"Totally coup, yo."

The BEAST 14 Most Heinous Climate Villains




Some of the bastards responsible for subverting public understanding of climate change


THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS PRETTY BASIC: humans dig up fossilized carbon to fuel power plants and internal combustion machines, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.  Result: greenhouse effect global heating. Around 50% of all the species on the planet are predicted to become extinct by 2100 in the CO2-as-usual model. Our own species will face drought, famine, rising tides, soaring temperatures, calamity and chaos. Hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Billions may die from starvation, genocide and war. We have precious little time to mitigate this looming global catastrophe.

Those of us still denying the depressing facts are either tragically stupid or profoundly corrupt or both. If there’s anyone alive to write the history of corporate funded climate science denial, the following list of 14 Heinous Climate Villains will, by the sheer magnitude of death their lies wrought, make the infamous dictatorial monsters of the 20th century seem like incompetent children. Enjoy!

Don Blankenship1) Don Blankenship, CEO Massey Energy

Misdeeds: According to the EPA, Massey’s mountaintop removal coal operation is filthier than a Tiger Woods text. When a West Virginia Circuit Court fined the energy giant $50 million, it wasn’t a problem for Blankenship, because he owns the West Virginia Supreme Court. A few years earlier, he’d polluted the airwaves with $3 million in accusations that an incumbent State Supreme Court justice released sexual deviants, so that his man Brent Benjamin could be elected. The Massey-friendly court promptly heard the case and reversed the lower court’s ruling. A few months later, Blankenship was caught partying in Monte Carlo with two bimbos and Ted Maynard, another sympathetic justice. Last summer, Don held a nightmarish pro-coal rally on a leveled mountaintop with fellow retards Sean Hannity and Ted “Suck my machine gun, Obama” Nugent.

Corporate teat: Massey Energy is the fourth largest coal company in the US.

Most egregious lie: “The Greeniacs are taking over the world.”

Comeuppance: The Greeniacs do take over the world, and use Blankenship to fertilize a rooftop garden.

2) George Will, Columnist

Misdeeds: The errors Will has committed to print over the years are both more numerous and irresponsible than his bow tie collection, for which he also feels no remorse. He claimed in a February 2009 Washington Post column that “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.” The Center responded: “We do not know where George Will is getting his information… global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979.”

Corporate teats: The Republican Party, a catchall for corporate polluters, his wife, rapacious swine in general, and anyone who cites Ronald Reagan to justify his massive carbon footprint.

Most egregious lie: “So the column accurately reported what the Center had reported.” Incredibly, the Post backed him up.

Comeuppance: Locked in a large freezer, strapped to a chair directly under a ten-foot icicle and made to write a column. The room’s climate is controlled by a computer program, which checks his column for scientific veracity. The temperature goes down when Will’s right and up when he’s wrong. He either freezes to death or the icicle falls and splits his head open. It’s up to him.

3) James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma

Misdeeds: Inhofe thinks that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind,” yet somehow served as the Chairman of  the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from ’03 to ’07. Once called Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton to testify as a key witness. Believes that “scientific consensus” on climate change is a conspiracy perpetrated by greedy scientists to score grant money.  Went to Copenhagen as the leader of the Climate Truth Squad, earning big laughs from overseas reporters.  Lifetime recipient of Twelve Dumbest Members of Congress award.

Corporate teats: Seven figures from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and anyone willing to pay for his “campaign expenses.”

Most egregious lie: “You know, God’s still up there. We’re now going through a cooling spell.”

Comeuppance: Locked in an outhouse and set on fire.

Steve Milloy4) Steve Milloy, Fake Scientist

Misdeeds: Founder of the aptly named junkscience.com and featured “junk science expert” on Fox News, Milloy believes science favoring tobacco or oil companies is “sound science,” and the peer-reviewed stuff coming from nerds in lab coats is “junk science.” Steve holds a Bachelor of Arts and a law degree; you almost have to admire his chutzpah.

Corporate teats: Fox News, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Phillip Morris, Exxon Mobil and Monsanto.

Most egregious lie: “It’s time for sound science and common sense to be heard.”

Comeuppance: Forced to smoke 100 petroleum-dipped cigarettes by his mommy.

5) Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Misdeeds: For the last 60 years, Singer’s pimped his PhD credentials to any and every industry in need of phony science. He’s slithered seamlessly from denying that smoking causes cancer to saying that DDT is harmless to “raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom’” of climate change. Glacier data he later attributed to his wife was denounced as “complete bullshit” by the Glacier Monitoring Service.

Corporate teats: Exxon Mobil, Shell, Sun Oil, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Petroleum Institute and the Heartland Institute.

Most egregious lie: “55% of glaciers have gained mass in the last 30 years.”

Comeuppance: While addressing yet another denier conference in 2012, the pressure created by an undetected tumor in Singer’s brain triggers an anomalous episode of schizophasia, causing his entire speech to spew forth as an incoherent word salad. Instead of the audience stopping Singer and urging him to seek the immediate medical attention he so obviously needs, they offer him a thunderous standing ovation and an invitation to speak again next year.

6) Myron Ebell,  Competitive Enterprise Institute

Misdeeds: As head of CEI, Myron admits using the money his organization solicited from the DDT, cigarette and coal industries to conduct intentionally biased research that suits their bullshit PR goals.

Corporate teats: Exxon Mobil, BP, Massey, Chevron and Southern.

Most egregious lie: “CO2 increases will lead to more plant growth and prosperity. Everyone will be more comfortable, including humans.”

Comeuppance: Forced to live in a Bedouin camp in the Arabian Desert to prepare for a warming world. The Chieftain assigns Ebell to be the wife of his favorite camel. The camel defiles him, kicks in his teeth, spits in his face and then seeks an annulment.

7) Patrick Michaels, Cato

Misdeeds: As a Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute and the Chief Editor of World Climate Report (an industry PR rag created by the evil coal trade group Western Fuels Association), Michaels is often touted as a climate expert in the mainstream media, though he has done no scientific research in 20 years. He lies about the wonders of “clean coal” so that the coal “families” can survive — you know, if black lung hasn’t killed them already.

Corporate teats: Cato, Western Fuels Association and the Kuwait Foundation for Advancement of Science.

Most egregious lie: “It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming.” (He apparently forgot about feedback loops.)

Comeuppance: Admits on hidden camera that there is no such thing as “clean coal” when we secretly replace his maid’s cleaning supplies with coal; contracts black lung disease.

Sallie Baliunas8) Sallie Baliunas,  George C. Marshall Institute

Misdeeds: As an astrophysicist and ruthless GOP housewife lookalike, Baliunas lends both credibility and aesthetic reassurance to the denier movement. Claimed in a 2003 paper that “The Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today.” (Actually, it’s hotter today than it’s been for 130,000 years.) Her article in Climate Research was so riddled with errors, and so subverted the peer review process, the editor and half of the journal’s editorial board resigned. This led to celebrity status in the denier world, where if research is published that makes top scientists throw up, it must be accurate.

Corporate teats: George C. Marshall Institute, Exxon, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Petroleum Institute and any far right group that needs a convention speaker who isn’t senile and doesn’t spit while talking.

Most egregious lie: “If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and more to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn’t be as much money to study it.”

Comeuppance: Made to “Wango Tango” with Ted Nugent for life.

9) Stephen McIntyre, Mathematician

Misdeeds: Despite having no training or field experience in climate science, McIntyre runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, whose mission is to use arcane statistical analyses to break the “hockey stick” reconstruction of historical climate patterns. He recently claimed victory over the Briffa tree ring data controversy, but failed to note that there are at least 15 studies that don’t need tree ring data to show the identical late 20th century hockey stick shape of rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

Corporate teats: McIntyre lives in tar sands besotted Canada as a “semiretired minerals consultant,” and served as President of Northwest Exploration Co Ltd before they became CGX Energy, Inc. His funding sources are hidden, since the Canadian government is legally somewhere between Texas and Saudi Arabia, and transparency is not required.

Most egregious lie: “I constructed a variation on the CRU data set, removing the 12 selected cores and replacing them with the 34 cores from the Schweingruber Yamal sample….”  The echo chamber goes wild, but neither they nor McIntyre himself have any idea what he’s talking about, since Climate Audit is all about masturbating to numbers. Even Briffa’s tree ring work was later vindicated by something McIntyre never considered: further scientific research.

Comeuppance: Sent to the Maldives, given cement shoes and used to mark the rising tide.

10) Marc Morano, Professional Douchebag

Misdeeds: Morano is possibly the most embarrassing wingnut in all of Denierdom—a dishonor earned as an Inhofe staffer and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show. Reporting for Cybercast News Service, he was the first source of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lies about John Kerry in 2004 and John Murtha in 2006. It’s no surprise that his blog (climatedepot.com) is primarily a vehicle for lies, smears and character assassination aimed at credible climate scientists.

Corporate teats: Oil and coal companies, usually laundered through think tanks such as Cato, CEI, etc.

Most egregious lie: “We can’t afford action against climate change. It would damage our economy.”

Comeuppance: Sent to terraform Mars—without sufficient tools, food or oxygen.

11) Professor Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville

Misdeeds: Professor Spencer is skeptical of widely accepted Paleoclimate data, like the kind provided by 800,000 year old ice cores, because he believes God created the earth and sculpted man out of clay approximately 6,000 years ago. Even you can do better, Alabama.

Corporate teats: Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Republican Party, numerous lobbying firms and NASA. (Really? This idiot works at NASA? We’re fucking doomed.)

Most egregious lie: Spencer coauthored a roundly debunked scientific paper with fellow denier John Christie that “proved” the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) was cooling, despite satellite data to the contrary. Spencer apologized for the error, but the incident added to his legendary status among deniers.

Comeuppance: The magical harp that Jesus gives him during the Rapture only plays “Wango Tango.”

Richard Lindzen12) Richard Lindzen, MIT

Misdeeds: The professor’s predilection for citing bad data to try to refute widely accepted climate science is a black eye for the state of Massachusetts and research institutes everywhere. Lindzen thinks global warming is basically a “political” issue, and yet has not provided compelling scientific evidence for his contrarian views. When not writing comedy for his peers or the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen plays keynote speaker for any loony tune denial fest that will have him. Claims that water vapor is the main cause of global warming.

Corporate teats: Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and the Annapolis Center, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil.

Most egregious lie: “Global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas.”

Comeuppance: Locked in a very hot sauna with a running automobile.

13) Bjørn Lomborg, Economist

Misdeeds: A serial liar, whose books have spawned a cottage industry for scientists who debunk them, Lomborg reluctantly admits that the earth is getting hotter, but insists that we’ll like the warmer weather. He has opinions about many scientific issues, but is trained only in economics and game theory. His love of numbers and arguments does not extend to facts.

