Climate skeptic (was) to be on CNN tonight – challenging Michio Kaku- CNN chickened out

Just a few minutes ago, a CNN producer called Heartland Senior Fellow for Environment and Energy Policy James Taylor and told him that breaking news from The New York Times about President Trump’s tax returns (… yawn …) mean his planned global warming debate on Cuomo Prime Time at 9 p.m. ET tonight has been bumped. The producer said he hoped the show could reschedule for next week. We’ll see.

That’s disappointing, but also the nature of cable news. Events drive shows more than subjects. And when it comes to CNN, anything potentially negative about Trump absolutely drives their programming.

If James is invited back to CNN for a rare actual debate on global warming, we’ll definitely let you know. 


Via press release:

In a rare attempt at balance, CNN has invited Heartland Senior Fellow for Environment and Energy Policy James Taylor be on Cuomo Prime Time at 9 p.m. ET tonight to talk about the claim by the United Nations that human-caused climate change will lead to the extinction of one million animal species on earth if we don’t act now to stop it.

James will do his best to reduce the level of panic among CNN viewers – what’s left of them – by telling them the truth: Humans are not causing a climate crisis, and the animal kingdom has nothing to fear from us.

James’ opponent in this segment, other than CNN host Chris Cuomo, will be Michio Kaku. He might be a familiar face to you since he’s featured on seemingly every science program on cable TV these days. It will certainly be one of the few instances in which Dr. Kaku has been challenged by anyone in a debate.

We wouldn’t normally recommend watching CNN, but do tune in at 9 p.m. ET tonight! And be sure to let us know (in comments) what you thought of his work pushing back on climate alarmism.

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “Climate skeptic (was) to be on CNN tonight – challenging Michio Kaku- CNN chickened out

  1. Better than the bloody BBC is doing. They banned all sceptics from the corporation.

    • The BBC learned its censorship from Der Sturmer, Pravda and the Guardian. It doesn’t investigate truth, it creates ‘truth’ and it is terrified that the truth may emerge. I guess CNN is learning but at least Americans don’t get taxed to pay for this depravity.

        • It really is sad how you acolytes couldn’t come with a logical argument if your lives depended on it.

        • The BBC first promoted the MMR scare. They didn’t expose the idea to debate. They didn’t allow anyone to counter their arguments. Because it was a Doctor – Science!

          Now children are dying of measles.

          If you truly think that the opposition are wrong, confront them.
          The reason the BBC doesn’t confront climate change sceptics is that they know no science and so can’t tell if they have backed the right horse or not.

    • I doubt any Canadian news show would have him on either.

      Those Canadians… so nice — willing to lower their global competitiveness, raise electricity costs, and increase taxes in a futile attempt to prevent themselves from benefiting from warmer temperatures.

      • It seems so stupid if I may be so bold
        That Canada pays to make it stay cold
        How did we as a nation become so naive
        When Socks and Barbie can make us believe
        That carbon is threatening our lives and our shore
        And it is a great sin to drive to the store

  2. thanks for the heads up. don’t watch cnn other than occasionally showing CNN10 to my high school students as a starting point to discuss current events. glad to know about this so I can watch real time.

    • You and everyone else… not watching CNN, that is. This is why their ratings are tanking and they are laying off staff right now. Oh wait, they were taking voluntary severance packages, they weren’t fired.

      Meanwhile a Swedish memelord and video game player cruises towards 100 million followers on YouTube. CNN would literally kill to have a fraction of his following. This is the world we live in … in the current year.

      • That is probably more of an indictment on what constitutes priorities than anything else.

        • More like showing preferences, Tom. People seem to prefer fantasies labeled as such (games) over fantasies labeled as news (CNN, etc.). They are both fantasies, but the former makes no bones about it while the latter lies about it.

  3. Shame on the tens of thousands of scientists Worldwide who’ve spent decades in the field, in their labs and in their offices feverishly ‘caring’ and researching and publishing papers on endangered species. Clearly a monumental failure by science and now they’ve left us with a disaster!
    We demand our money back and ten thousand apologies from all involved in failing to prevent this disaster!

    • Wait a minute . . . is there a 97% consensus to go with that asserted one million animal species extinction?

      Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    • Problem is non-native species are crowding out the weaker native species and thriving. Flora and fauna are not disappearing , it is just changing.

      It costs billions to control but it is a losing battle.

