RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Abrams writes: "The only thing that matched the degree of extreme weather we saw this past winter was the extreme amount of climate denial that arose in response."

Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/J. Scott Applewhite/Tomas Rebro/AP/Shutterstock)
Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/J. Scott Applewhite/Tomas Rebro/AP/Shutterstock)

Climate Buffoons' Real Motives: 5 Reasons They Still Spout Debunked Garbage

By Lindsay Abrams, Salon

06 March 14

From greed to idiocy, here's the true agenda of deniers who still claim climate change isn't happening

alifornia's record-breaking drought. Britain's record-breaking floods. Australia's unprecedented heat wave. And the polar vortex, times three. The only thing that matched the degree of extreme weather we saw this past winter was the extreme amount of climate denial that arose in response.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, and nearly all scientists, believe that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Yet some very loud, very wrong people continue to insist otherwise. The drought and the floods have both become excuses to debate whether climate change was responsible, and from there, to question the legitimacy of climate science. The heat wave Down Under was ignored in favor of the United States' chilly weather - and yet, per Rush Limbaugh, the polar vortex itself was a "hoax" created by the left. In the wise words of Pat Robertson, it's "idiocy" to believe in global warming because it's cold outside. In the even wiser (?) words of Donald Trump:

So what gives? Obviously, a great deal. But a few recurring themes that cropped up over this winter's most aggressive denials may give us some idea of what's going on in deniers' heads.

Theory 1: They don't understand science

The most simplistic of climate deniers are those who looked out their windows this winter, saw that it was snowing, and reasoned that global warming therefore can't be real. This speaks to a basic confusion of the difference between weather and climate. (If you'd like a much more thorough debunking of weather-based climate change denial, read this.)

It's also a classic example of confirmation bias: Deniers get giddy when it snows because it appears to confirm their belief that Earth isn't really getting warmer. To understand why that doesn't make sense, one need only look at the average global temperatures. Yes, it was very cold in parts of the U.S., but zoom out and it becomes clear that last month, overall, was the fourth-warmest January in recorded history.

In some cases, it could be a fear of science that is driving this type of thinking. A recent study out of Columbia University delved further into the weather's influence on perceptions, and confirmed that people are far less likely to say they're concerned about climate change - or even that they believe it's happening - on unusually cold days. Climate change, the researchers reasoned, is a complex issue. And when faced with complex issues, people turn not to the most relevant source, but to the one that's most accessible: in this case, what's going on right outside.

A misunderstanding of what scientists take as "proof" may also be responsible for this confusion. While scientists generally agree that a warming climate will lead to extreme weather conditions like drought and stronger, more frequent storms, they are unable to say that climate change definitively caused, say, the polar vortex, or California's current drought.

That doesn't mean that climate change has nothing to do with it. On the contrary: According to climatologist James Hansen, "Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change." And scientists do agree that climatic warming is making the effects of the drought worse. However, because we're talking about larger patterns, the drought isn't "proof" of climate change - just as cold weather isn't "proof" that it's a hoax. But it's still significant, in a way that cold weather, which is still reasonable to expect in the wintertime, is not.

Theory 2: Big industry is pulling their strings

If you want to see the insidious influence that industry has on climate denial, look no further than Patrick Moore, a darling of the conservative media. On the surface, Moore is everything deniers are looking for: a former co-founder of Greenpeace who has switched teams, proclaiming loudly that human activity is not the dominant cause of climate change. And his influence has been felt: CNBC personality Joe Kernen's recent rant - in which he compared the science of climate change to medieval witchcraft – was actually prompted by Moore's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Moore wasn't actually the co-founder of Greenpeace, although he was a leading figure in the group's Canadian and international branches back in the '80s. But while his fans play up his association with the environmental group, they fail to mention his much stronger ties to fossil fuel-intensive industries: For over 20 years, he's been a paid spokesman for companies involved in "mining, energy, forestry, aquaculture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing."

In a 2008 statement distancing themselves from their former member, Greenpeace explained:

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental 'expert' or even an 'environmentalist,' while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance…He claims he 'saw the light' but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Climate denial on a larger scale - the misinformation campaigns led by conservative and libertarian think tanks - is also supported by hefty donations from invested industries. Back in September, before the U.N. released its landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, a top official warned that major corporations were prepared to fund skeptics to undermine the work of climate scientists. That prediction bore out: The Koch brothers-affiliated Heartland Institute released its own report – tellingly named the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change – that questioned the IPCC report's validity. The report, like the Heartland Institute itself, failed on almost all measures of credibility, and was written by paid contributors.

Where's that money coming from? Heartland hasn't disclosed the sources of its funding in years (although leaked documents have done some of that work for it), but we know that ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute have been big donors in the past. Most of its money is funneled anonymously through the mysterious Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund - in 2012, Chicago industrialist Barre Seid was revealed as having used the fund to contribute millions to the institute's "global warming projects."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is another prime example of industry money muddying the conversation about climate change. Its response to the IPCC report: "We should be worried that the alarmist establishment continues using junk science to promote disastrous policies that will make the world much poorer and will consign poor people in poor countries to perpetual poverty." And its funding: Also not disclosed, although contributors to its annual fundraising dinner provide a hint. According to the Washington Post, the energy sector collectively pitched in $110,000.

Both organizations have a history of downplaying the dangers of smoking, thanks to their ties to the tobacco industry. Their latest activity simply updates the misinformation campaigning for climate change. Tobacco isn't bad for you, they insist, and neither are greenhouse gas emissions. Convinced?

Theory 3: Deniers hate regulations, and they really hate the EPA

Accepting that climate change is a real, human-caused problem requiring drastic, human-driven solutions means embracing the role of government regulation in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. And whether it's due to fears that regulations will drive up prices, or just impede on our freedoms, they know that the best way to challenge the EPA's recent attempts to do so is to undermine the legitimacy of their reasoning.

Seventeen out of the 22 Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology are climate deniers, a position that, as ClimateProgress notes, "dovetails with their open disregard for the EPA and the work it does." The committee most recently backed the so-called Secret Science Reform Act, which Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., characterized as "an attempt by climate change deniers to stop the EPA from doing its job."

Just watch Fox News rail against the agency's efforts to spread "propaganda" to children about climate change. The way Stuart Varney incredulously says, "The EPA," you'd think the lesson plans he's talking about were being sponsored by the Heartland Institute:



Theory 4: They're unable to grasp the big picture

Just as they can take one cold day and say it contradicts the decades-long, global pattern of climate change, climate deniers are constantly prioritizing the here-and-now over the future. How else to explain why Newt Gingrich found it so hard to understand why John Kerry would call climate change "the greatest challenge of our generation"? Kerry's claim actually threw the former House speaker into the Twitter equivalent of a nervous breakdown:

We saw the same thing recently on Fox News, which used plenty of snowy footage to emphasize the ridiculousness of Obama spending money now to combat a problem that will only "maybe" affect us later:



Theory 5: They just don't want to believe it

Climate change is a terrifying prospect, one that scientists warn will change, and potentially destroy, nearly everything about life as we know it. Is it any wonder that some people just refuse to accept the idea of that happening?