Corporate teats: Denier conference speaking fees, book sales and Lord Monckton knows what else.

Most egregious lie: “The Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.” (Actually, this glacier lost 55 billion tons of ice from 2000 to 2006 alone, and loses several gigatons of ice annually.)

Comeuppance: Dropped into the Sahara to do penance among climate refugees. Lomborg’s Danish skin can’t take the sun, so he’s buried entirely in sand, save for a mouth hole. Incoherent shit streams continuously from the hole, so the natives assume it’s a latrine.

Lord Monckton14) Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley

Misdeeds: Admired by Glenn Beck. His Lordship’s hysterical condescension and anger flashes are classic examples of dangerous Royal inbreeding. Can be found at all the big denier fests, including Blankenship’s nightmarish blasted mountaintop jamboree. Habitually confabulates his autobiography and fabricates scientific facts. Monckton recently called a gathering of activists in Copenhagen “Hitler Youth.”

Corporate teats: Heartland Institute, SPPI and Frontiers of Freedom—all recipients of oil money.

Most egregious lie: “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Comeuppance: Climate refugees storm his castle in 2030 and pillage everything but Monckton’s prized medieval pear of anguish, which he cleverly hides up his own ass. Unable to remove the excruciating device by himself, The Lord checks into the hospital. The doctors are brave enough to do nothing.


CORRECTIONS: This article previously read that Stephen McIntyre lives in Alberta, and that the earth is hotter now than it has been for 400,000 years. McIntyre actually lives in Ontario, and the earth is hotter now than it has been for 130,000 years — give or take. This article was originally titled The 15 Most Heinous Climate Villains, and included Roger Pielke Jr., who was taken off the list, because Murphy’s an idiot. Pielke’s definitely a “Climate Villain,” but we think this fact deserves greater attention than just throwing him back on this list, which no one has read in a while. Seriously, we’re working on it.

Michael Roddy graduated with honors from Berkeley, and has written numerous magazine articles and Congressional testimonies on environmental and construction issues. He currently owns and operates a small hotel energy management company, with offices in Seattle, Napa, and Yucca Valley, California. Mike can be reached at mike.greenframe@gmail.com.

Illustrations by Ian Murphy

  • jennifer

    Stop all the finger pointing and complaining. Taxing people to death with phony “Off-Set” Carbon Taxes that will make Gore rich isn’t going to solve the issue either. Why don’t you smart Greenies just put your heads together and invent some sort of clean cheap energy? Then you will not have convince anyone. Just give people a real viable energy alternative!

  • Susan

    Anyone inclined to believe the automated response machine that is busy spreading the lie that investing in your beliefs is proof you don’t believe should take a look around them. Obviously those like Gore who are most effective in spreading the message are the most targeted in the “kill the messenger” effort. If you repeat a lie enough times, some people will believe it but it doesn’t make it true.

  • Susan

    By “look around them” I mean check out the proliferating changes in weather and extremes over time. There’s been lots of news of floods and drought, and while “global warming” sounds like it should not include more extremes in winter, that is not the case. One of the effects of global warming is an increase of snow in places like Antarctica.

  • Malachi

    Michael and Ian – great article (although I hope it’s not intended to take the place of the loathsome list). The Massey Energy President (not Blankenship, but Baxter Philips) actually spoke at my campus, in a campus-themed year that was focusing on sustainability! It just goes to show that whereas the American public tends to pay lip service to sustainability, we still bow down for corporate warlords who will blow the tops off of mountains simply because its the cheapest idea at the time. Like the loathsome list, I think a “you” entry should have been somewhere on the list.

    God, what tards in the comments section ahead of me. “Common! Just stop bitching and solve the energy crisis already!” Jesus.

  • Malachi

    Sorry, didn’t intend Susan in the ‘tard comment above.

  • Susan

    We need to stick to logic and leave the mud to others. Bear in mind that nature doesn’t care about politics and belief systems don’t trump reality. With each passing year the change in seasons, migrations, increase in sea level, global preponderance of warmer years and oceans, ocean acidification, etc. become more obvious. Eventually those in denial will have to try to live in gated communities where reality is not allowed. Good luck with that.

  • Devil Child

    We have precious little time to mitigate this looming global catastrophe.

    We don’t have any time to avert this catastrophe. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, anything we do now will only mean something long after the caps have melted. And don’t even get me started on how only a little CO2 will unleash enough CH4 (methane) into the atmosphere to make everything melt even faster than before.

    Hell, compared to the problems of over-irrigation and over-farming, CO2 is only the third biggest problem we face.

    However, a change must come, because no matter what, we’re running out of oil, and gas. With the right alternative sources, we can still ease our eventual suffering. You global warming denying assholes can still get in a line, and blow my enormous dong.

  • PeterW

    Isn’t Lomborg a Political Scientist?

  • Pingback: Heinous Climate Change Villians | Idiotprogrammer

  • Tarl

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
    receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

  • Tarl

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
    - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

  • Tarl

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA .
    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large
    number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

  • Tarl

    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

  • Tarl

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

  • Malachi

    Tarl, we could play matching quotes all day, buddy. But in the end, it’s just a waste of time – my side has more quotes and better quotes. I will point out that some of these people you mention, while very smart, are not climate scientists. Other mentions are misleading, such as when you mention 130+ peer reviewed papers, the implicit assumption is that these are 130+ peer reviewed papers casting doubt on climate change, but instead they are papers on other things. Check the Naomi Oreskes article which examines 928 articles in peer reviewed journals – 75% of these articles agree with the consensus view, 25% don’t weigh in on the political side of debate at all, and 0% – not a single one – contradicts the consensus view. If this is a conspiracy keeping these people silent, this is some serious Dan Brown shit right here (or maybe Michael Crichton).

    It’s amazing the intellectual gymnastics and flat-out dishonesty that occurs for skeptics to have to make their point. Is there a broad consensus? “Well . . . it must be manufactured.” “But there’s not really a consensus anyway, scientists are flocking away from the climate change position.” “But if there was a climate change consensus, it’s a conspiracy perpetrated by Gore – ZOMG!” Huh?!? You can’t make the “numbers don’t matter argument” and then show the strength of the denialist movement as proof of your argument.

    If I was one to believe in conspiracies, which would be the more believable conspiracy – that a bunch of nerdy scientists want to scare the world into buying carbon offsets or that the multinational corporations which profit mightily off our current way of life want to continue business as usual?

    Not that I’ve ever convinced anyone with this, but the simplest I can break it down is: 1) Does human activity produce carbon dioxide? Yes. 2) Has human activity produced (increasingly) more carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution? Yes. 3) Do we know the basic effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Yes. These three very basic questions, that the vast majority of scientists agree on – those that don’t are being obstructionists or just flat out lying. If you do agree, about the most that can be said is that maybe climate change isn’t a problem NOW, but if you agree in the mechanisms that can bring it about, it could be for the future. That’s about the highest level of uncertainty that exists about climate change – not WHAT or WHO (we know those), but WHEN and HOW BAD are still legitimate points of debate.

  • Tarl

    I’m sorry Malaci. You misunderstand my intent. I was just trying to point out that there is a lot more people out there who you folks can malign.
    And by the way I have a lot more quotes by people you would love to hate, if you want them.
    Listen Malaci, I’m just a working class joe. About a year and a half ago my very liberal college educated sister who I love very much told me that she was very afraid for the future of our planet due to global warming. Trying to ease her concern I said that I believed there were some people or scientist who were questioning the AGW theory. She said those are just a bunch of crackpots and whackos. Later that evening I was thinking about that conversation. I was thinking what do I really know about this whole issue. Not much. Just what I read in the paper and heard on the news. I’m not a scientist , nor do I have a college education. So I admit I not really going to understand all of the scientific mumbo jumbo, But I thought, I can go online and see if the people who are questioning the AGW theory are crackpots and whackos. So Malaci, what I learned is that there are a lot of credible people who have some doubts and questions. They are climate scientist, geologist, mathematicians and quite frankly some real intelligent people.. Basic common sense tells me that I now need to question those who told me that those who questioned them were crackpots and whackos. Do you follow. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just saying I don’t know and I’m feel that you don’t either.
    Happy New Year!!!!

  • Malachi

    Tarl, you seem like a nice guy and your heart is in the right place, but I really couldn’t find myself disagreeing more.

    Skepticism in science is a good thing, but at the moment, it’s being used by people with agendas to waste precious time. Science often adheres to something called the “precautionary principle” – namely if the potential harm of doing something (or in this case, doing nothing) is too great, then you shouldn’t need perfect scientific consensus to proceed. And the stakes are huge. At best, we’re talking about our current way of life altering dramatically in 50 years – i.e. our grandchildren having the same advantages that we have. At worst, we’re talking about climate refugees, mass extinctions, resource wars, and the end of human civilization. So quite frankly, even if you dig up a few impressive quotes, it doesn’t matter. The stakes are too high and the consensus is still so broad that not taking action is foolish.

    I’m sure there’s people with high IQs and advanced degrees that advocate all types of crap – phrenology, Scientology, flat-Earthism, Holocaust denial, or the return of Lord Cthulhu. But as long as they’re relatively small in number, I don’t feel the need to give them balance or equal time with the 99% of people opposing them. So again, I’m not impressed with a handful of smart people denying AGW.

    Happy New Year to you, too!

  • Tarl

    A handful. LOL, man that is one big hand. I get it brother, you are only looking for the thoughts that confirm your beliefs. We all need a religion and you have yours. Accept the things that reaffirm your beliefs and ignore whatever doesn’t fit in. In these days the truth is buried under various layers of crap. Maybe when you were growing up you heard the words of wisdom ” there are two sides to every story “. Basic common sense. It never hurts to listen.
    “At best, we’re talking about our current way of life altering dramatically in 50 years.” Really! In 50 years? I think your being a little dramatic. Okay, a lot dramatic.
    One question:
    If we shouldn’t be listening to people with high IQs and advanced degrees who question the AGW theory, why should we listen to climate scientist who promote it. Once again it sounds like a religion to me.
    Malachi, I’m only looking for the truth. Join me, it’ll be okay. It never hurts to listen to both sides and then form your own option.
    Science without debate is nothing more than propaganda.

  • http://theBoyWhoDeniedWolf.com richard pauli


    But we no longer debate other science issues like flat earth, or phlogiston, or plate tectonics or whether heliocentric orbits are the only answer. Some debates are settled. And some carbon fuel industries benefit highly from keeping a false debate going long after the science is settled.

    The risk is the same as that of a speeding car on a foggy night, there may not be danger ahead, but the risk is so great that it is wise to slow down.
    But now we KNOW there is big danger ahead, we just have not hit it fully. And some people insist that we should be running full speed ahead.