  4. “…by telling them the truth: Humans are not causing a climate crisis, and the animal kingdom has nothing to fear from us.”
    I agree we are not causing climate crisis, but we do put pressure on the animal kingdom by taking over vast tracts of their natural habitats, and by killing them.
    If I were an Orang Utang in Borneo I would be more than a little concerned.

    • yes Tez,
      if I were an orang utang in Borneo I would certainly be worried about my habitat being cut down to grow so called renewable crops to produce oil to ship to Europe.

  5. Pardon my cynicism, but I expect this to be heavily biased and lots of ad hom attacks focused on their academic mismatch. This will be spun to our disadvantage.

    • Oh s**t. Kaku makes David Suzuki and Michael Mann look like kindergarten students. That’s on the one hand.

      On the other hand, if he’s honest, Kaku will admit to all the scientific uncertainty that most of the denizens of WUWT are familiar with. My own strategy would be to steer him toward the replication crisis and the well known corruption of science. Most published research findings are false. link On that basis, why would we believe the speculations of the climate scientists.

      The other thing Kaku would probably admit is that without positive feedback, CO2 will cause only minor and probably beneficial warming. Arguing the case for positive feedback should be darn difficult given the paucity of evidence for it.

      I used to warn my students that if they got in a technical argument with a lawyer or politician they would probably lose. Kaku is scientifically impressive but the cause is probably not lost.

      • If Kaku wants juicy future programming contracts, which do you think he’ll choose? I give you the case example of David Bellamy versus David Attenborough. One swayed ever so slightly off the CAGW reservation and doesn’t get programming anymore and the other is lavished with praise while talking about climate induced suicidal walrus base jumping. I leave it to the reader to decide which David is which.

      • I would steer it towards NOAA and NWS records which show no increasing trend in so-called “extreme weather”. Also, the IPCC scientific portions which don’t show anything alarming is happening.

      • He should also be asked to explain why the temperature changes always precede the changes in CO2 levels, as we see from the ice core samples. Of course the answer is simple, it’s getting him or any other CAGW believers to admit it…

  6. Never heard of Kaku before so I googled him. “We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation… and we wouldn’t even know”, and a lecturer in theoretical physics suggests a man child who is very good with words.

  7. ….please don’t let this be another “skeptic apologizes” while being attacked by cultist

    Cuomo usually get around 1 million viewers…
    …that means 328 million are not watching

  8. If extinction is part of evolution (it is) then we MUST assume that all species (regardless of how beautiful) are in flux at any given time ( that is – on the way up or on the way down) and that an undetermined number of them will be approaching extinction. Besides pressure from human habitation, there are many species which are very rare and always have been rare. These are the unsuccessful ones. Who is going to separate out those forced into rarity by humans or those naturally rare and where is the proof? We need 1 million sets of proof here.

  9. I’ll repeat an excellent comment made on notalotofpeopleknowthat by Brian Jackson:

    100000 species?? Name them – every one – and the 1,000,000 corresponding evidential studies used as evidence. This is another GIGO computer study, not worth the cost of the computer it was written on. Pure bollocks.

  10. Expected this …. they probably got tons of negative feedback….
    took the easy way out .

  11. “and the animal kingdom has nothing to fear from us”

    You mean through climate change. Humans are still responsible for almost all the introduction of invasive species and habitat loss.

    • Freeman Dyson has an answer for that.

      Since I was born and brought up in England, I spent my formative years in a land with great beauty and a rich ecology which is almost entirely man-made. The natural ecology of England was uninterrupted and rather boring forest. Humans replaced the forest with an artificial landscape of grassland and moorland, fields and farms, with a much richer variety of plant and animal species. Quite recently, only about a thousand years ago, we introduced rabbits, a non-native species which had a profound effect on the ecology. Rabbits opened glades in the forest where flowering plants now flourish. There is no wilderness in England, and yet there is plenty of room for wild-flowers and birds and butterflies as well as a high density of humans. Perhaps that is why I am a humanist. link

      In the world of science, I would put Dyson on the next plain above Kaku.

      • Some “uninterrupted and rather boring forest” remains in England to prove the point, such as the vastly overrated New Forest in Hampshire/Dorset.

        • The Arrogant Worms have an interesting take on Canada’s vast expanses of boring rocks and trees. Rocks and Trees The song was inspired by a trip across North Ontario which is nothing but rocks and trees and the occasional small lake. The few moose that you see (if you’re really lucky) are grumpy and rather antisocial.

          • Having driven highway 17 across northern Ontario several times there are places that if you went 50 yards north of the road you could disappear.

    • Yes, for instance, rain forests in Asia are being destroyed in order to grow palm for oil in order to displace fossil diesel to save the environment.