Putting forward a theory of his own, Chris Hayes posited that it's just "sexier and more fun" to mock climate change than to admit how screwed we are.

Even worse, of course, is admitting that it's our fault. That's why deniers will continue to insist that observed climate changes are "natural" and "cyclical," and why young Earth creationists Tony Perkins and Ken Ham attribute them to an act of God.

All that really matters now, of course, is what we can do to, if not convert the deniers, then at least push them back into the margins where they belong. Toward that end, it's possible that this awful winter may turn out to have been a good thing. The "silver lining" of the extreme weather we've been seeing, U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres suggested Wednesday, is that climate change is now becoming too real to ignore: "It's unfortunate that we have to have these weather events," she told the Guardian, but they're also a reminder that "solving climate change, addressing climate change in a timely way, is not a partisan issue."

The weather "is giving us a pattern of abnormality that's becoming the norm," Figueres continued. "These very strange extreme weather events are going to continue in their frequency and their severity … It's not that climate change is going to be here in the future, we are experiencing climate change." And sooner or later, it's going to become impossible to deny. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+98 # bmiluski 2014-03-06 12:12
I am still trying to figure out what is the down-side of believing in climate change. I've asked my republican friends and they still can't answer me.
+92 # Jackpine 2014-03-06 12:56
The downside is that it would provide strong arguments for regulatory and other actions that would inconvenience the super-rich in their modest quest to Grab It All. This, in turn, would threaten all that Citizens United money flowing into conservative coffers. They've been bought and now they have to deliver.
+37 # beeyl 2014-03-06 14:49
I think you overstate things. Entities like Exxon-Mobil and Koch Industries have fabulous resources and are positioned extremely well to make enormous investments and profits in renewable energy markets. Second, our country's full embrace of renewable energy is not a question of IF but an inevitable question of WHEN, and the Pep Boys know that better than most. Third, even if miracles happened and we moved 100% of our fuel and power needs to renewables, Big Oil would continue to make lots of money if for no other reason than plastics.
So yes, this is about the super-rich wanting to be richer, but it's more sinister than that, because they'll enrich themselves regardless of when we move to renewable energy. Climate change denial is about making lots of money in the most destructive way possible - to our planet, and to our democracy.
-8 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-06 14:18
Pretty well established fact that grade school science can't be ignored. Remember the ROY G. BIV memory enhancer? The high frequency light waves of Red,Orange,Yell ow, Green,Indigo and Violet create what we sense as "sun light." Nature created physics and chemistry in such a way so as to allow light waves from the sun to pass through the atmosphere which now includes a much heavier concentration of carbon dioxide than previously. Nature, in Her (or His) almost infinite wisdon (Republicans were the exception to His or Her wisdom) needed to express warmth to Earth in the language of physics. Thus, supports life as we know it. How do you keep Earth warm? Carbon dioxide allows much higher frequencies (ROY.G.BIV)from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, which of course includes Co2 but blocks resulting infra-red
rays which are reflected back from earth. Co2 blocks reflection into and beyond the outer atmosphere. Co2 blocking reflected infra-red from radiating into outer space is a good thing. On the other hand, as we increase C02 output, infra-red wave lengths are increasingly blocked, that should be radiated into outer space. Earth gets warmer.
I know bmiluski doesn't like me. So, I expect red ink.
+18 # Small Family Farmer 2014-03-06 14:37
I don't know (or care) about your issues with bmiluski. I just don't understand the point of your post. Perhaps you would be willing to home in on the point you're trying to make. Thanks
+20 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-06 20:20
My point is, Americans are easily influenced by the promoters of the oil and gas industry. Why? Americans rank 25th in the world, based on the upper 10 percentile, math and science. We are some of the fattest people of any nation, maybe the fattest. Because of lousey diet, lousey science awareness, we get into war after war. The Republicans are promoting ignorance, the public eats it up. Yes, I like America, like the people. Yet, we are a very backward country. Incidentally, if you understood my previous post from a science perspective, you would understand my point, OK? And, you would not act confused. I like to kid bmiluski. She,of course, "knows everthing."
+8 # rayb-baby 2014-03-06 21:32
I don't get it! Why the red ink? So, you give a scientific explanation for global warming, which, from what I see, DOESN'T make you a climate change denialist buffon. I've never knowingly read your posts before, so I don't know your overall politics, but this post, standing alone, at WORST should have been greeted neutrally. Come on, red inkers, why the red ink here?
+12 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-07 09:23
bmiluski and her friends will gang up on me, thus red ink. I kid her. She takes it seriously. I love science. My brother-in-law does fluid dynamics research for rocket engines, a major aerospace company. We have a lot of fun discussing "God." His point, "you do not want to know your real God." My politics? I'm an Independent. I was raised a Republican. After I Graduated from a major university, I realized that "most all of my training" in my youth as a Republican was just RED NECK bull shit. I was a member of the Democratic party for some time. I had to get out of the party, this was very sad for me. I was and am sad that too many Democrats were caving in on Progressive principles. Bill Maher:"politici ans are like a box of chocolates. You bite into one to see what's inside. Soft and gooey, a Democrat. Nuts, a Republican. Politicians are like a suede jacket. There are expensive ones and cheap ones. But all suede jackets look like (shix) when rained on." (scandals, bribing, taking campaign contributions from the wealthy, selling out Democracy.) Now, I can promote Progressive principles without having the Democratic Party slow me down.
+6 # AndreM5 2014-03-06 15:48
Please, it is not a "belief." This has nothing to do with Flying Spaghetti Monsters or creation myths.
+3 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-03-06 21:23
May Jesus bless you. Or something?
+5 # Texas Aggie 2014-03-07 01:13
His Noodliness is not a belief. The Hubble scope has pictures of the FSM in all His pastafarian glory. And besides, how do you explain coincidence if not for His Noodliness.


+15 # 2014-03-06 21:23
And cigarettes don't cause cancer or heart disease.

They just keep saying what makes them money as long as they can!

(And while we're distracted and arguing about it, they're robbing the country blind with banks/Wall St. scams, and wars, and insurance/healt hcare, high oil prices, etc., etc.)
+17 # reiverpacific 2014-03-06 12:35
For "Climate Buffoons" just substitute BUFFOONS full-stop.
BTW, here's a "Flush Rush" database (or as I call it "Bollocks to Limpballs"); there's also similar Facebook and Twitter pags,
+45 # fredboy 2014-03-06 12:43
The photograph says it all. Both political whores, both simply spouting the hyper-right's gibberish.