    Be very careful about joining with such irresponsible voices.

    Nice article and Great set of comments here…

  • Thomas

    I would believe scientists who make arguments against the theory of global warming if it wasn’t for the most greedy of assholes on the planet being on their side.

    Anyhow, I hope this list isn’t going to replace the 50 most loathesome list. It was edu-taining, none the less, but for shit’s sake, since the Sopranos have been canceled the 50 most loathesome list is all I have to look forward to each year. If you guys need money, I’ll donate a buck!

  • Timothy Chase

    Tarl quote-mines like a young earth creationist, “Warming fears are the ‘worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.’ – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.”

    His PhD is in industrial chemistry, he has not published anything regarding climate change in any peer-reviewed journal, and he didn’t say that…

    Kiminori Itoh

    Look’s like you are getting this stuff from Inhofe’s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report — and the following may be of interest…

  • Timothy Chase

    More on Inhofe’s alleged list of 650 scientists
    Category: Global Warming
    Posted on: December 17, 2008 1:18 PM, by Tim Lambert

  • DeNihilist

    Actually, rrmmm, Steve McIntyre lives in Toronto. And he did work on the last IPCC report, and eerrmmm, he does not “deny” global warming.
    He just wants the science to be right and transparent, you know, eerrmmm, sorta like the way its supposed to be.
    OK, back to your shouting misinformation now,……. eerrmmmm…….

  • Tarl

    No offense guys, but you people just keep beating the same drum.
    Denialist, skeptics, flatearthers.
    Let’s try to find some middle ground we can all agree on. 1) Climate change is happening. The world is getting warmer. Can we all agree on this. I don’t think there is anybody out there worth listening to who would disagree with this. 2) We should always be looking be looking for newer and cleaner and more efficient technologies. I don’t think there is anybody out there worth listening to who would disagree with this.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    As a mother who nursed 3 babies, I object to this article for repeatedly and tediously slandering teats.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Oh, and Tarl? I highly recommend this video: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-cant-fish-and-not-have-hope.html
    It’s beautifully filmed and makes demonstrates the process of ocean acidification.
    I think as far as political debate goes, it’s time to stop quibbling over temperature and models, and to take a hard look at the unequivocal physical impacts of burning fossil and biofuels.
    One is ocean acidification, which is ultimately going to impede the growth of calcium-based shellfish, which will certainly cause a collapse in the food chain. Barely mentioned in the narration of that video is the fact that we get most of the oxygen we breathe from life in the sea. Are you listening Tarl?
    The other is the impact of toxic emissions on humans and terrestrial vegetation. We have known for years beyond any doubt that lethal compounds from burning coal and gasoline cause ozone, which gives people cancer, emphysema, and asthma. The same poisons kill trees and cause foliar damage to any form of plant that has to photosynthesize and produce chlorophyll. There is no question about this, or that exposure to acid rain and ozone reduces immunities to insects, fungi and disease.

    There is however a huge layer of obfuscation originating in the government, who wants to avoid widespread panicked hoarding, and the petrochemical industry, whose preferred response is to spray, spray, spray oil-based fertilizers and pesticides. Eventually this approach will fail, and massive crop failure with attendant hunger will result. In fact it’s already happening.

    Would you like to say goodbye to apples, cherries, pears, pecans, and grapes? How about melons, beans, peas and tomatos? What of wheat and soy and corn – food for producing pork, beef and chicken?

    If not, we need to stop completely rethink our habit of shunting our air pollution to another place and time, to be dealt with by somebody else. That somebody else is us, here and now.

  • Tarl

    Wit’sEnd. You’re right, that was a beautiful film. Loved it. And we all know that beautiful films are complete factual truth. I’ve had a problem with questioning things people tell me. But that’s over with. I am converted. I didn’t know we were on the brink of massive crop failure. I’m a chef and I need all of those items to make a living.
    I wonder why we are still turning corn into ethanol. Whoops, there I go questioning again. Old habits are hard to break. Sorry. I’ll do better I promise. I have a new religion and climate scientist and movie stars are my prophets. Thank you for the enlightenment.
    Hey, I read that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. And I think the EPA just declared greenhouse gasses as dangerous. Let’s get rid of all water. We have no time to discuss it, come on guys we must move quickly. We don’t want future generations to have to deal with this problem. That would be bad. No more steamed vegetables in my kitchen. It’s probably all ready to late, but we have to try. Hey, let’s make a beautiful film. That’ll convince everybody. And if anybody disagrees with us we’ll just call them: Water mongers or how about just waterers. maybe something more sinister sounding. Help me out here folks. And let’s not forget we can still call them flat-earthers.

  • some island

    Tari, I suggest you go to Climate Depot or Wattsupwiththat, where they’ll pay attention to your bullshit.
    DeNihilist, McIntyre’s roots are in Alberta, where he spent most of his professional life touting mining company stocks for companies that love to tear up wildnerness. He was not an IPCC author, merely a commentator, like anybody can be- I did more than he did, through my work on carbon impacts of forestry. Mc has no scientific credentials and loves to pretend like he does. All he does is try to belittle climate scientists and the IPCC process. He earned his place on this list.

  • Tarl

    Can I be on the list too.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Sorry, Tarl. You are far too insignificant and seriously overplay when you attempt the snark. What part of that movie do you dispute? CO2 + H2O = carbonic acid? Or do you dispute that humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fuel? Or do you dispute that the ocean is absorbing it? Or do you dispute that carbonic acid dissolves calcium-based shells? Or do you dispute that the bottom of the food chain in the ocean is mainly composed of pteropods with calcium-based shells? I mean, just what part of that exactly do you take exception to – and what part constitutes a religion?

  • DeNihilist

    EEErrmmm, hmmmm, yes your right, Spencer and Christie should be hanged, I mean they actually put their data out with their results, so that
    eerrmm, others could quantify it. HHmmm, then when notified of their mistake, my God, they actually admitted it and changed their results.
    Damnation to those that actually follow the scientific process!

    Don’t they know that in climate science, YOU NEVER release needed data??!!!

    OH and eerrrmmm, a person’s belief, whether it follows yours or not is not a reason to err, ehh, decide that his contributions are null.
    Sorry, REAL science doesn’t work that way.

  • DeNihilist

    UUHHH, V.I., ohh you mean the industry, that eerrrmmm, produces the needed material so that you can have a computer, so that you can, eehhuumm, get on the internet?
    Yes, yes, mining is bad, so let us return to our caves and watch whilst billions die.
    If you want to be taken seriously, try to get your background info right. M.I. is a recognized statistician. UUMMM, he has been published in the peer reviewed literature
    that seems to be so important. And, eermm, hmmm, if you look at Manns’ latest hockey stick, eerrmmm, the MWP and LIA are starting to make an appearance.
    Now why is that? Oh yeah, some mining hack, er, helped Prof. Mann to realize that he had fallen off the scientific way. Oh I know, Prof. Mann says that the MWP was mostly NH,
    but you have to admit, that he has finally “seen” it. His work is now more relevant, think he would have gotten there if it wasn’t for M&M?
    Science people! Science does not stop, it evolves all the time. the moment it stops it is dead! Nasa has found that the CO2 is not well mixed with the trop. They claim that is rather lumpy.
    Knorr, claims that the CO2 sinks are not yet being overwhelmed. But don’t take this as “showing” there is not Warming. Just that nature is still surprising us with the abuse it can handle.
    If you are not willing to look at the “other” side, which of course in science no such thing exists, then yes you are following a quasi religion. Science is a blood sport, we put our theories out there,
    then watch them being attacked from all and sundry. If it survives, we build upon it. The moment YOU refuse to look at another scientists argument is the moment you stop being scientific.

    To all – drop your emotion and use what little critical thinking you have devoloped so far and find factual reasons to back up your ideas. Shouting about personalities and hoping harm on others
    is just so childish. We have enough of this childish behaviour in this debate. Remember what mom use to say, “if you have nothing good to say about someone, then say nothing”.
    You think mom was trying to impart some knowledge? EErrmmm, …….

  • DeNihilist

    Why isn’t Einstien on this list?
    Eerrmmm, wasn’t he just a lowly patent office hack, who believed in God?

    Dig up his remains and desecrate them!

    • admin

      “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Einstein

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Why do deniers repeat the lie that Einstien (Einstien?) was ever a “lowly patent office hack”? It’s so easy to find the Patent Office section in Wiki:

    “After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post, but a former classmate’s father helped him secure a job in Bern, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.[27] He evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein’s position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he “fully mastered machine technology”.[28]
    Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time.[29]
    With friends he met in Bern, Einstein formed a weekly discussion club on science and philosophy, which he jokingly named “The Olympia Academy.” Their readings included Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, who influenced Einstein’s scientific and philosophical outlook. The next year, Einstein published a paper in the prestigious Annalen der Physik on the capillary forces of a straw.[30]”

    Could it be because then, Joe the Plumber and Sarah-I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house would become suddenly, magically experts in their chosen fields, health-care or foreign policy?

    But I’m mortified. I totally forgot about the Einstien canard here, so negligent, so sloppy! http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/12/i-have-arrived.html

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    I apologize for another post but having mentioned SarahCaribou, I have to share this, cause I just heard it over at the ImmoralMinority, and it’s hysterically funny (as is WaitWaitDon’tTellMe, usually):

  • DeNihilist

    wit’send – who says I am a “denier”? I happen to firmly see that most evidence points towards CO2 warming of our system. Notice I did not say believe?
    Belief is for religion, critical thinking is what supports science. Why does the author have to adopt an anti-abortion like stance, and put out a “most wanted list”?
    If the author has a scientific mind, then the most wanted list would be about contrary theories and proofs that show their weaknesses. But no, it is much easier
    to let emotion reign and try to rally the troops on a basic cult of personnality attack style. This author purports to support science, but yet shows instead a grave
    anti-science stand. There have been many so called leaders in our past history who have used this style of controlling minds when they themselves cannot argue
    from a purely dis-passionate viewpoint, so start to rally the troops with personnal attacks against their supposed adversaries. This to me shows a weak critical
    thinking mind and a weak personallity, in that they cannot stand to see their views knocked in any way. Childish, not childlike.

    Lindzen has a theory out there about the iris effect. More work is being done on it by other scientists, some trying to prove, others to show falsity.
    Spencer was asked to give an update on his work at the AGU convention last month. Again, some scientist find his work has possibilities, others do not.
    But I do not hear one of them attack him personally.

    The dogma of this quasi religion must be stopped here, before some madman takes up a gun and kills one of the scientists. And this could happen from either side.
    Death threats are being received on both sides now. Do you understand?