  12. and now with the cancellation fo the segment…back to the original default to not watch CNN tonight.

  13. So now we know.

    Even Trump’s tax returns are more important that CAGW!

    • The breaking news was that Trump had lost money 30 years ago.
      They overlooked that Trump told this to a national TV audience a little while ago.

  14. CNN is probably trying to divert attenton from the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Channel where new criminal revelations about Obama administration officials are supposed to be made tonight.

    I think I’ll watch Sean and record CNN. That way I can fast forward through the inevitable bs on CNN and get to the good parts.

    I hope our guy does good, but keep in mind that these people on the Left are immersed in deep delusions about humanity, politics and the climate. They are not living on the same planet we are living on.

    I listened to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough sound off this morning in an interview. It’s amazing to see his transistion from fairly reasonable guy to a complete leftwing fanatic. It’s sad. And it just goes to show that being intelligent doesn’t prevent one from drinking the Leftwing Koolaide and going off the deep end.

    I expect to see a lot of scoffing from the CNN host and Michio Kaku tonight. After all, the science is settled in their minds.

    • “I hope our guy does good, but keep in mind that these people on the Left are immersed in deep delusions about humanity, politics and the climate.”

      No s**t! Did you see the AOC video about her garbage disposal? She is absolutely clue.less.

        • “Some reefs” showing “some signs” of recovery between bleaching bouts isn’t unexpected. The problem, per link is escalating pace and scale of mass mortality with warming water.

          What does research say about recovery? It says 89% less larval recruitment has been measured in 2018, due to the mass mortality of adult brood stock in 2016-17.

          Hughes et al 2019, “Global warming impairs stock–recruitment dynamics of corals”

          “As a consequence of mass mortality of adult brood stock in 2016 and 2017 owing to heat stress, the amount of larval recruitment declined in 2018 by 89% compared to historical levels. For the first time, brooding pocilloporids replaced spawning acroporids as the dominant taxon in the depleted recruitment pool. The collapse in stock–recruitment relationships indicates that the low resistance of adult brood stocks to repeated episodes of coral bleaching is inexorably tied to an impaired capacity for recovery, which highlights the multifaceted processes that underlie the global decline of coral reefs.”

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1081-y

          “Fancy confusing the zooxanthellae with the coral”

          You’re just digging deeper. About the entire GBR bleached – that’s expelling zooxanthellae. When bleached too long the coral die. So when they say ~50% mortality they mean death in the biological sense. There was no intervening resurrection. There are less larva because there are less adults – see above.

          What if it was actually important whether this is happening or not? What if you authentically wanted to know what was true, vs. what was false? What would you read, what would be the evidence that would be relevant? What would you want to see, what would you compare?

          😉

          • “The problem, per link is escalating pace and scale of mass mortality with warming water. ”

            Escalating until you view the problem on a longer time scale. Maybe it’s some sort of cycle or maybe not, but it certainly doesn’t correlate well with CO2 levels.

            “…Here, we use linear extensions from 44 overlapping GBR coral cores to extend the observational bleaching record by reconstructing temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620–2001. Porites spp. corals exhibited variable bleaching patterns with bleaching frequency (number of bleaching years per decade) increasing (1620–1753), decreasing (1754–1820), and increasing (1821–2001) again. ”

            https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full

  15. Let’s see, what’s more important, a million species going extinct overnight or Trump’s tax returns from 1985 to 1994?

    No contest on CNN!

    These guys are so desperate to pin something on Trump. They are alienating a lot of people with this behavior.

    • At the top of the show, they could report the “news” about the tax returns, and then move on.

      I don’t think that “The Democrats demanded the returns, Trump told them how to fold and where to stuff those demands.” takes all that long…

  16. James Taylor, Heartland guy famous for explicit and audacious lying/misrepresentation, e.g. the infamous Forbes article where he claimed a new survey of scientists proved no AGW consensus among scientific experts without mentioning it was actually a survey of petroleum engineers in Alberta. Par for local course.

      • And it is still flat and obvious misrepresentation to peddle that as a survey of the scientific consensus on AGW, as he did. Unless you are purely, purely in the propaganda game. Are you that far gone David, truly? Integrity is meaningless, ends justify the means, someone else did it first?

        • It’s every bit as representative as the crap surveys used to support the 97% lie.

          Actual surveys of relevant scientists don’t come close to 97%.

          • So, the answer is “someone else did it first” (at least you claim someone did). Sounds like a degree of self-awareness in what you are doing.

