years left, I really don’t care what they do after that.

Roy Banks
March 18, 2019 8:59 am

The reason way older people are more sceptical about Global Warming is the we have more time to evaluate and understand the basis of their very dubious claims. The younger generations are too busy working or playing on Facebook/Twitter to have the time to investigate the basis for these claims so just go along with the mainstream/the crowd.

kent beuchert(@arthur4563)
March 18, 2019 8:59 am

Notice that the survey is only of Americans and that the supposed cause of the increased concern was a warm winters in the U.S. Now that we have had record breaking cold winters, one can expect that the final claim (that fewer skeptics as tme goes on) will be reversed. Amazingly, most of the points used to convicnce people about global warming are not associated with global warming in the least : floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, or have changed (sea level rising rates) . There is plenty of doubt about the association of CO2 levels with warming but there is no doubt about the fact that extreme weather events have no connection with global warming.

kent beuchert(@arthur4563)
March 18, 2019 9:02 am

These people were too frightened to do so, but I believe that Blacks are less likely to believe in global warming. Fear of global warming seems to be concentrated in white, liberal, younger and science-ignorant types who have very little knowledge of any details concerning global warming.

Reasonable Skeptic
March 18, 2019 9:15 am

Amazing that anybody with an IQ above 80 wouldn’t realize that kids, who are in school in order to learn, are not as wise or informed as the old white guy what has put 30 years in the workforce.

Where can I find a 14 year old to do that dental surgery I need? Where is that 10 year old that can manage that lawsuit over the property I just bought? Where is that 17 year old that can install the hot tub? Where is the 15 year old that can do my accounting?

But kids can stop sea level from rising and heal the globe (Like Obama)? I think not.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
March 18, 2019 12:20 pm

That’s why Progressives are trying to lower the voting age to 16.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Joel Snider
March 18, 2019 12:31 pm

That’s about it: all but an infinitesimally small % of people this girl’s age are literally “low information” voters.

They haven’t lived long enough, read enough, learned enough or even accidentally understood enough to make decisions about ANYTHING.

That’s why there are protected by law in all advanced societies.

Last year when a similar group of teens were being held up as being models for lowering the voting age due their stance on gun control, I asked: does that mean you would also lower the age of consent for sex? How about criminal responsibility?

I mean, here in Canada if this nonsense gains traction a 16 will be able to vote, yet could murder someone and have their identity hidden for the rest of their life.

March 18, 2019 9:17 am

People are skeptical of the efficacy and prophesy of anthropogenic CO2 to force Global Warming and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, respectively. People are also skeptical of the proposal that intermittent, nonrenewable, environmentally unfriendly GND (Gray New Deal) to mitigate the risk of the aforementioned. Not one endangered bird, bat, or butterfly in the air, and lizard, coyote, nor mouse on the ground, and diverse plant life, should be aborted or otherwise suffer injury to service the Green Blight, right?

Walt D.
March 18, 2019 9:17 am

The problem that the Climate Change Evangelists have is that who does or does not believe in their religion, has absolutely no effect on the climate.

Reply to  Walt D.
March 18, 2019 12:41 pm

Not religion or moral philosophy, although that is purportedly their motive. The problem is a conflation of logical domains, and far exceeding the near space and time of the scientific domain where observation, replication, and deductive reasoning occurs.

Reasonable skeptic
March 18, 2019 9:31 am

Old people die, young people become old people, so old people won’t go away, unless we go with Logan’s Run.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Reasonable skeptic
March 18, 2019 9:55 am

Do NOT give them any ideas. You know they don’t have any of their own!

However, as a meme points out: “You’re going to start a revolution? You couldn’t start a lawn mower”.

March 18, 2019 9:54 am

He’s going to be terribly disappointed by my 5 kids who I have taught to question everything until it makes sense instead of just accepting what is fed to them via the media and schools that only expect regurgitation of their “facts” . I’m fine with whatever conclusions they reach themselves as long as they do their homework and question the “experts”. If they can defend their conclusions so be it.

March 18, 2019 10:45 am

Hi Dana,

I hate to blow your stereotype to hell, but I’m anything but conservative. Okay, I’m white, I’m male, and I’m not that young anymore. But let me tell you how I spent some of my youth.