    If you have any critical thinking ability at all you must follow the science where ever it leads you and accept the outcomes, with one caveat, these outcomes
    could change again as better data is processed.

    Case in point, Dr Svalgaard, who feels that natural variation is the main culprit, has followed his data, and in his opinion has stated that the sun has
    very little effect on the global climate change. Thus knocking a huge pillar out of the “denialists” platform. Yet he still published his results

    Spencer has has problems with Svensmark GCR work, yet this would tie in well with his own theories. You getting my drift yet?
    Science is not about belief, or those other guys are the devil so lets kill them. It is about the science!

    It would be nice if authors who write articles like this wouldn’t!

    But when you have nothing of real importance to add to the debate, and a narcisstic need for attention, then of course garbage like this gets
    put out there.

    (and yes I know that I have mentioned only a few names, so what?)

  • Tom in Texas

    Michael Roddy graduated with honors from Berkeley…

    Art, Sociology, or xyz Studies?

    I’d bet my Food Stamps it wasn’t Science or Engineering.

    (Actually, it’s hotter today than it’s been for 400,000 years.)

    You guys need to take your meds. Delusional.

  • bobbyb

    denihilist: im glad someone told you to drop all the eeerrrmms and ehherms, that was tired.

  • Dufus


    I find it interesting to see how Terl, started by saying that we should actually maintain the standards of open-ness and the scientific method to the debate, and he ends up getting reemed for saying that.

    He makes some very valid points and maintains of humility that we all ought to consider maintaining on the matter. I honestly don’t know whether or not there is global warming that is fully attributable to man’s increased CO2 emissions. It makes some sense, but 8th grade science tells us that experimentation is worthless if you don’t maintain one variable and one control. Our understanding of our ecosystem likely doesn’t begin to understand even all the variables much less the exponential complexity their interactions introduce to models and experimentation.

    I think our energy would be much better spent on taking a more rational and humble approach that Terl seems to be suggesting that us hoi polloi take rather than panicking and finger pointing.

    It is quite possible we are responsible for global warming assuming all the models are correct. How old is satellite imagery? What do we have to compare these images too? 50 – 60 years out of billions?? Scientists are supposed to challenge theories. If we start smearing scientists and lumping them into one of two heaps in some binary bitpit of good and evil we are in big trouble. That is what fascist/socialist systems do. No doubt some scientists have bias based on their sources of funding – public or private; or their preferred outcome; political affiliations; etc. That doesn’t mean they all do. If your first instinct is to smear one side or the either you are being emotional, not rational. Maybe we all ought to do more of what Terl is suggesting and continue to question and be open to allowing the scientific community to challenge theories. That doesn’t mean that we have to wait to enact change. Our fate is in our hands not some small number of humans we call scientists; unless we choose to put it in their hands.

    We do know that we have a serious crisis looming with the decline of liquid fossil fuels. So, we do need to conserve our energy supplies. It makes sense for a lot of reasons I can’t and shouldn’t need to get into here. After all, everyone here besides me and Terl are advanced scientists. One obvious one I will mention is that a sole or significant partial cause of global warming we can help abate by changing our behavior which we need to do anyway in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that we have reached peak oil or will within a few short years.

    I can’t stand this fucktarded narrative of right/left; red/blue; dem/repub; mainstream/denier that even kindergarteners are too smart to buy into until they start going to school and learn how to lose their self-confidence and stop thinking for themselves. Anyone dumb enough to get suckered into this game of never-ending fear should do themselves a favor and just stop. Don’t do anything or say anything more until you stop being afraid.

    Back to my point. Let’s put our energy into conservation and constructive and easy solutions that require not even using any energy; human; fossil-fuel based … I am not a rightist or a leftist. One of my challenges to the folks who claim to be leftists who are all here is this – put your energy into things you can control and that are for more easily proven empirically to be effective and to combatting non-solutions that are severe wastes of our dwindling financial and natural resources. Here is a good list to start with:

    1. Do you support the notion of carbon trading and offsets? That is the biggest and most obvious scam of buying off guilt without changing behavior and gifting more money onto our criminal banking cartel that we have yet devised. STOP! This deserves more outcry than any so-called denier scientists who should and will be easily debunked by their peers if they are wrong. Channel your energy into stopping this scam before you scream and worry anymore about any global warming deniers. Call out privileged elites like Vinod Khosla for shamelessly promoting these scams so they can go on polluting and profiting from their carbon futures exchanges. Find out, have they invested in this venture to profit just as you do scientists who get grant money from petro companies… Find out and give these assholes their comeuppance of at least not making this a political issue. Let them invent their exchanges if they want. If they need public subsidies to make them economically viable from the outset, aside from the fact that they don’t reduce carbon emissions, they are certainly another scam of rich financial elites.

    2. Did you oppose the bailout of the Detroit auto industry? STOP! You are an idiot. You should have let all of the gas-guzzling; debt inducing auto co. managers get fired by the bond holders and allowed interesting entrepreneurs to come in and buy those companies at pennies on the dollar. Maybe someone who is interested in building affordable 80 mile a gallon cars for a mass market would have ended up w/ the capital and infrastructure to go and start today. They would not have to compete with government subsidized behemoths looking to hawk their excess inventories of gas guzzlers to people looking to upgrade from the dump-mobile to the Denali with printed US Treasury notes. Thus they might have a better chance to succeed on a level competitive playing field. Their product would be of even more environmental benefit than hybrid cars

    3. Did you support cash for clunkers? STOP! The most environmentally destructive human activity is building a new automobile. The lunacy and moronic stupidity of this program is too grand to fully elaborate on here. Besides, quintuple threat advanced-scientist/beast-blogger/actor/model/singers need no explanations. So, I won’t insult your intelligence by even beginning an explanation.

    4. Do you spend more time blogging about deniers and advocating for things like carbon credits than working within your community of friends and family to figure out how to conserve energy and lower your carbon footprint? In short are you using most or all of your energy to force the world to change so you don’t have to? STOP! You know what to start doing differently.

    5. Do you believe we are going to run electric cars and have a green economy? STOP! Where is the energy going to come from? Windmills? Wrong. And if so, in what time frame? Not nearly enough of that energy source. It will come from power plants burning coal or natural gas and those using nuclear fission in greater amounts for a long time to come.

    6. Do you believe we are going to have hydrogen economy in 20, even 30 or 50 years? STOP! Go learn about a basic concept called energy returned on energy invested and start confronting idiot politicians like Arnold Schwarzennegar wasting bankrupt states moneys and misinforming the public on boondoggles like the hydrogen economy. With a net energy loss of 50% it likely isn’t ever going to materialize.

    I could go on, but you get the point. I’ll leave it up to Michael Reddy to invent some comeuppance for you, and himself, if any of these apply. If anyone unleashes any more invective on me or Terl, they get an automatic nomination for the Southpark: Biggest Douchebag in the Universe for 2010. Just kidding. Say what you want – hopefully it is coming from a place of reason whose motivation is to increase understanding, increase self-empowerment and assume personal responsibility and promote well-reasoned interactions within a community.

  • Dufus

    A correction on my bullet point number 2. I meant to say: “Did you support the bailout of the auto industry?”

    That is what happens when you trust an idiot like me to a keyboard and the english language with no grammar or spell check, and a bad habit of not proof-reading tomes. Dufus is an accurate moniker.

  • mike roddy

    Tom in Texas:

    You think that my statement that it’s warmer than it’s been for 400,000 years is “delusional”? Sounds like you believe the Old Testament and
    not the paleoclimate record.
    One could make the case that the proxy record is too unreliable to confirm that it’s warmer than during the last Interglacial of 130,000 years
    ago, but no serious scientist disputes that it’s warmer now than since that period. Excuse me, maybe scientists in Texas do. You may bite on
    the MWP bullshit, too (see the Baliunas post above).
    Obviously you haven’t read the scientific literature. Start with IPCC IV, then go to Six Degrees, RealClimate, or source data from Hadley CRU,
    NOAA, and NASA. It’s getting warmer, fast. CO2 is higher than it’s been for 2 million years, possibly 15 million years. See the introduction:
    it’s a greenhouse gas.

  • DeNihilist

    Mike, beg to differ about the 400k comment. some ice cores say different.


    As Prof. Mann now seems to be stating, things can be regional. You know, maybe the NH responds to climate with more variation then the other hemispheres.
    Maybe it is time to drop this idea of one reading of the whole globe.

    And mike, what does it matter if Tom believes in the old testament? That has nothing to do with the climate. Try to stick to the facts and leave your emotions at the door eh?

  • mike roddy

    DeNihilist: Actually, it was Mann’s opponents, like Baliunas, including most of the 15 above, who kept talking about what was a truly
    local phenomenon: the Medieval Warming Period. Global proxy records show that the MWP is not close to the average high temps
    we are experiencing now.
    The Antarctica Vostok ice cores would point to 130,000 years ago as as high or higher than today’s temps, but there are other proxies: seabed
    and lake sediments, and even stalagmites. Antarctica is about the only part of the globe that is not rapidly warming, otherwise we
    would be more comfortable about the 400k number everywhere.
    Most of the deniers on my list actually know this. The just want to make money, and don’t care about much else.

  • DeNihilist

    Mike, kinda funny the line about money, as this is quite often quoted from the skeptic side.
    Question for you – if I oppose your scienitific hypothesis, am I your opponent, or am I a person with an opposing view?
    Do you feel that you have to destroy me or my view?

  • Tom in Texas

    Mike, thanks for your reply (#42).

    Using NOAA data, an eye opening video was constructed that should trash your delusional belief in Mann’s hockey stick:


    For the record:

    (1) I don’t believe in any of the testaments, old, new, or otherwise. (Do you really believe that anyone that is not an alarmist is a creationist?).

    (2) I am not now, or have ever been in the employ of Big Oil, nor do I own any Exxon stock. In fact, in the early 70′s I was a partner in Applied Solar Engineering, Inc. Solar wasn’t cost effective then, and it still isn’t today.

    (3) As for “Obviously you haven’t read the scientific literature…”
    I would say that I suspect you, with an unspecified honors degree, have never read 1 (one) scientific paper. My BS in Aerospace Engineering (cousin to Mechanical) and MS in Solar Engineering has enabled me to not only read, but understand technical papers. A recent favorite is Menne, et al (2008) NOAA adjustment (waterboarding) of raw temperature data.