Tragically, we are increasingly seeing what I term deadly DUMPS--Downpour s Unleashing Massive Precipitation. Yet there are those who have been victims of such new, nightmarish phenomena--in Nashville and Franklin, TN, for instance--who still deny the science.

When General Eisenhower toured the Nazi death camps he told his troops to shoot photographs and films of everything they saw. The reason: He knew the perverse liars of society would deny it ever happened.

Now our own nation and its policies and future are being stunted by such denialists. Think about the millions of deaths that have occurred while they denied the threat of tobacco, chemical dumping and leaching, and more and more horrors.

Sadly, our society and our species has little hindsight or foresight. And those key weaknesses have often led to eventual self-annihilati on.
+4 # AndreM5 2014-03-06 23:00
The photo looks a bit like two elephant seals.
+1 # bingers 2014-03-09 05:41
Insulting elephant seals for no good reason.
+35 # Regina 2014-03-06 13:00
The new national slogan is, "Apres moi, le deluge." As long as the coal, oil, and gas barons rake in the billions and pay no taxes, they will fund the anti-science screeds of Fox Noise and the ultra-rightwing Congressional mouthpieces. And our under-educated public will swallow them whole. Yes, our one-and-only living planet will suffer the consequences.
+39 # Dust 2014-03-06 13:20
It's very odd how neither Newt Gingrich nor Rush Limbaugh nor Sarah Palin would ever call a plumber to design the next generation of combat aircraft, yet they feel both morally and scientifically justified in making claims regarding climate when they understand absolutely nothing about science.

The US population is pretty far back in the queue when it comes to math and science, and it shows in the inability to handle complex ideas and systems and distinguish between scientific uncertainty and practical uncertainty.

Matters are not helped by hyperbole in reporting that does not accurately represent science when discussing climate.

Interestingly, folks who vehemently claim that the uncertainty in climate predictions and models is far too high to be worth anything are generally highly invested in the stock market. I'd like someone to predict for me the % change in Apple stock price tomorrow at 12:03 EST relative to the mean % change over the first 10 minutes following the opening bell. If not tomorrow, then a year from now.
+13 # hwmcadoo 2014-03-06 13:46
You rate so right. In am envious in that the deniers were born with more knowledge than the climate scientists with PhDs and 30 years of experience.

I don't know nearly enough and have been following the climate problem since the 1980s. It is so easy for them and difficult for me.

Being the world's for most authority comes so easy for them.
+28 # reiverpacific 2014-03-06 13:51
Quoting Dust:
It's very odd how neither Newt Gingrich nor Rush Limbaugh nor Sarah Palin would ever call a plumber to design the next generation of combat aircraft, yet they feel both morally and scientifically justified in making claims regarding climate when they understand absolutely nothing about science.

The US population is pretty far back in the queue when it comes to math and science, and it shows in the inability to handle complex ideas and systems and distinguish between scientific uncertainty and practical uncertainty.

Matters are not helped by hyperbole in reporting that does not accurately represent science when discussing climate.

Interestingly, folks who vehemently claim that the uncertainty in climate predictions and models is far too high to be worth anything are generally highly invested in the stock market. I'd like someone to predict for me the % change in Apple stock price tomorrow at 12:03 EST relative to the mean % change over the first 10 minutes following the opening bell. If not tomorrow, then a year from now.

Don't bet on it: -remember "Joe the Plumber" (not)??? -Y'r mention of "a plumber" brought that trotted-out show-clown to mind.
These jerks would call on Little Red Riding Hood if they though she'd suit their propagandist lie-craft or denial of reality du jour. After all, they got Palin out of the Alaska woodwork and she's probably less knowledgeable about the real world than any character of fable or nursery rhyme.
+16 # rsberry 2014-03-06 13:36
One way to deal with the more rational deniers is simply to present the economic argument. The cost of mitigation is simply far, far less than the cost of climate-caused disaster multiplied by a probability that it would happen, which may be very small, e.g. 10%. Or even 1%. You buy insurance because it is good value. Paying for mitigation can be viewed as buying insurance against severe consequences of climate change. Only the totally irrational disbelievers, those who think the probability is zero, could reject this argument.
-45 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 14:27
Sort of like buying insurance against being hit by a stray bullet fired in Iraq. Some "dangers" are simple paranoia.
-44 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 13:38
So nice to know some things,-unlike Earth's climate-NEVER CHANGE: Warmists favorite "scientific discourse" aka ad hominem attacks.

I will share the following recent articles, which certainly aren't PROOF that AGW is a scam, but that I hope you'll at least read. BTW, did you know that Michael Mann has proclaimed that science has NOTHING TO DO WITH proof? Har har. Maybe not for HIM!

First, from Forbes Magazine, February, 2013 (ok, THIS ONE is not NEWS):
"Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
-40 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 13:42

"A Greenpeace co-founder testified in Congress on Tuesday about global warming. What he said is hardly what anyone would expect.
Patrick Moore came off as a raving denier.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore, who was testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.
“If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
Moore is somewhat famous for leaving Greenpeace, a large environmentalis t organization that grew from a small activist group he belonged to in 1971 while earning his doctorate in ecology. He quit in 1986 because it had become too political and strayed away from the science he believed was its institutional strength.
Moore didn’t hold back in his Senate appearance. He quickly zeroed in on the United Nations Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change and strongly scolded it for claiming there is a “95-100% probability” that man “has been the dominant cause of” global warming. Those numbers, he said, have been invented.
-39 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 13:43

He also characterized the IPCC’s reliance on computer models as futile; told senators that history “fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming”; and noted that “during the Greenhouse Ages,” a period that precedes our fossil-fuel burning civilization, “there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and subtropical from pole to pole.”
Moore further crossed the line of accepted climate change discourse when he insisted “that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one” and reminded lawmakers “that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way” temperatures “will go next.”
-31 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 13:48

Thanks for NOTHING, warmists! All this alarmism has simply managed to make one uber rich man even richer, and you, me and everyone else are sending our money to enrich ALL the bloody insurance companies!

In the wake of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s outburst telling global warming skeptics to sell their shares in his company, Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffet has publicly stated that warmists’ predictions of an increase in catastrophic weather have not come true. Sean Long of CNS News reports:
Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events haven't increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago. Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk.

I know, I know. Buffet is not a climate specialist (as far as I know). He does, presumably, have access to all the statistics he's referring to. He MUST be able to afford the information gathering costs!
-39 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 13:54
Here's an exchange between me and a world renowned climate expert. I'll leave his name out of it-he gets plenty of grief from other WARMIST hoaxers without me adding to it:

ME: Do you ever wonder about IPCC? Their name shows their reliance on climate change. Why did they choose that name? Seems like they predetermined their conclusions before determining their name.."