            The “lie” in 97% claims is that this is the figure for publishing experts in the field (in fact, the scientifically relevant population) rather than the population of all scientists and engineers everywhere (which some critics loudly protest should be the population because then it is closer to general population and skews political). And it is the figure for those endorsing significant anthropogenic warming, rather than a stronger claim of “dominant”, which drops the figure some with additional uncertainty (what, 90% in Verheggen?) That’s the “scandal”.

            Because surveys aren’t very convincing, I don’t use the 97% figure personally. (I tend to just acknowledge consensus via endorsement of AGW by all scientific organizations, which is simple, accurate and suffices.)

            Yet here you are defending the propaganda use of a survey of petroleum engineers, which isn’t *POSSIBLY* the right target population. How does that not tell a story about integrity?

            No, I don’t want to hear about how decade-old Michael Mann claims mean that “Someone else did it first”. It’s not a novel, surprising or interesting justification for low integrity behavior like Taylor’s.

          • So, the answer is “someone else did it first” (at least you claim someone did). Sounds like a degree of self-awareness in what you are doing.

            No. The answer is that those aren’t representative surveys either. Most aren’t even surveys.

            The most recent example was Cook et al., 2013. Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.

            The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

            ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

            Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.

            The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the exmple Cook provided:

            Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

            By these subjective standards, most of my WUWT posts have endorsed the so-called consensus.

            The closest thing to an actual survey was Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:

            1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

            2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

            I would answer risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”

            Interestingly, government/academic economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…

            The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

            The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…

            It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

            No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists. That said, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” is not a diagnostic question. Even with this, they had to winnow out 79 self-descried climate scientists to get a 97% consensus.

            Petroleum geologists tend to be sedimentary geologists and sedimentary geology is essentially a combination of paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Depositional environments are defined by physical geography and climate. We literally do practice in a different world, the past. Geologists intuitively see Earth processes as cyclical and also tend to look at things from the perspective of “deep time.” For those of us working the Gulf of Mexico, we “go to work” in a world defined by glacioeustatic and halokinetic processes and, quite frankly, most of us don’t see anything anomalous in recent climate changes.

            So, it should come as little surprise that geoscientists have consistently been far more likely to think that modern climate changes have been driven by overwhelmingly natural processes…


            APEGA is the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, Canada.

            This study is very interesting because it analyzes the frames of reference (Kuhn’s “different worlds”) in which opinions are formed. Skeptical geologists are most likely to view climate change as overwhelmingly natural. Skeptical engineers are more likely to view it as a matter of economics or fatalism. The cost of decarbonization would far outweigh any benefits and/or would have no measurable effect on climate change.

            While I wouldn’t characterize it the way James Taylor did, the APEGA survey is much more informative than any of the abstract opinion crap (Cook) or the terminally non-diagnostic and extremely cherry-picked Doran and Kendall-Zimmerman, both of which were push polls designed to obtain a specific result.

            Two recent actual surveys of the American Meteorological Society yielded a 52% majority on whether or not human activities have driven most of the climate change over the past 150 years and a 67% majority that human activities have driven most of the climate change over the past 50 years… Neither of which is a consensus.

            Maibach et al., 2012
            Since the mid-1800’s…

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/18/anatomy-of-a-collapsing-climate-paradigm/

            Maibach et al., 2016

            Since 1950, climate change…

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/06/ninety-seven-percent-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous-survey-says-not/

            All of the surveys shred the mythical 97% consensus… and consensus in general. A majority is not a consensus.

            Synonyms & Antonyms for consensus
            Synonyms

            accord, agreement, concurrence, concurrency, unanimity, unison
            Antonyms

            conflict, disagreement, dissensus

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus#synonyms

            Stenhouse et al., 2017 found that 53% of American Meteorology Society members “agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects.”

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1

            There’s probably a 99.9% consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the cause of at least some of the observed warming since the end of the Little Ice Age… But that sort of consensus wouldn’t drum up much in the way of research funding.

        • Geoff M Price says “Integrity is meaningless, ends justify the means, someone else did it first?”
          When you have people like Michael Mann and Jagdish Shukla on your side that statement is laughable.

    • Geoff M. Price, Microsoft guy not so famous for explicit and audacious pounding of the drums for the people lying/misrepresenting data “proving” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      Par for the Democrat course.

  17. Clearly, it’s more important for CNN to celebrate the New York Times participation in a felony than it is to cover actual news.

  18. Dr Michio Kaku is the featured speaker at my daughters graduation this Saturday at High Point University. I hope he doesn’t get into Global Warming BS.