  • mike roddy

    DeNihilist, I don’t see what you found so personal in my latest comment. I don’t even know who you are, and certainly have no interest
    in destroying you. I’m just trying to get to the facts.
    Tom in Texas, Wattsupwiththat is a total joke among actual scientists, particularly climate scientists. It’s one of the places that the
    15 listed above can actually find an audience. We’ve got something in common: In the late 70′s, I ran manufacturing for one of the
    largest solar companies in the West at the time, Alten Solar. And I agree that it wasn’t, and isn’t, competitive in a true market.
    I of course was just needling you with the Old Testament reference. It constantly amazes me that people don’t investigate the original
    scientific papers on climate change. Until you do, there’s no sense having an opinion. Or, you may want to read Six Degrees, IPCC IV,
    Hell and High Water, or The Discovery of Global Warming.
    I’ve read them all and others, and published in the field of carbon science: http://www.tinyurl.com/ycxfsqu, http://www.tinyurl.com/yc8ncuq.
    I don’t claim to be a scientist, but have published in engineering magazines, too. If I were a scientist I wouldn’t write for
    The Beast, since scientists are much more cautious and less outspoken than I am.

  • mike roddy

    Tom in Texas: Forgot to recommend Realclimate’s hey ya! (Mal) post from a few months ago, which goes into the whole
    Mann hockey stick/tree ring/proxy/Mcintyre controversy in detail. McIntyre ends up with a total faceplant.
    RealClimate is run by top practicing climate scientists. It’s a good blog to learn the hard science on; try their search button
    for past topics, too. Climate Progress is also excellent, run by a PhD physicist who has a good grasp of the subject.

  • Tarl

    To Dufus : Thanks for understanding my point.. Always nice to encounter a rational person.
    To Wit’send : My last two comments were sarcastic and to you and I apologize. As to your questions.
    What part of that movie do you dispute? CO2 + H2O = carbonic acid? Or do you dispute that humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fuel? Or do you dispute that the ocean is absorbing it? Or do you dispute that carbonic acid dissolves calcium-based shells? Or do you dispute that the bottom of the food chain in the ocean is mainly composed of pteropods with calcium-based shells?
    I don’t dispute any of these things. Because I admit I don’t know. But I promise you I will watch your movie again objectively. I will also attempt to learn more about these issues. You have giving me questions to learn the answers to. Thank you and I mean that sincerely.
    To Richard Pauli : I’m not sure which culture first started the Flat-earth belief. But I think it was a very long time ago. I believe it was a belief ( theory ) that lasted for well over 1500 years.
    The phlogiston theory was started in 1667. I believe it was pretty much abolished in the late 1700′s by Antoine Lavoisier. It’s life span was a little over a hundred years.
    Plate tectonics came out in 1912 and but was really nailed down in the 1960′s. Geosyncline theory was developed in the mid 1800′s and the same nail shut the case on this I believe.
    Now I have a question. And please understand it is simply a question. No sarcasm intended. if the theory of AGW is a settled science. Would if be correct to say that AGW went from theory to fact in a fairly short amount of time.
    To Timothy Chase : You read my posts and came to the conclusion that I sound like a young earth creationist? Really? Well Timothy I’ve come to some conclusions about you.
    A) You’re ability to take in information and come to a rational conclusion is severely flawed.
    B) This is simply character assassination meant to stop all debate and discussion.
    Which is what this article is all about.
    To some island : I took your advice and went to Climate depot. Climate Depot is a project of CFACT. Here is the mission statement of CFACT.
    At the heart of CFACT, our goal is to “enhance the fruitfulness of the earth and all of its inhabitants”. CFACT accomplishes this through four main strategies:
    1)Prospering Lives. CFACT works to help people find better ways to provide for food, water, energy and other essential human services.
    2)Promoting Progress. CFACT advocates the use of safe, affordable technologies and the pursuit of economic policies that reduce pollution and waste, and maximize the use of resources.
    3)Protecting the Earth. CFACT helps protect the earth through wise stewardship of the land and its wildlife.
    4)Education. CFACT educates various sectors of the public about important facts and practical solutions regarding environmental concerns.
    Is this bad? Should I avoid this site?
    I have a site for you guys. I suspect you already know about it. http://climatedebatedaily.com/
    Taken from information at the bottom of their website:

    “Climate Debate Daily is intended to deepen our understanding of disputes over climate change and the human contribution to it. The site links to scientific articles, news stories, economic studies, polemics, historical articles, PR releases, editorials, feature commentaries, and blog entries. The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of signficant anthropogenic global warming. The right-hand column includes material skeptical of the IPCC position and the notion that anthropogenic global warming represents a genuine threat to humanity.

    Many sites on the Internet, including some of those listed at the far left of the page, take firm views for or against the threat of anthropogenic global warming. As a matter of editorial policy, Climate Debate Daily maintains a studied neutrality, allowing each side to present its most powerful and persuasive case. Our object is to allow readers to form their own judgments based on the best available information.”
    Now before some of you start screaming at me about how evil this site is for daring to put up both sides of the argument, save your time. I’ve already read on other sites how much you hate this site and the very thought of simple minded folks like me having access to this kind of material.

  • http://ownid.blogspot.com/ Proper Gander

    Just wanted to say, you guys who aren’t letting the denialists get away with repeating the same stale lies are my heroes! Keep up the pressure, they think they can crapflood the issue off of the table.

    Might through Megabytes!

  • Pigliquor

    I think guys forgot Alex Cockburn.

  • danny bloom

    good post. may i wrote about polar cities for BuffBeast? who to send story to?

  • DeNihilist


    The question was rhetorical.

    What you have posted here is akin to saying that those on the contrary side of this “heated” debate are the Jews of the 21st century!
    You have not gone after their theories or “memes”, but have instead decided to put out a wanted dead or alive poster. This is what has been done throughout history by
    those that want to create a common enemy so as to have power over others.

    “first they came for the invalids, I did not protest, as I was not invalid. Next they came for the Jews, I did not protest for I was not a Jew. etc.”

    Sorry, not gonna not protest. The unfortunate thing with this style of attack, is that you and I are probably siiting on the same side of the fence, with
    me being closer to it. But I will not attack the other person, whether a creationist, a loud mouth buffoon, or a mouth piece for big oil. In our
    world, as it stands, we are allowed to have oppossing views without the threat of personnal harm. If you truly feel that AGW is a reality, attack
    the science, or the meme, or the utter bullshit, but respect the right of a fellow human to their opinion, whether you judge it right or wrong!

    Clear enough?

  • Johnny Lucid

    Really f***ing childish.

  • mike roddy

    DeNihilist, most of those on this list of 15 don’t even have opinions. They are whores, paid by fossil fuel industries to lie so that
    they can spew more CO2 into the air for a while longer, keeping the money flowing for a few more decades. The consequence
    of this is a global holocaust of death and destruction. It’s similar to someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater: the rules for
    courteous dialogue do not apply. They are going to get their message out anyway, because the coal, oil, and financial industries
    bully the media, but someone needs to call them on it. It’s our best chance of moving the public to do something serious, since
    those on this list and their friends have succeeded in bullshitting many of the people. Less so in other countries, though, such
    as Brazil and Switzerland, where about 85% of the people accept climate science.

  • DeNihilist

    Yes Mike, the end justifies the mean. Keep on attacking the “whores”.

    Have a nice life. Hope you someday figure it out.

  • Malachi

    It took 53 posts for someone to invoke Godwin’s Law. I am impressed – I thought it would be long before now.

    Seriously, we need to stop feeding the f’n trolls.

  • Sam

    Wow, Mike Roddy needs to get out more. He just reads from the cue card all the Warmist talking points. Incredible. He goes on and says “I don’t claim to be a scientist.” That fact is very apparent from the garbage you’ve written here.

    And blowing smoke at RealClimate as a site run by “real” scientists? Was that a poor attempt at humor? These “real” scientists are at the heart of the fraud perpetrated by CRU. Michael Mann very likely will soon be moving from Penn State to State Pen. I can’t wait.

  • Bill P.


    From my point-of-view, your statement that, “The consequence of this is a global holocaust of death and destruction.” is the money-quote that is akin to ‘yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater’.

    How can you not understand that it is the folks who believe we MUST do something NOW to stop ‘warming’ that may or may not be a permanent trend when we really just don’t know yet? I’m always a little skeptical of knee-jerk reactionaries – of any stripe.

  • http://theBoyWhoDeniedWolf.com richard pauli

    Hey Bill, does that kind of dangerous behavior include something like driving a car fast in the fog at night? After all, you don’t KNOW there is a car in front of you. It is all about risk analysis. You are asking us to risk our future because you are somehow unsure.

    Over 2 million people have seen the YouTube video of “Whats the worst than can happen?”

    You might enjoy it because it respects your view of the situation.

  • Way Smarter than You

    Dumbest article ever, followed by even dumber comments. Simply put, I will give one million American dollars to anyone who can prove that CO2 causes global warming, smoking causes cancer or AIDS is caused by HIV. I’m not talking about loose or manipulated statistical correlations, I’m talking about predictable and repeatable causal mechanisms.

    The reason I can confidently make this offer, is because numerous organizations already offer this prize and have for years. Yet none of these things have been proven. And they don’t need to be. Instead the people who stand to gain from these hoaxes write brainless articles like this, with simpleton “explanations” of science far beyond YOUR comprehension knowing that mental midgets like most of the people here will buy it hook line and sinker. So they don’t even need to care about scientific truth or diligence. And this is why, should you choose to actually learn something for yourself, you will find NO SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS, despite the fact that most of you believe them to be gospel. And make no mistake, the reason you believe them is because you are stupid and/or ignorant. That is precisely why they chose to play you this way, and why it has worked so well. Read some of the comments here and there’s no denying it. I’m sorry that in this PC world nobody has done you the favor of alerting you to this reality, but it will make your life easier if you know and accept this truth. For that you are all welcome.

    Global Warming is a total fraud. It is a completely fails every scientific criteria for being a valid theory. As CO2 continued to rise this year, temperatures were the coldest in decades globally. The only thing clouding this fact is the revelation that that the worlds “leading climatologists” were fudging data and much of the real data was purged. Yet all of you dolts who tout “the science” act as if this is is something easily glossed over, when in fact IT IS THE WHOLE THEORY AND ALL THE SUPPORTING “DATA”. Gloss this over and there’s nothing left. Except of course your religious faith and your gripping fear of accepting how thoroughly you’ve been duped. But day by day, crushing blow by crushing blow, those who continue to cling to this garbage non-science become a bigger and bigger joke.

    Or maybe not. After all, what do renowned MIT Ph.Ds like Lindzen REALLY know? I’m sure all you dipsticks would take him to school for real huh…?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a joke you all are!!!!

  • Way Smarter than You

    Mike Roddy has no evidence for his claims that these people are paid by the fossil fuel industry. He cannot and will not produce a single shred of proof to back his assertions save for some web link to some site with that says the same thing which itself has no real evidence.