HESHE: That's exactly right--the IPCC began in Sweden and their initial charter started very clearly that rather than looking objectively at climate change, they were going to look exclusively for anything that would support CO2 as the cause of global warming. It was clear from the start that they were only interested in pushing CO2 for political and monetary purposes. What they did, of course, was to totally ignore any data that suggested any other cause of global warming and cooling and they continue to do that today (they still refuse to respond to the many climate changes that have occurred before 1950 that were far more intense and happened well before any possible influence from CO2.)

"Incidentally, you have just witnessed first hand the kind of non-scientific crap that I deal with everyday. All XXXXXXX could say was what a bunch of rotten people all skeptics are and steadfastly refused to respond to any of the data that I challenged him with. They all seem incapable of dealing with real data and have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead".
-38 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 14:03

Mutually Assured Delusion (MAD)
Posted on November 5, 2013 | 302 Comments
by Judith Curry

Groupthink: A pattern of thought charaterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.

Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets, by Roland Benabou, published in the Review of Economic Studies. Benabou also has a talk (ppt slides) on this subject.

First, a definition of groupthink (from the ppt slides):

Janis (1972)’s eight symptoms [of groupthink]:

illusion of invulnerability
collective rationalization
belief in inherent morality
stereotyped views of out-groups
direct pressure on dissenters
illusion of unanimity
self-appointed mind guards
Sound like any groups that we know? If you are on different ‘sides’ of the AGW debate, you may be evaluating the IPCC and anthropowarmist s against these criteria, or you may be evaluating the opposition against these criteria. While both groups seem to be subject to the first 4 symptoms, I would say that the IPCC and anthropowarmist s have a lock on the last 4 symptoms."

Yeah, yeah, I know. Judith Curry is not a climate scientist. NO CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THAT SHIT.

Oh, wait. Curry IS a climate scientist. Oops. In fact, wikipedia says

-35 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 14:04

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.
-35 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 14:12

For Curry's credentials, see above.

This article is too long to post here, so I'm only quoting her summary. What she's talking about is IPCC's attempt to explain how it was that their climate modeling so spectacularly F
AILED TO PREDICT the hiatus in global warming:

JC summary

"My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument. I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?). I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/argu ments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions. For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem. Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade). And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned.

Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful. Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful?"
+17 # 6thextinction 2014-03-06 16:06
146 lines, Malcolm? And most lines have 10+ words, meaning way over 1000 words? All denying the well-establishe d truth of global warming according to over 97% of scientists?

What's in it for you?
-29 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:15
Trying to rescue you from mutually assured delusion. How'd you like Curry's piece on that?
+4 # rayb-baby 2014-03-06 23:56
Your "arguments" can easily be refuted by lot's of the research I've been following for years, but why waste my time trying to convince the one person that is the poster boy for Curry's "mutually assured delusion" theory? Now go ahead and waste more of your valueless time because you obviously have nothing better to do.
-9 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:19
Well. THAT was brilliant commentary!
-21 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 18:26
Verrry interrestink! Eleven lovely thumbs down showing. Does this mean at least eleven people are not in favor of renowned climatologists actually having their credentials listed? Or what? Does it make you nervous, and worry you that thee might actually be something you've been missing all this time?
+14 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:46
No, it means 11 people can spot a troll.
-12 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:20
+1 # bmiluski 2014-03-10 09:43
Malcolm......I ask again, what is the down-side of believing in climate change?
-4 # Carol R 2014-03-06 14:02
I meant to click on minus. Sorry it came out as a plus.
+20 # reiverpacific 2014-03-06 14:50
@ "Malcom".
FORBES MAGAZINE!!!??? -The 'zine of the 0.01% and their acolyte wanna-be's
Oh yeah, that's a REAL scientific journal we should all live by.
Try moving to a South Pacific Island and hear what THEY had to say at the recent global climate change conferences, largely ignored in the smug rhetorical hubris of "safer" nations.
I suppose you are all for developing "noo-kee-lar" power too?!
Glug glug, humanity in a tub!
BTW, thanks a bunch for the lecture-like litany of denier-grams; it's good to have this as an anticipatory file on trying to discuss something with other chowderheads of that ilk, like a similar file on those who are against Universal healthcare.
Pretty predictable you'se reactionaries are.
-21 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:26
YOURE pretty poor at predictions, though, aren't you reiverpacific? Click on my bio-does that sound like any of your predictions are valid?

Why is it that even you, who generally comes across as intelligent, can't do better than the normal warmist suckers, with their fallback position of insults and ridiculous accusations?
+9 # reiverpacific 2014-03-06 17:44
Quoting Malcolm:
YOURE pretty poor at predictions, though, aren't you reiverpacific? Click on my bio-does that sound like any of your predictions are valid?

Why is it that even you, who generally comes across as intelligent, can't do better than the normal warmist suckers, with their fallback position of insults and ridiculous accusations?

If the shoe fits, wear it.
I'm done and you haven't changed any minds here have you.
I'll stick to my many, many sources, starting with some old rugby mates in Samoa and Dr. Michio Kaku.
-16 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 18:27
Cool. Safe, too.
+6 # reiverpacific 2014-03-06 20:41
Quoting Malcolm:
Cool. Safe, too.

That's a good one!
"Safe" is what you bury-y'r-heads in the soon to be underwater sands are looking for but the unfolding events will chuck back in y'r faces.
Anyway, I'm just a modest, mildly opinionated hack who kinda takes what comes and deals with it as best I can.
-11 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:21
Opinionated is starting to sound like your m.o. Sorry about that.

Very poetic, but not particularly edifying.
+2 # bingers 2014-03-09 05:49
Quoting Malcolm:
Opinionated is starting to sound like your m.o. Sorry about that.

Very poetic, but not particularly edifying.

Wow! So much ignorance and stupidity from one troll. Amazing.

I doubt this is Malcolm Forbes, despite the name and the fact that Malcolm Forbes is almost always wrong.
+7 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:47
Ignore him, reiverpacific.
+21 # Billy Bob 2014-03-06 17:34
MALCOLM'S GAME PLAN (a.k.a. "Attack and Distract"):

Step 1 - ATTACK the thread with 20+ comments saying nothing that can be backed up.

Step 2 - Start complaining that not enough people are responding to the attack, accusing them of not having the facts to back it up.

Step 3 - Suckering a few others into it, so it becomes a 5-day marathon between people who believe in science vs. Malcolm.