I started out as a math major in college, and I saw some pretty God-awful excuses for teachers, which sort of drove me out of that arena to a different university, where I studied forestry for a while, but, again, lots of academic bullshit, especially from students who were so wealthy and immature as to make me sick, shifted my focus into another direction (actually universe, by comparison).

It was a bold, bold, anything-BUT-conservative move for a YOUNG, … WHITE, …, yes even STRAIGHT … MALE, from a not-that-affluent background, deciding to exit a forestry program at an acclaimed state forestry-agricultural-and-engineering school (farm-type boys and builder-types, you know) … to do what?

… to take a break from academia for a while and start learning to teach, say what??, ballroom dance.

Still straight. Still white. Still male. Still young.

And from there, I went on to study dance formally, and then, in later years, I took up visual art, and during some of those years, I heeded the warnings about “global warming”. I tuned into the cause of “saving nature and the environment”. For about three or four years, I wrote yearly, small checks to Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and a few others.

As I got older, I started to see some things that I could not see when I was younger. Age has an advantage this way, which explains why, many times, older people are not so captivated by the anthropogenic-climate-change-justice movement. I tuned into the minds of some very smart people, who opened my eyes to truths that were concealed from me during my earliest years.

And so here I am at WUWT, a former environmental warrior, a former dancer, once young (but now older), still white, still male, still straight, and I’m calling you out as an intellectual pathogen for your part in perpetuating the socially acceptable mental illness heaped upon modern civilization by disgraceful disregard for proper science, which, by the way, I DID learn a thing or two about during my young, white, straight, male, one-time-environmental-juistice-warrior days.

Yours truly,

… and I DO mean TRULY

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 18, 2019 6:40 pm

Nice letter, Robert.

March 18, 2019 11:00 am

Us old folks have been lied to too often. Just like we were told in the 70s that we would run out of oil by now. I don’t believe the global warming BS.

Clyde Spencer
March 18, 2019 11:17 am

OLD = Lived long enough to acquire considerable world experience and the wisdom that comes with it; used the time to get a formal education. When I was in high school, the Russians launched Sputnik and everyone was concerned about the Space Race gap and tightened up the curriculum. My college experience was when the introductory courses were still treated as “washout courses” for engineers and physicists, and before grade inflation and liberals took over academia.

WHITE = Fortunate to have had so-called “White Privilege” and get a decent education and be raised in a family with moral values. That education led me to be inquisitive and question unsupported claims.

CONSERVATIVE = I started out as a rebel, but eventually saw the wisdom of the evolved cultural values to make it easier for people to get along. I also observed all the mistakes made by Progressives promoting untested, unsupported ideas for how to make things better, which they rarely did. The US homicide rate was at its lowest level in the 1950s, when campy, family-oriented TV programs were the norm.

AMERICAN MEN = I had role models like John Wayne to provide guidance on how to interact with others, Albert Einstein (who became an American citizen) on what to aspire to for accomplishments in life, and war heroes like Eisenhower and JFK to teach what it meant to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

When we are gone, the country and the world will be poorer for our passing!

Alexander Vissers
March 18, 2019 11:50 am

Old white conservative men…..AKA as reasonable mature rational critical minded responsible citizens.

Reply to  Alexander Vissers
March 18, 2019 10:23 pm

You’d think these very dumb hater-kids would grasp that people who’ve lived 4 or 5 times longer than them can tell if something has changed or not in their life time.

Apparently old people don’t know even that much, these ignorant kids know the past way better-er than old people. You have to be less than 16 to know absolutely everything there is to know.

Getting tired of listening to silly children beat like ignorant sheep. But the real haters fanning this are their deceitful dishonest teachers, and those who’ve enable the teachers to act like such rampant bigots.

March 18, 2019 12:01 pm

There seem to be a lot of young people who will be skipping class today to go on strike against climate change.

It’s just because George Harrison isn’t around any more to have “Walks for Bangladesh”.

March 18, 2019 12:02 pm

Why are the young so immature, so misinformed ? .. CLIMATE CHANGE

Reply to  Neo
March 18, 2019 12:34 pm

Children are, ironically, green.

March 18, 2019 1:11 pm

One must wonder about the IQ of people who spew the same rediculous, unrelated, idiotic responses over and over again. These are some of the stupidest people I have ever read. Dana makes a 3 year old look really smart.