    This is the same reason he parrots completely false “scientific” assertions like “it’s warmer than it’s been for 400,000 years” which he also takes on faith, even after the people who produced this statement have been dismissed, suspended or have resigned for knowingly fudging temperature data then hiding it. Mike, what data have YOU collected? What is YOUR knowledge of physics, thermodynamics, temperature measurement, etc? Probably zilch. Yet you parrot insults at highly credible and accomplished people just because they don’t share the same religious beliefs in Global Warming that you do.

    So Congratulations, you are Osama Bin Laden. And unlike you I don’t say that based on nothing. Like Bin Laden, you are insulting people, and would see them punished over their refusal to accept your faith based beliefs that you have never independently verified. Here’s hoping you meet the same end as him. The world will be saved when we get rid of people like you, no matter how much oil we burn doing it…

  • mike roddy

    These later comments prove my point, since many of you appear to have swallowed the bullshit.. Realclimate is not run by climate scientists?
    Are you shitting me? Have you looked at their credentials? For evidence of fossil fuel funding of deniers, read a book called Climate Coverup.
    It’s public knowledge. Lindzen and some of the other heroes on my list also got paid to say tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. This is the level of
    people we’re dealing with. I’m confident that, as in the New York Times, these commenters don’t reflect the esteemed readership of The Beast.

    Those who like to throw out crap about volcanoes, Al Gore etc. need to read books on the subject, such as those by Romm, Lynas, and Weart.
    As for now being the warmest period in 400,000 years, it may have been warmer in the last interglacial 130,000 years ago, so I’ll stick to that
    figure. Not the Medieval Warming Period (see Baliunas’ section above).

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Mike Roddy, I think there is a network out there of deniers who keep tabs on articles like yours so the trolls can pile on. I’ve noticed the same sorts of comments on climate change reports posted at other blatantly liberal publications, where it’s hard to believe such ignoramuses would normally be reading, because if they did their heads would explode..or they might learn something. So I think they prowl around, give each other links, and then stop by just long enough to write something really stupid, repetitive, and full of grammatical errors. A drive-by shooting as it were, not reflective of your regular followers.

  • Bill P.

    End of Wit,

    Or… maybe it just shows that some of us HAVE read-up on both sides of an issue and STILL have a different opinion than you have.

  • Bill P.


    I saw that video months ago and it’s just BS because the worst-case scenario of doing nothing cannot be proven – it’s just speculation – not fact.

  • rusty

    My Heroes! They refuse to be assimulated! Fight the Climate Change Borg at all costs!

  • Jibeel Riley

    Why am I’m not on this list? If the Chinese can live with the carcinogens so can we in Buffalo!

  • Michael Daly

    So, a man without a scientific degree pontificates about the inadequacies of both scientists and other non-scientists. And why should we believe him ?

  • ABP

    The Precautionary Principle is NOT part of science, it is instead a key part of the dogma of environmentalism. It places far too much credence in personal belief systems and then proclaims that all those with ideas to the contrary must prove a negative–which is, of course, a fallacy.

    The entire climate issue has become the crowning achievement of this misguided principle.

  • http://NOconsensus.org Donna Laframboise

    I worked as as a Canadian print journalist for a decade and have been through my share of lawyer-ing before articles could be published without putting us at risk of libel lawsuits.

    I have to say, some of the remarks in the above article, as well as some of comments authored by Mr. Roddy take my breath away.

    “They are whores, paid by fossil fuel industries to lie…” Do you have documented proof of this for each of the 15 people on the list? Do you folks (here I’m including the publishers of this website) have any concept of what libel is or just how serious the consequences can be? Unbelievable.

    Donna Laframboise

  • mike roddy

    Donna, libel laws are tougher in Canada and the UK. And yes, the money from oil and coal companies to the spokespeople on this list has been
    well documented. I suggest that you read a book called Climate Coverup, written by a Canadian named James Hoggan.

  • Tarl

    Wit’sEnd: So you’ll know how myself and others ended up on this site, I’ll explain it to you. There is no network and it is a very simple process.
    I was reading an article about one of the people in this article. While reading the comments in the first article, I noticed that someone had posted a link to this article. Their comment said something along the lines of ” Go to this link to get the real dirt on this scumbag. ” Being the kind of person who likes likes to read an opposing view I thought I should check it out. ( I would like to point out here that this line of thinking is not reflective of the regular followers of Mike Roddy.” ) So that’s how I and I’m sure others ended up on the site. So of course I now have some questions and observations.
    1) In a short statement could you please explain what you mean when you call someone a denier?
    2) What is a troll. Would it be fair to say that the person who posted a link to this site and the comment ” Go to this link to get the real dirt on this scumbag. ” is a troll.
    3) About your statement: I’ve noticed the same sorts of comments on climate change reports posted at other blatantly liberal publications, where it’s hard to believe such ignoramuses would normally be reading, because if they did their heads would explode..or they might learn something.
    A) First of all I didn’t realize this was a blatantly liberal publication. I, know, I can be a little naive. Just so you know I am a registered independent. My liberal family and friends think I tend to be conservative. My conservative family and friends feel I’m more on the liberal side. Obviously my head didn’t explode while I was reading this article. ( Do you really believe that could happen. Wouldn’t we read about this in the news.)
    B) I like it that you used the word ignoramuses. I haven’t heard this word used in quite a while. It makes me laugh. I don’t know why.
    C) But a couple of questions I have are. Am I allowed to be here. Am I allowed to read other blatantly liberal publications. Do you really only want people who agree with you and have no opposing views to be the only ones who read these articles and post comments. Wouldn’t that just be you all sitting around and patting each other on the back. How is that going to promote discussion and learning and understanding.As far as listening to opposing ideas. How in the world would that hurt you. I’ll give you some advice. don’t be a scared little bunny rabbit. Reading something or listening to an opinion you don’t agree with won’t hurt you. It will give you perspective.
    Oh and here is something I’ve learned. You regular followers are extremely repetitive in your bashing of people who just suggest you may not be completely right. And a second piece of advice. Don’t be a follower.

  • Lupine

    Nice drawings…now if you were to put the same amount of effort into studying the facts maybe you might start drawing nice snow filled pictures of the UK and then again maybe even the rest of the planet at that. I just hope you stay out of my lectures. BTW we could all do a lot more with the money spent on your misguided education, like yet another grant.

  • Choey

    You seem to be very good at name calling. Now, how about a little evidence to back up your “beliefs”..

  • David Cooke

    What do I have to do to make your list?

  • http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com Joe Noory

    This has the stench of the ‘false consciousness” arguments I remember as a young man. Having also lifed in the German Democratic Republic, I know exactly what this sort of social demonization ultimately leads to.

  • Shoshin

    AGW is all about $$$$. It ceased being a topic of serious science years ago and became the Piltdown Man scam of the 2000′s.

    Al Gore, IPCC chief Panchauri and a host of others stand to make BILLIONS$$$$ by promoting this scam. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, someone need to tell me what one is.

    If someone, anyone has any evidence that CO2 is anything other than a minor bit player, please post it.

    Pictures of glaciers melting is not evidence of man made CO2 heating the atmosphere.

    Old wives tales of polar bears drowning is not evidence.

    Computer models are not evidence.

    Tree ring measurments from have been discredited.

    Ice cores from Antarctica show no evidence.

    Someone post something real, evidentiary, measurable and testable otherwise I’m left to conclude that AGW is a religious delusion.

  • Malachi

    I’m willing to make a bet with all of you deniers, as “Way Smarter” suggests in comment #61. But not for a million dollars, that’s just fucking stupid – I don’t have a million dollars and you don’t either. And even if it was a more modest amount, I somehow doubt that I’d collect any money from an anonymous internet wager.

    Instead, all I want is for one of you sophist asses (and I don’t mean sophism in the ancient Greek sense) to apologize when you’re wrong – whether it’s five years from now, ten years from now, or twenty. And if in 5, 10, or 20 years, global warming is revealed to be a hoax like Piltdown Man or Global cooling, then I’ll eat my words and send an apology for being a tool of the IPCC/Gore/trees, etc.. That’s it.

    I’ve traded literally hundreds of posts with deniers and none have ever budged an inch and neither have I. So little exchanges like this are futile during a time that it’s profitable to obfuscate the issue. But I have the feeling that over time, when AGW becomes too obvious to deny, most of you will either quietly change your tune and say you either accepted AGW the whole time or were waiting for more evidence to come out. Bullshit. Man up and admit you’re wrong if you’re wrong; I will certainly do so, if I’m wrong.

    So here’s my email address: downinarizonabay at gmail dot com. I’ve set up this email address specifically for this purpose, but I intend to hold onto it for years. Send me an email so that I can add you to my address book. Hell, set up a new gmail or yahoo account if you are worried about me spamming you. I am not interested in continuing these exchanges via email, because we will still get nowhere (well, possibly with Tarl). But you’ll be hearing from me in 5, 10, or 20 years, either with a “told you so!” or an apology.

    I’m done with this comment board. It’s too depressing to read – if I’m right, and you all represent the American population, then you’re the reason we’re fucking doomed.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Shoshin, who says tree ring “measurments from have been discredited” (sic and sic) and begs for something real:

    Here’s evidence for you. The tree ring measurements from the last few decades were discarded from the proxy temperature analysis because they didn’t show the extra growth expected from a warming climate. The researchers, as far as I can tell, didn’t explore WHY this might be, but they knew it was anomalous, and so they employed the statistical “trick” of “hiding the decline” (in tree ring growth, not temperature). I suspect they didn’t take the time or make the effort to examine WHY the tree rings weren’t increasing in size because 1. They (specifically Briffa) aren’t botanists and 2. the tree ring data is only one minor part in the reconstruction of past average global temperature.

    Now, here’s what I personally have learned and can add to this specific portion of the debate:

    Some of the very same greenhouse gases that are causing an increase in average temperature that result from burning fossil and biofuels also happen to be hideously toxic to vegetation, and THAT is why the trees did not grow faster. In fact, all over the world, trees are dying at an exponentially accelerating rate from poisonous vapors in the atmosphere, the result of burning coal and petroleum products.

    Think of it this way: The earth is a closed system, much like a garage with the door shut. Inside, a car engine is running. Just as a human sitting in that car will gradually become drowsy, then slip into unconsciousness, followed by a coma, and ultimately die, so are our plants dying from ozone, and acid rain.

    This is an empirical fact, not a model, or a prediction. Very few notice, but it is nonetheless true. As the cumulative damage from greenhouse gas pollutants is massacring the trees, it is also going to cause massive crop failure, resulting in famine. And famine leads to terrible violent conflicts.

    So, Shoshin and all you other deniers, go outside and examine the trees and shrubs. Try to find any that are healthy. And then ask yourself, what are you going to do when you go to the grocery store and the shelves are empty?