Step 4 - Most of the people who want a GENUINE DISCUSSION about this subject and aren't trolls, are scared away (or repulsed) by the fact that their voices will be drowned out by Malcolm's incessant 1,000 word manifestos without links.

Step 5 - Malcolm makes smartassed comments, and laughs at the fact that he's the only one left commenting.


The whole RSN community suffers, but there's nothing we can do to stop it.

My solution would be to limit the number of comments allowed (BY EACH INDIVIDUAL) on each thread to a maximum of 10, total.

I'd like RSN to take the idea seriously. Otherwise...

Watch Malcolm in action.

*** P.S. I now realize I hadn't included the phrase "BY EACH INDIVIDUAL" the first time.

I'd allow MILLIONS of comments, but only 10 per person.
+3 # 6thextinction 2014-03-06 20:51
Good idea....perhaps limit any individual responder to 3 or 4 replies re any specific article.
+6 # rayb-baby 2014-03-06 22:31
Disagree! You can lose some good discussion that way. It doesn't take long to scroll past commenters like Malcolm when you know the game that they're playing. If he's willing to waste his VALUELESS time, so be it.
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 00:07

Which is why 10 would be a better number. Nobody is unable to argue their point in 10 comments. It would only put a limit on the kind of mindless trolling Malcolm does. If you can't get to the point in 10 comments of 1500 characters (for a total of 15,000), you haven't formed your arguments very well.

It would allow people to put a little thought into what they have to say, and would prevent loners with a slimy agenda (e.g. Malcolm) from intentionally hijacking the discussion (which I've already seen him do EVERY SINGLE time the subject of global warming has come up for the past 6 months).

We have ALREADY lost good discussion because of ONE COMMENTER (Malcolm). Other commenters drop off like flies as soon as he appears because they simply don't have the time to respond to him over and over and over..., when all he uses for replies are meaningless smartassed bullshit replies without meaningful objective links.

He's not "wasting" his time. He's a troll and he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. He's hijacking the discussion BEFORE any meaningful give and take can actually occur. Just watch him in action.
-1 # bmiluski 2014-03-07 10:02
Are you saying limit the number comments to 10 PER POSTER?
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 12:31
That's exactly what I'm saying. It would reward people like you who take the time to put thought into what you have to say and would punish people like Malcolm, whose only purpose is to drive away everyone else and dominate the discussion.


Malcolm 28
Granny Weatherwax 8
reiverpacific 8
Billy Bob 7 (with this comment)
bmiluski 4
Eldon J. Bloedorn 4
rayb-baby 4
Dust 4
6thextinction 2
AndreM5 2
opit 2
Carol R 2

*This is a complete list (I think) including every single person who's posted more than 1 comment on this thread so far.

Notice that ONLY ONE has needed to post more than 10 times. In fact, 10 wasn't even CLOSE. He's already at 28, and he's holding back because he doesn't want to further prove my point.

His average is WELL OVER 70!!!

ALSO, notice how many of the comments made by others were directly ABOUT (or in RESPONSE TO) that one person, rather than being able to freely discuss the subject at hand.


It rewards a lack of seriousness. My idea would reward people who take the time to put a little thought into what they have to say. That's why we all come here, after all. If I wanted to get into a contest to see who could drown out everyone else, I'd be "engaged in meaningful discourse" on a Yahoo comment thread.


I realize my idea appears to be unpopular, but I think it would solve this problem, and I think trolling has become a MAJOR problem with RSN.
-1 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 12:43
Now I see what you were getting at.


I apologize for misrepresenting the idea to be taken as if I meant "total" for the entire thread. NO, I just meant per poster.
-1 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 00:28

You didn't get that negative from me. I disagreed with you, but didn't vote, because I don't doubt your sincerity. Your opinion may be more important than mine, but I see no reason why we would be at each other's throat about this.

To make the point that it was probably Malcolm voting you down (because you called his time, "valueless"), I'll give you a positive now, to bring you back up to "0", like 6thextinction, whom I essentially agreed with (although I thought he/she took it too far).
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 00:12

I don't think 3 or 4 would be enough. My point isn't to stifle debate. It's to allow the people who take the time to put a little thought into what they have to say, to actually be heard and recognized, without being drowned out by trolls (like the one attacking this thread right now).

Malcolm would also get 10 comments (like anyone else). But 10 comments is FAR FAR fewer than he's used to. He has averaged about 70 for the last several threads (about global warming) that he's attacked. He's already made (by my current count) 18 comments in this thread, just so far. If he stops at that number, it will only be because I've called him out about his tactic.

His last ambush involved OVER 70 comments and lasted for about 5 days.

Malcolm would be required to actually make a decent argument, for a change, or his contribution would be insignificant, and he couldn't drown anybody else out. Usually, the pattern with any global warming thread involving Malcolm, almost everyone else stops commenting after about 1 1/2 days, out of disgust. He keeps commenting, while others keep voting him down silently.

That's all he wants (to silence everyone else and have the last word, which he ALWAYS GETS).

Some comment threads punish excessive "shouting". I think writing incessant smartassed, meaningless, ad hominem (what Malcolm accuses everyone else of doing) replies, without links, IS ANOTHER FORM OF EXCESSIVE SHOUTING!!!
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 00:39

In the time it took me to respond to 6thextinction and rayb-baby, Malcolm has driven his number to 24 comments on this thread alone.

Add to that, the fact that much of the discussion (IN GENERAL) on this thread is directed back at him, and you get the point that he has already, very successfully hijacked this entire discussion.

The next thing you'll see is many other commenters dropping off like flies, because they're bored with the childish back-and-forth with Malcolm (instead of meaningful discourse about one of the 3 most important issues that will be facing us in the 21st Century).

He's working his way down the thread with his smartassed, meaningless replies. By the time I've finished this comment, he will have added a few more.

I'm at 5 comments right now, and I may stop there. I may make it up to 10, but I doubt I'll use more than that.

Malcolm won't stop commenting until everyone else he disagrees with does.
+7 # DavidThree 2014-03-08 10:13
Malcolm, thanks for referencing the Forbes article (by James Taylor, Feb. 13, 2013). I checked out the survey referenced in that article (at It is a survey of members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta! In other words, engineers who work for petroleum companies. It hardly represents "climate scientists" or even "scientists". And the study was done to find out what it is about these engineers that make it difficult for them to accept the scientific consensus (and the authors of the paper acknowledge climate change is a major threat. Their objective was not to confirm that, but to understand why some people don't get it).
+2 # Dust 2014-03-08 14:21
Malcolm seems to have a habit of never reading his own links. He apparently never expects anyone else too do so either, assuming that the simple posting of a link serves to support his viewpoint.
+22 # Carol R 2014-03-06 13:52
My brother, a strong disbeliever in global warming, sent me an article written by Glenn Beck. This 'news' gave the 10 strangest things climate change believers actually believe. I only read the first two: teenage pregnancies and the bubonic plague.