    • If Kaku spoke at my daughter’s graduation, I’d probably skip it. Can’t stand him.

      I’m sure most of his talk will be how important your daughter’s generation will be in saving the planet.

      Good luck.

      • But, but… the planet doesn’t need saving, Ric, as has been clearly explained by that preeminent Scientist and Philosopher, George Carlin.

        However, if the aim really is to control the climate for the benefit of future generations, I highly recommend we shoot for a tropical paradise for all with perhaps a few areas carved out for downhill and cross country skiing.

        I have no idea why anyone would want to prevent global warming. I, along with millions of others in colder climes, have spent multi-billions traveling to warm places. It seems to me that there’s a clue in there somewhere.

  19. We are just another species who have to compete against the rest to survive. .

    The difference is that we were given a better brain and thus were able to invent weapons to defend ourselves.

    Just as in the old “Wild West,”” the six shooter made a small man the equal against a big man.

    I recall reading that the early settlers in Tasmania , many of whom had arrived as convicts, would with a lot of hard work make a small farm with a few cattle.

    So along comes a aboriginal and he sees the cattle, i.e. its game., so he spears it. Result is the settler shoots the Aboriginal.

    Today we are told by the left wing what terrible people the early settlers were, yet that settler was simply trying to survive and to provide for his wife and children, just as occurs all of the time in Nature.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • “The difference is that we were given a better brain and thus were able to invent weapons to defend ourselves.”

      We evolved a better brain. We’ve just won the fittest competition, so far.

  20. PS to my previous, its calculated that today there are more registered persons who claim to be Aboriginals, i.e. lots and lots of benefits for them, even the
    white skinned ones, so they survived being shot at.

    Perhaps just like wolves,they got the message, “Keep away from humans, they are a dangerous species “” .

    In their case it was keep away from the whites and their possessions.

    Re. Hotshot, May 7 the. and the BBC. As in the UK every person with a TV has to be licensed, that means a lot of “” Shareholders” even if unwilling. So out of the millions of such shareholders, why no calling of a shareholders meeting, and if denied then contact their member of Parliament.

    I am sure that Teresa May can find time from her trying to stop BREXIT, to deal with such a simple matter.

    MJR VK5ELL

    • Michael

      …..why no calling of a shareholders meeting, and if denied then contact their member of Parliament.

      You imagine you’re the first person to think of this?

  21. I am perplexed…why aren’t companies, corporations, and other interested agencies and organizations fighting back against the very active DELIBERATE CLIMATE DISINFORMATION campaign by the MSM?

    Aside from the nontrivial loss of freedom, there are many $Trillions at stake. Why not produce an Ad campaign that shows the NOAA and IPCC data that shows that Hurricanes, Tornados, Droughts, Floods, Sea Level Rise, and Heat Waves are not getting worse. (Note: average Heat Waves are slightly longer in duration…not in frequency, but in line with the gradual warming in this Modern Warming Period).

    They could occasionally toss in climate facts…like California has had droughts lasting from several decades to centuries long within the last 2000-3000 years.

    Show how the recent National Climate Assessment was fraudulent by cherry picking start dates for the various climate trends.

    Sea ice is fluctuating…not disappearing.

    East Antarctica is gaining ice mass…more than West Antarctica is losing ice mass (and Western ice shelfs are above volcanoes!)

    Replay and recount all the failed climate tragedy predictions made by the Alarmists.

    Nobody is countering the lying and neverending propaganda coming out of the MSM that speaks these lies daily…over and over and over…and nobody is setting the record straight.

    The silence makes no sense. What is going on?

    • Doc, there is an agenda and we didn’t choose it.
      “I am perplexed…why aren’t companies, corporations, and other interested agencies and organizations fighting back”.
      Money. Our money. Quite apart from all the unwarranted carbon taxation collected by governments and distributed to their accomplice green troughers there is a much larger treasure trove about to be raided.
      There is an estimated $100trillion in insurance and pension funds in financial institutions throughout the western world and be assured, they will come after it. Carney, Bank of England Governor and his French counterpart have both “coincidentally” recently issued statements along the CAGW theme, stating that urgent action must be taken to avoid catastrophe. The big companies and corporations will be the immediate beneficiaries and little will filter back to shareholding funds. Yes, YOUR pension is going to be flushed down the greencrap toilet.