Reply to  Sheri
March 18, 2019 1:38 pm

Politically-enabled stupidity is the latest fad in stupid.

I suppose such stupidity has occurred throughout history, but I’m wondering whether today’s onslaught of it is just a fashion statement.

We live in an era of body piercings, vivid-colored hair, tattoos, stretch pants pasted on gross obesity, glum, isolated youth, disillusioned and alone, except for fake friendships and cyber interactions substituting for really living in the immediate physical world.

I guess the mindset matches the physicality. You are not fashionable, unless you are fashionably stupid too.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 18, 2019 2:09 pm

There are two waves, potentially massive ones approaching the big CA cities. When they meet, there will be a reinforcement and all hell will break loose. Part A : A couple of those cities massive homeless populations have an ongoing rat flea spread typhus outbreak. Part B : CDC reports 29 cases of XDR (Extremely Drug Resistant) Typhus brought into the US since 2016 by travelers/visitors from Pakistan where along with Myanmar, and India the XDR Typhus variant has become established. The waves? Somewhere a chance encounter could establish the extremely antibiotic resistant variant typhus in the homeless population, where population density is high, many are “immune compromised”, and hygiene standards are sub-medieval. Like a welding yard sharing space with a LNG storage facility.

Bruce of Newcastle
March 18, 2019 1:47 pm

I’m amused that the two front runners for the Democrat candidate for the Presidency, who also happen to be male, are even older and whiter than the current president. I wonder what Mr Nuccitelli thinks of them? He is after all a leftist, as are all of his Skeptical Science colleagues.

Skeptical Science: “[W]e’re all a bunch of leftists” (2012)

I especially love Dana’s comment in response to the survey results!

March 18, 2019 1:56 pm

Global warming did not become a thing until the late 80’s and it started to be taught in the schools around then. Kids are the easiest subjects to brainwash.

In addition, starting from the late 80’s neurodevelopment problems began exploding among the youth. These are lifelong diseases that no doubt affect the cognitive ability of those affected. The reason for the explosion is unknown but thought to be environmental and affects as many as 25% of kids today placing an incredible strain on special education departments and school budgets

March 18, 2019 2:49 pm

Given that the Chinese are the largest emitters of CO2, they don’t appear to believe in global warming and don’t really fit the white meme. Why is it that the nutters never address China or India increasing their emissions?

Matt G
March 18, 2019 2:58 pm

Well Dana Nuccitelli older people are more sceptical because of numerous reasons, but you should have already known this instead of making up rubbish for your agenda.

1) The older, the more wiser people become.
2) The less gullible they become.
3) Understand the true meaning of scientific method especially scientists, but you fail this one.
4) Have seen it all before, where the young are experiencing for almost the first time.
5) Continuous failed predictions.
6) Continuous data changes to reflect what models show should happen, not what had actually happened.
7) The young are more vulnerable to propaganda and brainwashing in media and schools.
8) Children often believe adults are telling them the truth, so why should they question it?

It’s not until you get older until people realise what a load of rubbish you were told when you were younger. Things are never simple as they seem and advancing in science exposes these greatly.

Politics and science don’t mix well and become a cocktail of pseudoscience.

March 18, 2019 4:14 pm

A Mafia Don would understand the CAGW scam implicitly. Are they old white guys?
No “science” required. Just Street Smarts.

March 18, 2019 4:51 pm

Hello HOTSCOT, many thanks for your kind words.

Ever since I was about 12 year s of age I have wondered WHY.

For example I wondered why so many people went to Church ? What for, they got down on their knees and prayed, but why.

I was very influenced by HG Wells ” Outline of History””, its still available and highly recommended reading. Plus Jack London, his “White Fang” and the “Call of the Wild” of course, but the lesser known, ” Managerial Revolution”. This was written about 1898, yet anticipated the rise of Big Businesses, some as wealthy as a whole countries GNP.

He was apart from being a alcoholic, see his “John Barrylecorn” book, but was clearly a Communist in his thinking. I myself was a Communist ? in the 1940 tees, along with most of the UK. After all we were told what a wonderful man Uncle Joe was, and we had the Hollywood film, “Mission to Moscow.”. Its all Propaganda of course, but as a teen ager I lapped it up.