How sad for our planet that people actually read 'news' like this and believe anything that is printed online. It becomes a fact.

Where is the media in exposing comments like this as nonsense? Where is the media when it comes to really putting destruction of our planet as something important?
+5 # rayb-baby 2014-03-06 22:34
Where is the media?????? Playing up to their corporate benefactors.
+16 # moby doug 2014-03-06 13:55
Malcolm, whom do you think you're kidding with your pseudo science and tinfoil hat?
-20 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:34
Well said, moby. Typical ad hominem attack reasoning.
+6 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:49
Just ignore him, Moby Doug - everyone can see he is a troll - he is just doing his part to collect his check. Just forget him.
-12 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:24
Collect my CHECK? Granny, you need a REALITY check. Seriously. You don't know what you're doing to yourself and your progeny!
+1 # bingers 2014-03-09 05:58
Quoting Malcolm:
Well said, moby. Typical ad hominem attack reasoning.

How so? Tinfoil hat is a common term for unjustifiable reasoning and pseudo science is exactly what you have been posting, so no ad hominem attack has been done regarding you.

Now calling you rational, THAT would be an ad hominem attack.
+3 # woofer 2014-03-06 14:02
The prize is behind door #5. This is all about dealing with fear.
-26 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 14:20
I certainly agree that a lot of this is about fear. But I'll bet I'm coming at it from a different perspective than you. I'm referring to the fear that was the focus of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".

I think this book is way too hard on us environmentalis ts. But it helps explain the AGW mass hysteria. Of course, the main puppeteers aren't afraid. They're laughing all the way to the "carbon" credit banks.
+6 # wise old owl 2014-03-06 14:44
Malcolm: "us environmentalis ts" ??? Pleeeeezzze....
-17 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:33
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to include you,if it makes you uncomfortable.
+3 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:51
"Us environmentalis ts" would tend to know grammar enough to put two 'o' in that "too".
Trolls, on the other hand...
-8 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:30
1st of all, granny, your grammar skills are, well, lacking. Second, granny, even if two 'o' [sic] were correct, that would not be much of a basis for judging the truth about AGW.

Surely you can do better than that, Granny.

Why are you so upset, granny?
+24 # grrrr 2014-03-06 14:29
Here's what I don't understand about climate deniers, some of whom I assume are fairly intelligent (and therefore must really know what's happening): they have children and grandchildren too. Don't they care about them? Is money really more important than their family's safety and well-being? Even a dog doesn't poop where it sleeps. This issue will mess up their own lives and the lives of their families, too.
-3 # opit 2014-03-07 15:33
"Don't they care about them?"
Good question. Surely the answer is obvious - and indicates sincerity in evaluating the situation rather than the attributes ascribed - without proof - to them as a class ( the definition of bigotry ) .
'Shooting the Messenger' is a Logical Fallacy closely related to Poisoning the Well ( you make up plausible fantasies degrading opposition in advance of their replies ) and Strawman Argumentation. All of these are in turn related to Moving the Overton Window ( aka Moving the Goalposts ) and are subtle concepts of organized deceit which hijack honest and straightforward evaluation. Whether you attribute their use to 'Right', 'Left', 'Activist', or Karl Rove, the technique is closely allied to the 'Denier' meme...which forces the frame of Yes-No answers to a situation more properly assessed as 'impossible to calculate reliably.'
So while Malcolm is surely mouthy - his content being in opposition to Groupthink is also obvious. If that makes it objectionable on the grounds of too much from one contributor...i s that automatically a sign of a Troll ? Or does content matter ?
The real climate claim that puts me in knots is simple - we know that manmade co2 rise is both bad and dangerous. Yet many retired and semi retired NASA scientists themselves question this statement because of unproven assumptions. This time I'll leave the Search to you - they have made public their thoughts.
+16 # sunflower333 2014-03-06 15:15
Climate denial is ideology. Solar will save us is ideology. Climate change and ocean acidification will kill ideology.
-15 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:32
Hmm. What exactly do you mean by "acidification, sunflower?
-26 # Christopher Marlowe 2014-03-06 15:49
I am with Malcolm. People who still believe in the global warming fairy tale don't have science to back them up, so they resort to inventing statistics, ignoring the facts, and ad hominem.

Look: Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh! Those idiots don't believe in climate change, so therefore climate change must be right.--> This is what passes for thinking these days.

I USED TO believe in GW. I saw the Al Gore movie twice. I studied environmental law. But then I spoke to a scientist about the Gore movie, and he was skeptical.

Then there was the emails from the University of East Anglia. Now I am thoroughly convinced that the statistics have been fudged to create that hockey stick.

This article repeats the lie that "almost all scientists" believe in MMGW. That's already been debunked.

It's funny that Malcolm gets criticized for quoting an article at Forbes, but the author cites HER OWN ARTICLE at Salon, and that's okay.

Look! A picture of Sarah Palin! Turn off your brain and listen to the propaganda.
+13 # Dust 2014-03-06 16:04
I would submit that the Heartland Institute is even less qualified than either Salon or Forbes to present anything of worth on... well... anything.

"People who still believe in the global warming fairy tale don't have science to back them up" - can you cite some scientific papers supporting this?

It's true that as soon as climate change took on political value and weight, it became worth skewing, from either side of the aisle. Such efforts should be severely censured.

On the other hand, the first person to suggest that CO2 from human activities might ultimately affect climate was Svante Arrhenius with a series of calculations in 1896.

If indeed the entire corpus of climate research is fraudulent, I would expect to see a massive explosion of publications pointing out flaws in that body of work. I've seen papers calling for improved methods of quantifying uncertainty (always a good move), and papers suggesting improvements to modeling efforts and approaches, but I've not seen the massive negation, which I would expect, given the enormous money behind efforts to do so.
+1 # bmiluski 2014-03-07 10:06
Please, please, please, tell me....what is the down-side of believing in climate change/global warming. I keep asking you people but you keep refusing to answer. All I get is rotating rhetoric straight from the oil companies mouths.
0 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:52
Hey Malcolm, put your mask down, only one check for you in that game!
-10 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:36
Granny, you seem sincere. What do you mean by that question?
+7 # get real 2014-03-06 16:15
When Mother Nature is fed up with our stupidity, nothing including profits will matter.
-21 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:23
You folks are aware that the IPCC predictions are now acknowledged to have faked n their doom and gloom predictions, right?