  • Tarl

    Wit’sEnd: Listen dear, seriously and sincerely maybe you should take a break from this subject. Sometimes we get caught up in a issue and actually think about it too much. I grew up on a ranch that has been in our family for 4 generations and there is no change in the stands of forest on our land. I’m also a avid gardener and honey, I have many healthy trees and shrubs. Rather you are right or wrong or something in between, I promise you things are not as dire as you seem to believe.I suggest you get in touch with family or friends who can help you get a healthier perspective on life. Good luck to you, I hope you find a happier place.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Tarl, darling, I do appreciate your concern. It’s just adorable!

    Feel free to contact me when you and your family are hungry. If I can’t help you with access to food, maybe I can help you all through the agonizing process of realization – we live on a finite planet, and endless growth just isn’t sustainable.


  • Tarl

    LOL. Okay Wit’sEnd. You say: “Some of the very same greenhouse gases that are causing an increase in average temperature that result from burning fossil and biofuels also happen to be hideously toxic to vegetation. In fact, all over the world, trees are dying at an exponentially accelerating rate from poisonous vapors in the atmosphere, the result of burning coal and petroleum products. So are our plants dying from ozone, and acid rain. As the cumulative damage from greenhouse gas pollutants is massacring the trees, it is also going to cause massive crop failure, resulting in famine.”This is a theory. Then you say: “go outside and examine the trees and shrubs. Try to find any that are healthy.” This you feel is a way to test your theory. Okay. I went outside and found healthy trees and shrubs. So your theory is wrong. Now you go back and reexamine your theory. That’s how science works.
    And don’t worry about my family. Whatever happens we’ll survive. We’ll do as we have always done. We’ll raise and grow our own food. And we won’t be scared!!!!
    I suggest you check the soil you are growing your trees and shrubs in. And jesus christ, lighten up a little bit.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Tarl, where are you located?

    I will meet you anywhere within reason and together we we will determine that trees are in irreversible, terminal decline. I will convince you without any doubt. And it’s thanks to toxic atmospheric gases.

    Let me know!

  • Bill P.

    End of wit, #80,

    Wow, just wow… The sky is falling – run for your lives!

    Fella, I live on 60 acres of mostly wooded land in central Missouri and, I’ve got to tell you, it’s nearly a full time job keeping the brush beat back.
    Do you live in the city somewhere? I mean, we’ve got Kansas City a little over a hundred miles to the west and St. Louis a hundred and some miles to the east. The worst problem I ever have to deal with air-wise is the pig farmer a half a mile away (gawd that stinks!). Anyway, I think the trees are doing fine. If you want to see a REAL disaster, go to southeast Missouri and look at the TENS OF THOUSANDS of trees that were blown over by the wind after a sustained period of rain. Talk about a natural disaster!

  • Pingback: Slattsnews » Ignorance is strength . . . cold is warm

  • dude

    those who don’t have a substantial argument will resort to ridicule with lists such as these, for example. they will claim the debate is over and ignore and ridicule anyone with evidence to the contrary, even when it is meant to be constructive and observational only. this is pretty immature and sadly blindfolded to see whatever suits the author.

    in the “corrections” comment, the author states that this is the warmest period in 400,000 years… when in fact, it was warmer just 1,000 years ago…. during the medieval warm period.

    i recommend visiting the NOAA website on ice core samples which record global temperatures going back 500,000 years. as you will see, it was warmer 1,000 years ago, 2,000 and 4,000 years ago, than it is today… it was also much warmer during the holocene period… facts are stubborn things.

    sorry to burst your bubble.
    stop being a hater.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Bill P., here is just one of many studies indicating that trees are toast: http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/01/study-climate-change-means-greater-risk.html Your anecdote about Missouri simply proves the point. The trees are stressed and more vulnerable to adverse weather, which is also getting more extreme because greenhouse gases are adding heat to the system.
    In general, I would say deniers are actually closer to reality than most people, whom I call the Ignorers.
    Seriously, if you really don’t think there is a problem with tossing millions of tons of emissions into the atmosphere, then why would you pay any attention to the “global warming scam”? Why read a single article or take the time to post a comment? Somewhere you must have an inkling that there is an inconvenient truth in the theory, or surely you have something better to do with your time.

    If you’re worried about paying taxes you’d be better off complaining about the bank bailouts and the Iraq war and the so-called war on drugs, which does nothing other than fill expensive prisons and fund an army of drug lords.

  • Tarl

    Wit’sEnd: Your statement,
    ” If you’re worried about paying taxes you’d be better off complaining about the bank bailouts and the Iraq war and the so-called war on drugs, which does nothing other than fill expensive prisons and fund an army of drug lords.” Exactly!!!
    What does man caused Global Warming, The Bank Bailouts, The Iraq War and The so-called War on Drugs have in common? Anybody? I’m not going to give the answer. I’m sure most of you know it. And it is exactly why we should be asking questions. I know in the new decade Congress will still be using this method to shove things down our throat, but I am hopeful that the voters in this country will begin wake up and say we are not going to be motivated by FEAR.
    I’m not worried about paying taxes. I’m concerned about how my taxes are being spent. They are my taxes. As soon as I feel Congress is as concerned as I am, then I will be less concerned.
    PS: Thanks for the offer to educate me. But I’m sure if my wife found out I was giving out personal info to strangers on the internet, Global warming and crop failure would be the least of my problems.
    PSS: I looked at your website, holy crap. I think a better name would be clearinghouseoffear.com.
    Bye, I gotta go watch Congress craft the healthcare bill on CSPAN. Just joking.

  • Bill P.

    End of Wit #87,

    Okay, I checked your article – you’re kidding me, right? You sent me to read an article that was written ABOUT a study that purports to explain what will happen IF global-warming comes to pass – to the degree that some think it could! THAT was evidence of nothing. It’s just a horror-story. I don’t go see horror-movies and I don’t listen to, or tell horror stories. We have enough real-world problems in the here-and-now.

    And by the way, my ‘anecdotal’ account here in Missouri is not evidence of global-warming. We’d had several days of steady rain, then sustained winds of about 70 MPH, neither of which is unheard of. I would expect that, from your point of view, ANY environmental fact would be stretched or squashed to fit the ‘global warming’ paradigm – but then, one of your comrades, Malachi, did say, “I’ve traded literally hundreds of posts with deniers and none have ever budged an inch and NEITHER have I.”

    It’s funny how the liberals’ answer to any problem is the massive spending of other people’s money, forced by government. I don’t care that you have an opinion or belief that I don’t share, I’m just REAL tired of being told I must pay for it – I barely get by as it is. And by the way, I was against all the bail-out cash. It’s ridiculous to bail out companies that are run by millionaires who don’t have to pay a price for their mistakes. But then, government bureaucrats and politicians never seem to pay a price either. Color me: SICK OF GOVERNMENT ANSWERS.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Here’s the problem. Congress isn’t saying there is global warming – SCIENTISTS are. They are the experts. If you doctor told you that you had terminal cancer would you take the chemotherapy or would you just keep shopping around until some quack told you to try homeopathy?

    EVERY major scientific institution, academy, and organization, US and international, agrees burning fossil fuels unchecked will lead to an unlivable climate. A whole lot of good your tax money will do you and your children in an unlivable climate.

  • Tarl

    Here’s the problem. Some Scientist are. And some scientist are saying wait a second we have some issues with your research. And now we know that the first Scientist have said in emails, isn’t it a tragedy that our models aren’t reflecting REALITY. Hello!!! let’s all stay in and base our decision on reality.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    No, Tarl, that’s a distortion of the facts. ALL major science organizations and academies agree, and only a very few ideologically motivated or industry-owned individuals dissent. See this letter to the US Senate, endorsed by the following:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Meteorological Society
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of America
    Ecological Society of America
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

    here’s the link to the letter: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

    which says, among other things:

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”


    “For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”


    “If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

    Can you come up with a list of scientific organizations that are saying, wait a minute, one email from one climate scientists is taken out of context and that negates the decades of studies by thousands of other scientists?

    I thought not.

  • Bill P.

    I’m through – we’re dealing with outright propaganda here. ‘End of Wit’ literally breathes this stuff – sniffs it up like a cocaine addict. He can’t be reasoned with and leaves no room for disagreement. Some of us might wonder how it is that every ill in the world has become the fault of ‘global warming’ or, we might wonder how, in a world that ranges from some 60° below zero to 120° or so above that there would be no creature or situation that might benefit from this ‘global warming’, but apparently there isn’t – for we NEVER hear of it. Did you ever wonder why?

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Of course you’re through, Bill P. You have no list. Not even one reputable scientific organization that thinks climate chaos (shall we call it?) isn’t real.

    Here’s why no creature will benefit – there’s this thing called evolution. We have ice-core data going back 800,000 years which shows the levels of CO2 ranged from 180 and 280 ppm until now, we’re at 385 and climbing fast. In the past the fastest that levels increased was 30 ppm over 1,000 years – a rate that we have achieved in just the last 17 years! Guess what? The species that have evolved can’t keep up with the rapid rate of change to the climate that this increase in greenhouse gases has already started, and it’s going to get much, much worse because CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 1,000 years, and much of it has gone into the ocean, which is becoming saturated.

    Of course if you think the earth is only 7,000 years old I guess none of this will resonate.

    Here’s a measure of how astute Bill P. is, who scathingly refers to me as the “End of Wit.” Even though he could easily – if he had any serious interest in the research – click onto my blog and find links to real science, he obviously hasn’t even bothered to read and thinks I’m a guy – last time I checked, I had all the female working parts.

    So long, Bill P. It was nice being insulted by ya!

  • Bill P.

    Sorry, I didn’t know you were a female. I guess that explains at least some of the lack of logic and the hysteria.
    Now I’m finished. Flame away!


  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Oh so Bill P, I guess you’re a sexist MCP as well…what a surprise…

  • Bill P.

    Sexist? If you like – emotional overload is not exactly a ‘male’ thing but you and the ‘metrosexuals’ go ahead.
    Oh yeah, you want lists?… Here…

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Bill, sorry, that list is a laughingstock. I asked for a list of internationally recognized SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS like the US National Academy of Science. Or even, not a list, JUST ONE.

    Not some bogus list of “scientists” most of whom aren’t even climate scientists, or PhD’s for that matter.

  • http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com Tenney Naumer

    Bill P. refers us to Monckton, an upper class witless twit, if there ever was one.

    What is up with the Buffalo Beast saying that Pielke, Jr., is an all right guy (wrt climate science) — have they all gone brain dead?

    Next they’ll be publishing articles by Patrick Michaels.