  22. James Taylor, eh? Well, he’s seen fire and he’s seen rain. He’s seen sunny days he thought would never end. Pretty well qualified to talk about weather, then … 😉

  23. “I am perplexed…why aren’t companies, corporations, and other interested agencies and organizations fighting back against the very active DELIBERATE CLIMATE DISINFORMATION campaign by the MSM?”

    Simple. Social media. If you dare to say there’s no catastrophe, the banshees of TWITter will come after you for being a planet-hating, racist, sexist, polluting… etc ad nauseum. Naturally the press will carry on the torches and pitchforks.

  24. From the press release: “the claim by the United Nations that human-caused climate change will lead to the extinction of one million animal species on earth”.

    The author of the press release misunderstood (or lies) since the most recent claim in the news this week was mostly about direct environmental impact and was described as a BIGGER and more urgent problem than even climate change! It’s not a new claim but put in some more final, concluding form.

    The silence is deafening by the way. It’s news that puts professional climate alarmists and skeptics both out of business or at least outside their comfort zones. Or a new alarm on top of the old one? As if people are not getting alarm weary. Then again, at least environmental impacts can actually be measured and has some logic to it, that changing the habitat of a species (insects, fish) on a large scale might cause actual problems, also to everyone relying on those species and whatever is depending on them.

  25. Looks like they changed their mind! Show was all about Trump’s investment losses over a 10 year period!

    • I noticed that. Isn’t it terrible? He lost a lot of money.

      Once I lost $130,000 because one of my main customers decided he could just avoid paying me, since I was a foreign company and couldn’t easily sue him, and he was losing money. When I told one of my employees that I’m obviously not good at business, he pointed out that I was able to lose $130,000 and walk away, so I must be fairly good!

      Same about Trump!

  26. About a year ago I made the mistake of watching one of his ‘astronomy’ shows – I thought what a bunch of BS.
    So just for the heck of it I went to Google and keyed in ‘Kaku stupid idiot’ – just as I thought there were many references to those key words.

    • WRAGGE: What are some of the theories behind this extreme weather, though?

      KAKU: One theory says it’s random, natural fluctuations in the weather. For example, we have something called El Nina in the Pacific around the equator, which is helping to divert cold air into the United States. And also the North Atlantic oscillations, air currents in the North Atlantic, which again is helping to pull down, pull down more cold air into North America.

      Wait, what? Did Dr Kukoo misspeak, or is he just another “climate expert”?

      WRAGGE: Is this the same weather pattern, though, that’s affecting us that’s affecting other regions around the world? You’ve had problems in Brazil with mud slides, Australia’s going through some weather issues now. Is this the same?

      KAKU: Similar. El Nina, cold weather around the equator, is contributing to what’s happening in Australia. And I was in Brazil just two weeks ago, where they had monster mud slides, killed hundreds of people because of flooding. Massive flooding. And it’s summertime now in Brazil.

      WRAGGE: In El Nina, what are the patterns here? Is it every couple of years?

      KAKU: Yeah, El Nina and the North Atlantic oscillations go back and forth every few years and they last a few months. And so we have both effects helping to bring down cold air from the north, while the Earth itself is heating up, creating more moisture in the Gulf of Mexico. And when the two meet, watch out.

  27. I listened to Dr. Kaku‘s radio program a couple of times but just could not tolerate it. Not only did I find his tone of voice and over simplistic word choice insulting but in his attempt to simplify the explanations given he made several outright mistakes. Nothing is worse than someone putting themselves forward as an expert and yet cannot get a simple straightforward explanation wrong. I was reminded of what one of my college professors told me. That you really did not understand something until you were able to explain it to a ten year old. Dr. Kaku demonstrated to me that with regards to several topics he did not actually understand it.

  28. I would love to see someone of Kaku’s caliber try and defend the climate models’ output against someone who knows how they are parameterized and subjectively tuned, and only compared to other models output for validation. Certainly Dr Kaku knows the models are indefensible from a science and scientific integrity stand-point, so he was in a hopelessly dangerous position I suspect. Dangerous from the stand-point of either having to compromise his own integrity, or to be honest and then incur the wrath of Left if he admitted on-air that the models are junk.

  29. Michio Kaku – an American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science (science communicator).

    Well that explains it. All sizzle, no steak. He’s obviously intelligent, but in no way and expert on the climate.

    • Pretty intelligent guy though. But wise, intelligent people acknowledge what they do not know and don’t try to BS people when their is major uncertainty. And the major uncertainty in CliSci of course is climate sensitivity to ∂CO2 that hasn’t improved in 40 years when it was first proposed in the Charney report.

Comments are closed.