Y'all HAVE read their latest report, right?
+8 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:53
Actually have YOU?
It turns out that the measurements (not theory: measurements) since their previous report are worse than their earlier worse scenario.
Of course if you want to read it, I can teach you.
-13 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:38
I suspect I was reading at college level when you were in first grade, granny. Thanks, anyway :-)
+2 # bmiluski 2014-03-07 10:09
Really Malcolm....that 's the best you can do? And since you can't see Granny to see how old she/he is, it's just all empty talk.
-17 # Malcolm 2014-03-06 16:41
I strongly suggest reading the entire article, but since there's limited space, I'll only include the URL and the conclusion:

In summary:

After expecting an increase of 0.2oC per decade in the early decades of the 21st century from the AR4 statements, the rate of warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05C.
The IPCC AR5 bases its projection for the period 2016-2036 of 0.10 to 0.23oC per decade on expert judgment, rather than on the climate model results
The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the hiatus in warming.
-8 # opit 2014-03-06 17:41
"The overwhelming majority of Americans, and nearly all scientists, believe that climate change is real and caused by human activity."
And you know this how, exactly ? It's all very good to mock Palin ( easy target ) and Limbaugh, but 1) denial is an on-off frame and pejorative revolving around a proposition which deserves proof - not 'expert opinion.' 2) If there was such a proof, the IPCC is slow to provide it.
Since we have started with misrepresenting alternative opinions as variously ignorant, superstitious, uninformed, etc. all representation that this is a balanced view based on science rather than activism must go out the window.
Here is actual scientific thought...but somebody who actually supports the IPCC for reasons best known to himself.
One notable lack : linking to objectionable articles and representations . I collect such : knock yourself out.
+3 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:54
Just like Obama's birth certificate, I guess?
-13 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 00:41
C'mon, granny; don't tell me you're a BIRTHER. Please say it ain't so!
+8 # Dust 2014-03-06 17:44
I'm just curious - how many people here have actually read peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change and modeling? Not websites or summaries or secondary / tertiary pieces in Forbes or Mother Jones or anything else; scientific literature in scientific journals.
-7 # opit 2014-03-06 19:22
" modeling" What's the point ? Modeling is not data....nor can it be shown to work. Modeling the snow pack in California's High Sierras turned out to be a complete wash for Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Ditto predictions of Himalyan glaciers vanishing : winds aloft and moisture content being more important determining factors than any alleged variation due to co2 increase.
And no : not being a scientist, I seldom get into such. No subscription to Elsevier, for instance, would put a kibosh on most casual explorer's desire to have a look at what they have.
+4 # Dust 2014-03-06 20:34
Well, that's true - I dislike Elsevier for precisely that reason. Many authors have copies of their papers on their websites, though not all.

Models are not data, but the point of modeling is to explain things that are not observed by means of things that CAN be observed. Without modeling (beginning with basic linear regressions through non-linear generalized models to MLE and Bayesian structures), any efforts or attempts to examine or analyze weather or climate are pretty much dead in the water.

I question your statement that models cannot be shown to work. Certainly some are very bad and should be discarded; most last until better data or structures are developed. George Box was a pivotal statistician who said "All models are wrong, but some are useful". I think thats a very succinct and accurate summary - they are wrong because of the uncertainty contained in all structures, but they are not intrinsically useless because they can (not all of them) serve to encapsulate the primary drivers of a given system sufficiently well to allow some degree of scientific/mana gement/politica l/etc. decisions to be made based on them.
+1 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-03-06 21:56
Modeling and theory are what allows you to predict that your feet will touch the ground.
No value heh?
+4 # maryf 2014-03-06 18:35
People who don't refuse to acknowledge the implications of human effects on climate understand that the greatest suffering in the world is not going to occur in the gated communities in the US, but in the third world, which the ruling class and their flunkeys don't give a shit about.

How typical of the privileged to hope that millions of these powerless people die off so the wealthy can continue to exploit the planet's resources with little or no consequence.

Such people have all the right in the world to express their contempt for most of humanity and expose their true motives for the rest of the world to see.
+14 # ericlipps 2014-03-06 19:18
One does have to wonder why, if global warming is a "hoax," major oil companies are lining up for Arctic drilling leases in presently glaciated areas on the assumption that the ice won't be there in a few more decades.
+9 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 08:01
That's because the oil companies are filled with environmentalis ts who think the oil companies are destroying the Earth.

A few other liberal groups who definitely agree that global warming is real and man made include:

-THE PENTAGON: (already making plans for how to deal with the huge economic & political turmoil that will erupt as people face the coming crop failure food shortages and sea level rises)

-THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY: (already trying to weasel out of covering costs of impending flood damage, and crop damage)

YEP! The oil industry, the insurance industry, and the Pentagon, have all decided to agree with us left-wing liberal believers in science.

The oil industry just happens to be the very slimiest. It plans to continue CAUSING the problem, while at the same time, CASHING IN on the damage done!
+1 # Cappucino 2014-03-06 21:29
So... "this expensive global warming b.s. has got to stop"??

I never thought I'd agree with Donald Trump about anything!!

:P:P:P and :P.

You know, I don't think that's what he meant...

If Donald Trump were actually in touch with any kind of reality, then the Toupee of Doom would have disappeared about twenty years ago.
0 # reiverpacific 2014-03-07 10:17
Quoting Malcolm:
Opinionated is starting to sound like your m.o. Sorry about that.

Very poetic, but not particularly edifying.

OK, here's my last word on the subject as it's dragging on too long for my simple poetic, non-edifying mind.
Y'r credentials certainly give you a viable platform for commenting on this subject. I'm an architect (and a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth) among other things by the way and not unaware of the value of scientific evidence.
My Modus Operandi is simply fact as a basis for informed discussion.;
Geology was one of my favorite subjects in college and environment/cli mactic conditions affecting any given region of building design (I've worked all over the world) -not just opinion, which is why I tend to let others have their say on something this vast in scope.
BTW, my formed opinion has nothing to do with anything uttered mindlessly by the two far too well-known vapid, empty suits in the photo-so leave that out.
I have come to my own conclusions from the research and published or recorded words of many qualified individuals, some who have specialized in this subject for as long as it's been moot, including scientists, geologists and engineers I know, respect and have worked with personally.
So that's it in nutshell: -I'm really done this time. Sorry if I'm a bit poetic for you.
Currently, I'm more concerned with the immediate roiling and seeping menaces Fukshima and Hanford related to the west coast.
-5 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 10:39
Nukes! Well, I spent nine days protesting in Portland, as a member of the old Trojan Decommissioning Alliance. That disaster is now gone, thank doG!

Gone, but not forgotten, since (most) the whole mess has now been imploded, exploded, decoded, re molded, and then floated, after being shrink-wrapped, up the river tho Hanford, WA, where it's now leaking it's liquid death into the Columbia River, or so I'm told :-(

Radioactive caesium is due to arrive on our pristine oregon shores any day now, and our delightful government (Feds, that is) want to start building 50 more bloody reactors. Sheesh.

Anyway, sir, at least we can agree on THAT topic :-)

As far as your designing buildings in different climate zones-I'm very impressed. I've designed buildings only in SW Oregon, where it's really simple compared to climates in other areas I've lived. Love the DRY summer Mediterranean Climate where mold and mildew are easily avoided year round, as well as the very mild winters.

Oregon, what's not to like?
+1 # reiverpacific 2014-03-07 12:16
Quoting Malcolm:
Nukes! Well, I spent nine days protesting in Portland, as a member of the old Trojan Decommissioning Alliance. That disaster is now gone, thank doG!

Gone, but not forgotten, since (most) the whole mess has now been imploded, exploded, decoded, re molded, and then floated, after being shrink-wrapped, up the river tho Hanford, WA, where it's now leaking it's liquid death into the Columbia River, or so I'm told :-(

Radioactive caesium is due to arrive on our pristine oregon shores any day now, and our delightful government (Feds, that is) want to start building 50 more bloody reactors. Sheesh.

Anyway, sir, at least we can agree on THAT topic :-)

As far as your designing buildings in different climate zones-I'm very impressed. I've designed buildings only in SW Oregon, where it's really simple compared to climates in other areas I've lived. Love the DRY summer Mediterranean Climate where mold and mildew are easily avoided year round, as well as the very mild winters.

Oregon, what's not to like?

Well, I'm on the north Oregon Coast, where dry rot and black mold are like a plague, as it was in Scotland where I first practiced. I spent two years on a project in the Cave Junction, Grants Pass, Ashland (my daughter went to college there, as did my wife) area so I know it pretty well.
I remember Trojan -just winding down when I first came here but my late, ex-wife was a pretty good friend of Lloyd Marbet, still very much with us I think.
-2 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 13:42
Ah, , Nehelem. I suspect the climate's pretty similar to where I spent a few years in coastal Humboldt County, CA. Mold was a seemingly insurmountable issue there.

In my 1/6th of a wonderful old Eureka Victorian mansion, I went to put on my work boots one Monday morning, and there was 3-4" of blue green mold all over them (only one example)

Even an almost new apartment in Arcata was challenging. Each week we'd spray a 30% bleach solution on BLACK areas, on any exterior wall where their was furniture, behind clothing in exterior wall closets mostly.

If I were to experience that situation now, with more building experience, I'd try using dehumidifiers. That has worked for my daughter's builder friend in Eugene, where he worked on older homes without adequate insulation. For those reading this who don't have Reiverpacific's background, the issue in my area, and in eugene and also along the coast, you need good insulation and a good vapor barrier on the interior side of the insulation. Even that may not be enough, though, in areas of EXTREME relative humidity, e.g. Coastal areas in Marine Climate zones.

The big challenge, which I'm glad not to have to deal with, are areas of extreme humidity where air conditioning is used , but also where heat is needed in the winter. I don't know a decent way to build a wall to prevent condensation in that climate. I've seen water running down the outside of hotel windows in East Texas, for goodness sakes!

I left E. Texas :-)
0 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 23:31
And a round of applause to Lloyd Marbet!
-3 # Malcolm 2014-03-07 14:29
Alright, you! I got a thumbs down! Who's the nuke lover???
+2 # reiverpacific 2014-03-08 10:07
Quoting Malcolm:
Alright, you! I got a thumbs down! Who's the nuke lover???

Somebody who obviously knows little to nothing about how much of his life Lloyd Marbet put into getting Trojan shut down -and is still an activist on behalf of the planet and Oregon's environmental health.
-3 # skylinefirepest 2014-03-07 14:52
So I take it that as an architect you don't believe the old "planes into the building" story??
0 # 6thextinction 2014-03-07 18:18
Hmmmmm, I guess everyone concerned about global warming gave up.

The hijacker prevailed.
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-03-07 20:27
Pretty much.

Everyone thinks that "by ignoring him and not feeding the troll he will wither away because he only craves attention."

That's just not true. By ignoring him and letting him have free reign, you've already conceded the entire battle to him. By the time you've done that he's already won.

Very few articles (that generate this much traffic and this many comments) are suddenly this silent, so soon after appearing ~ UNLESS they've been successfully attacked by a troll and everyone's too tired to bother fighting anymore with a troll who obviously has excessive time on his hands.
+4 # Dust 2014-03-08 12:41
Malcolm tries to be very careful about maintaining the balance of power to favor him. To that end, he follows some classic troll behaviors.

He will always ask for answers and clarifications to other posts, but himself will never observe the same courtesy he demands from others. His replies are variants of the time-tested "Oh, do your own research; I won't do your work for you", or even "Seriously? You're asking me that? You don't know the answer?" yet he dismisses such answers to his own questions as indicative of a lack of data or evidence.

He posted several times in various threads asking for someone to post the equation for determining temp. rise as a function of increased atmospheric CO2; his subtext was that such equations did not exist, making the point that the predictive capacity of climate models was essentially null.

I posted the equation, with a basic box-model example. He did not expect that, and had no idea the equation existed (bringing once again to the fore his claim that he has read "hundreds" of papers on climate- had he truly done so, he would have known of this equation that is essential to climate analysis). Caught off guard, his only response was to bluster that such an example was so basic and inapplicable he had no idea why anyone would post it, and then proceed to ask a number of questions that showed (forgive me) that he was out of his element.

+7 # Dust 2014-03-08 12:54
BUT - here's the thing: Malcolm is NOT an idiot! He's very bright indeed! For the most part, I think he is exactly who he says he is, with the caveat that he exaggerates or lies in this arena in order to maintain his perceived position of power. We all like to be different or unique in some way - Malcolm likes to be a politically left-leaning progressive who doesn't fit the general framework because he doesn't think human beings affect climate.

Now, imagine how much fun and productive these threads and conversations could be IF he came on and in all honesty without misrepresentati on or hyperbole said something like "Well, I know AGW is suppose to be a,b,c, and I can understand x,y,z, but I don't see how process x produces result y, especially given 1,2,3. Does anyone know?" Then he is entering into an equal conversation, and ready to freely give and take, AND - it costs nothing. Listening to an opposite viewpoint in order to understand it DOES NOT mean you lose yours- it simply means you listen. You don't have to agree.

Such discussions are critically needed on all fronts of all issues - the ability to listen not in order to respond, but in order to understand. Especially in regards to climate, we've made AGW into a barometer of political/relig ious/scientific credentials, which is absurd or obscene, depending.
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-03-08 14:18
Great comments. Very insightful.

I appreciate the effort you've put into showing Malcolm and his agenda for what they are.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.