  • http://rabett.blogspot.com Eli Rabett

    Well, it sure looks like the Climate McCarthy’s won here. Think what you like about Roger Pielke, Mike Roddy and Eli don’t think much of him, and Roger thinks the world of himself, the attacks by Schellenberger and Nordhaus and Roger’s whining, sure are the best McCartheyite work seen in a long time.

    The editors here blew it

  • Tarl

    Just thought I’d share some headline so you folks won’t feel so alone.
    I thought you all would really like the last one.

    1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

    1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

    1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

    1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune1923 -

    “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

    1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

    1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

    1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

    1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

    1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

    1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

    1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

    1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

    1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

  • Tarl

    Here’s more.

    1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

    1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

    2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

  • Bill P.

    “The sky is falling, run for your lives!” – is what ‘activists’ use to stampede the cattle.

  • BeastFan

    Wait, are we getting this instead of a Loathsome List for 2009? Don’t get me wrong, this list was awesome but I was sooo looking forward to Glenn Beck being mocked this year.

  • http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com Tenney Naumer

    If any entity practices Climate McCarthyism it is the Breakthrough Institute, but it seems the Buffalo Beast editors were too lazy to actually read the garbage posted on the Breakthrough Institute’s blog.

    Roger Pielke, Jr., is a known climate obfuscator.

    BB editors would know that too if they looked into it.

    Kowtowing to a right-wing quasi-think tank purporting to be a legitimate climate science organizaiton is pathetic behavior on the Beast’s part.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    I’m confused. What are the editors at BB afraid of, exactly? Pielke Whining? Lordy, lordy, lordy.

    I’m still waiting for Bill P to come up with any scientific body that doesn’t endorse the theory of AGW, and advise that humans curtail greenhouse gas emissions. I guess he’s gone and taken his incoherent mumblings elsewhere, as promised. But Tarll? Where in all your research have you found a list of genuine, independent scientific organizations that even question AGW?

  • http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com Tenney Naumer

    This apology really makes me puke!

    “Roger Pielke Jr., who is actually a cool dude. Our sincerest apologies to him and the Breakthrough Institute for our evil act of “Climate McCarthyism.” ”

    The Breakthrough Institute is evil, not this article!

    Down here in Brazil there is an expression for subtle devious undermining — suave veneno — soft poison.

    That is Roger’s tactic — appear to be a reasonable good guy with questions, when in reality he is working to undermine the public’s belief in the urgent need to act to save this planet from burning and us with it.

    Thank you, Roger! NOT!

  • Keith

    On the 14 heinous most heinous villians of the Global Warming Hoax.
    I thought for sure you would include AL Gore(Man-Bear-Pig) and Maurice Strong(Global Warming Profiteer and One World Government Visionary).
    Afterall, Wouldn’t they have profitted much more had “Climate Gate” not occurred?
    It is my understanding that the Global Warming Temperatures have changed it’s direction and the earth is actually getting cooler.
    In Tampa, FL we have just set new record lows for a week in a row.
    I am very skeptical, comtemptuous of the motives behind those that are looking to simply push this issue for profitting(Cap and Trade in the USA).
    I am assuming Michael Roddy is the owner of this website.
    I find it very interesting that the author of this site has to launch personal attacks on people to attempt to push his Global Warming views.
    I understand why the owner of this site is so Pro-Global Warming Hoax.
    He or She is trying to profit from the hoax in the business of a “hotel energy management company”.
    This explains everything this Clown stands for, the only Global Warming going on around here is the Hot Air the author of this web page is pushing.
    Good luck in profitting from your spousing of the fear of Global Warming.
    I still think it is nothing but a hoax and a means to control the people of the USA to fall in to a One World Government and it ‘s Monetary System and Policy.
    Soon only the elite like Maurice Strong and Al Gore will be able to drive cars while the little people get to become enslaved to our one world government.
    Michael Roddy did you ever think about that. I did not think so, Michael Roddy you have a lot to learn.
    I personally think you are full of shit and you ought to go pound sand.

  • Keith

    On the 14 heinous most heinous villians of the Global Warming Hoax.
    I thought for sure you would include AL Gore(Man-Bear-Pig) and Maurice Strong(Global Warming Profiteer and One World Government Visionary).
    Afterall, Wouldn’t they have profitted much more had “Climate Gate” not occurred?
    It is my understanding that the Global Warming Temperatures have changed it’s direction and the earth is actually getting cooler.
    In Tampa, FL we have just set new record lows for a week in a row.
    I am very skeptical, comtemptuous of the motives behind those that are looking to simply push this issue for profitting(Cap and Trade in the USA).
    I am assuming Michael Roddy is the owner of this website.
    I find it very interesting that the author of this site has to launch personal attacks on people to attempt to push his Global Warming views.
    I understand why the owner of this site is so Pro-Global Warming Hoax.
    He or She is trying to profit from the hoax in the business of a “hotel energy management company”.
    This explains everything this Clown stands for, the only Global Warming going on around here is the Hot Air the author of this web page is pushing.
    Good luck in profitting from your spousing of the fear of Global Warming.
    I still think it is nothing but a hoax and a means to control the people of the USA to fall in to a One World Government and it ‘s Monetary System and Policy.
    Soon only the elite like Maurice Strong and Al Gore will be able to drive cars while the little people get to become enslaved to our one world government.
    Michael Roddy did you ever think about that. I did not think so, Michael Roddy you have a lot to learn.
    I personally think you are full of shit and you ought to go pound sand.
    Good Luck AH!

  • BeastFan

    Keith, you clearly have problems–you’re a drunk : P

    Take off the tinfoil hat and learn about real science.

  • Tarl

    LOL. Really you folks are not discussing real science.

  • Tarl

    Here is an example of the real science you folks are buying into.


  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Nice try Tarl, but it’s another molehill morphed into a mountain by desperate deniers:


    I suggest you read the whole thing, including comments, because it’s a much more accurate description of the issue. The take-away point is, one error from over 10 years ago repeated in the IPCC review, out of the masses of data and research about climate change, does not even slightly threaten the overwhelming consensus.

    A measure of how sensationalized this article is can be found in this sentence: “A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.”

    There are so many current impacts all over the world of rising average temperatures that the the date by which the Himalayan glaciers disappear hardly constitutes a “central claim” of the IPCC report.

    A very telling sentence in your citation is key: “Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.” Perhaps? Of course, mistakes are made in science, and the key error here appears to be scientists relying on published records based on an erroneous report, rather than original peer-reviewed research. The important thing to note is that such mistakes (which are rare) are publicly corrected BY SCIENTISTS when they are discovered. Where’s the conspiracy there, Tarl?

  • Tarl

    Wit’sEnd. You need to look down. Your wheels are coming off.

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Tarl, your tendency to rely on personal invective and inability to compose a response with substance betrays your ignorance. For a serious discussion of the IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers, try reading: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/18/science-ipcc-melting-ice-himalayan-glaciers-2035-sea-level-rise/

  • Tarl

    Are you insinuating that I should tolerate such insignificant pieces of. ingenuity.

  • Tarl

    Okay I’ve tried to compose a response with substance. It’s in the form of a story.
    The other day as I was arriving at work I noticed a young man standing near where I normally park. Not really paying attention to him I parked and got out of my car. As I was walking across the lot he started to move towards me. Glancing at him I noticed he was disheveled
    and had a wild look on his face. My first thought was ” what the hell does he want “. He walked rapidly up to me, got right in my face and started repeating over and over ” I’m a wigwam, I’m a teepee, I’m a wigwam, I’m a teepee, I’m a wigwam, I’m a teepee ‘.
    Well this was quite unnerving. ” What did you do ” you ask. After what seemed a very long time , but I’m sure was only a minute, I decided I had to take some action. So I grab him by the shoulders, looked him right in the eye and said in a very firm tone. ” Relax man your just two tents”.

  • Sam the Salt

    You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh! You people have been really taken in. The people pushing the AGW / Climate Change scam are not scientists, in the proper meaning of the word, and the whole sorry nonsense is finally unravelling fast – not least thanks to a few of the people listed above, esp Steve Macintyre. He and the others who have painstakingly chipped away at the Warmist hysteria for years, with the help of several blogs where *proper* scientists squeezed out by the CRU/IPCC cabal have been able to pool their ideas and resources, are due a huge vote of thanks. I’ve been following all this in minute detail for over two years years now, and believe me, it’s sweet to see the truth come out at last – and the mainstream media are finally getting with it.

    The Nobel Prize-winning pack of lies which is the IPCC’s AR4 is finally being exposed for the fiction it is:

    WUWT has had several articles and threads over the last couple of days on the unravelling of AR4, and the comments (many by bona fide scientists) are revelatory. You’ve been suckered, but you’d better now stop trying to sucker other ignoramuses – the game is up.

  • BeastFan

    Way to go Sam, it gets more and more difficult each day to support pseudoscience but you’ve found a way: cite junk science from websites with no credibility and where lying is the standard (seriously? wattsupwiththat.com? how pathetic….).

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Sam, and anyone else that is confused about the saga of the Himalaya glacier melt, that accusation is completely debunked here: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/

  • http://www.witsendnj.blogspot.com Wit’sEnd

    Tarl, two words.

    Vacuous plagiarism.

  • Matthew

    I would like RUDD our EMPLOYEE to stop spending our money on global warming as we are still developing our great nation and would be left in the dust
    1)We wouldn’t even see a significant difference to the climate even after spending $billions of TAX PAYERS DOLLARS
    2)The manufacturing and transport of mandated products like insulation and solar etc. produce huge short term pollution and wasn’t even added in to the IPCC calculator
    3)The ETS Would make the average Australia’s cost of just living $1100 a year more which we don,t have
    4) Copenhagen was a complete waste of time and cost $1.8 MILLION just to send the party over there
    5)As our manufacturing costs go up due to the ETS more Australian jobs will go overseas and the co2 levels would still be produced but in someone else’s back yard like China.
    etc. etc. etc.

  • Good Bloke

    Can someone please tell me what that ‘wits end’ creature is snorting.Gotta have some . I also, would like to get away from reality.WitsEnd, you are really funny when you’re high .I like you.

  • Tarl

    I don’t know what she’s snorting. But it’s had a severe effect on her sense of humor. If you want a good laugh go and check out her blog.

  • richard pauli
  • Archives

  • Warning: require_once(all_images/config.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /nfs/c09/h03/mnt/134940/domains/buffalobeast.com/html/wp-content/themes/Beast/footer.php on line 28

    Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'all_images/config.php' (include_path='.:/usr/local/php-5.3.29/share/pear') in /nfs/c09/h03/mnt/134940/domains/buffalobeast.com/html/wp-content/themes/Beast/footer.php on line 28