Of course I then grew up and as Jesus said, I became a man and thought as a man.

Today my wife of 81 years and self live in a retirement village in Gawler, South Australia,. We are fortunate in it having a husband and wife team to manage it, who are first class and nice people with it. Sadly many of the 52 people sufferfrom various degrees of Alzheimer’s, the slow loss of memory and the abilityto think. Its the one thing that scares us

While my wife is in good health, I have the usual old mans problems, that of Prostate Cancer, its gone into the bones, bout to my surprise the Doc. said yesterday that I could with treatment, now commenced, I could last another 10 years. I think that is a bit
optimistic but hope for the best as I enjoy living.

Enough from me, this is boring stuff.


Crispin in Waterloo
March 18, 2019 7:20 pm

“But there is apparently a generation gap out there when it comes to accepting the scientific evidence.”

Yeah – the inexperienced young are credulous and accept wild claims unsupported by evidence, while the older people do not because they have a clue what they are hearing, and have heard such scams before. The Madoffs of the world rely on the credulous who have not previously been scammed.

Johann Wundersamer
March 18, 2019 8:46 pm

“Specifically, those surveyed were asked whether they would be in favor of government greenhouse gas regulations that increased their monthly energy expenses by $20 per month.”

“Interestingly, there was a significant age gap among the responses. For Democrats under age 40, support for the policy proposal was 78 percent, as compared to 62 percent over age 65.”


And that’s the reason for the AGE GAP:

“In 2016, young people in the EU did not leave the parental home until the age of 27 years for men and 25 years for women.”

“In 2015, the average age for women to be wed for the first time was 29.9 years, while that for men was 32.4 years.”

“Family structures in the EU Member States vary, reflecting cultural and normative differences. The general postponement of financial and social independence by young people indicates a delayed transition to adulthood.”



And that’s the reason for the AGE GAP-

The subprime mortgage crisis devastated American homeowners and played a huge role in the 2008 stock markets:


“The general postponement of financial and social independence by young people indicates a delayed transition to adulthood.” says


With “delayed transition to adulthood” staying home till their 40ies the however “YOUNG” of course say

“Let the old man pay

in favor of government greenhouse gas regulations

the increased monthly energy expenses by $20 per month.”

D Cage
March 19, 2019 12:06 am

Perhaps it is because old men who read widely remember the climate scientists of the time predicting inevitable fall into the next ice age. White because at the time back then when they were young, like to admit it or not, the US was pretty racist so only white men tended to have that education to have read it. Conservative because simply the “liberal ” are so intolerant that anyone who is not a true cult believer is so ostracised he or she is automatically a conservative.

OK I am an outsider so I could well be wrong but I somehow suspect not.

March 19, 2019 7:41 am

I’m young (36 to be precise), white (of European Jewish ancestry), middle of the road (as much liberal as conservative, and in favour of issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization), and Canadian (but of American parents). And I’m proud to be a CAGW skeptic, or what alarmists would call a “denier.”

Gunga Din
March 19, 2019 3:26 pm

Why are a lot of us older guys and gals “skeptical”?
Because when the the news hypes a weather event as “the worst in (fill in the blank) years”, we can remember when when it was worse than the hype.
The Great Blizzard of ’78 and The Blizzard of ’78 were both worse than this winter’s “bomb” thing.
The Storm Channel said the flooding in Nebraska was “THE WORST IN 50 YEARS!!!!”. That means that there are old Nebraskans that remember when the flooding worse.
Of course the point of hyping the weather as the “…est since…” is to imply that Man’s CO2, and not nature, is the cause of it.
Some of old “hippies’ are ashamed of how naive and gullible we were … and the things we did when we thought we knew it all.
In 50 years today’s “child climate crusaders” will feel the same … those that survive The Green New Deal if it’s ever enacted.

March 19, 2019 9:41 pm

I stopped reading after, “by climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli

Pamela Gray(@pamelasuemakin)
March 21, 2019 5:54 pm

“Climate denial caters to … old, white, conservative, American men”. Don’t care what color they are. As long as they can shoot straight, old, are conservative, and are men. If that makes me a climate denier, which simply means I deny climate, whatever. Hell, I’m still trying to deny I’m old! Besides, only idiots think that “climate deniers” is a “thing”.

%d bloggers like this: