Pat Sajak Newest Climate Denial Scientist

May 21, 2014

Readers have probably heard by now that game show host Pat Sajak is the newest authority to weigh in for climate denial. (hey,  when you’re on the denial side, you go with what you got)
This fits well with the denialist meme of the “thousands of scientists” (see classic crock video above) who supposedly deny the mainstream science. On closer examination, we find that vanishingly few of the supposed scientists are in fact scientists, and of those, fewer still have any expertise, study, or published work in the field.  I’ll give Sajak the benefit of the doubt and presume that he has a college degree, which makes him, like Heartland Institute’s James Taylor, “a trained scientist”, on the strength of some undergrad 101 courses.

In denierville, if you are a chiropractor, you’re also a climate scientist. Podiatrist? Climate scientist. Veteranarian? Climate scientist. Like I said, you go with what you got.

Greenpeace blog:

SHOWTIME’s Years of Living Dangerously series just aired a segment featuring James Taylor, a lawyer who has been paid to confuse the public over the reality of climate change, its causes, and its impact on humanity. The Heartland Institute, where James Taylor works, is know for alienating its corporate supporters by comparing people like you and me–assuming you recognize the reality of climate change–to the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden.

I wish I was joking, but I’m not.

The joke was on James Taylor, last night. Taylor made an easily disprovable boast to America Ferrera, claiming, “I’m a scientist by training as well,” apparently in addition to his law degree.


sajak1

Advertisements

22 Responses to “Pat Sajak Newest Climate Denial Scientist”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    Sajak has no apparent qualifications to comment on climate change other than that he was a TV weatherman for a few years. He studied at Columbia college, which is a media arts and fine and performing arts “cultural” school that probably offers few if any science courses. He IS quite the conservative, though, and that apparently is enough to make him a climate “expert” in his own mind.

    (I wonder if he signed the Oregon Petition?)

  2. rayduray Says:

    Late news. Sajak said today that his “racists” comment was meant to be a parody. He was trying to make a joke. Didn’t work.

    http://www.politico.com//story/2014/05/pat-sajak-climate-change-tweet-parody-106964.html

    Quoting Politico:

    “Wheel of Fortune” host Pat Sajak returned to Twitter to let his follower know his recent comment on global warming was just “hyperbole.”

    “As most of you know, original Tweet was intended to parody the name-calling directed at climate skeptics. Hyperbole,” Sajak tweeted Wednesday afternoon.

    Sajak later added in a statement: “Of course I was joking. Just mocking the name-calling that is directed at global warming skeptics within and without the scientific community.”

    ***
    Ray here. Time for the politically correct thin-skin crowd to admit they’ve been pwned? 🙂

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Yeah, Ray. HaHaHa—Sajak is such a funny man! And so brilliant! Linking the very funny subject of race with the very funny subject of climate change (which appears as if it may cause the end of life on earth as we know it if we don’t get moving soon). What’s next for Sajak? Linking climate change advocacy to the Holocaust? Or child porn? How about rape?

      Just because he is a useless celebrity that is paid way too much to do nothing of real use doesn’t give him the right to make %#@*&*& STUPID jokes and cause the rest of us to waste time talking about him. He is about as important to the planet as Dennis Rodman and Paris Hilton, and I am pleased to announce that I just signed an on-line petition to Sony Entertainment demanding that he be fired.

  3. rayduray Says:

    OT

    When I spotted this Bloomberg item I recalled the Tesla discussion we had a while back here at Crocks. Since I can’t easily find that and not many would notice a new comment on a dead old thread, here goes… just for the sake of stirring the pot:

    Headline: Green Cars Won’t Save the Planet

    Snip:

    A massive polar ice cap seems to be melting. What are we going to do to stop it?

    The answer, as I’ve often posited in this space, is “likely nothing.” Oh, I don’t mean literally “nothing”; I’m sure people will continue to write angry editorials and buy “green” consumer products. But I don’t think we’re likely to do much in the way of actually reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, which contribute to the climate change that is melting the ice caps.

    A few weeks back, this drew a censorious e-mail from a longtime commenter who noted that he was making a serious commitment to emissions reduction by, among other things, buying a Chevrolet Volt.

    My response to him is that “buying a Volt” does not constitute getting serious about carbon emissions. The idea that we can save the planet while barely changing our consumption patterns is one of the reasons that we are not going to actually “get serious” about global warming….. ”

    Continues at website.

    ***
    Well, if we’re going to rationalize electric cars and wean them from coal-fired power, here’s a fellow who is leading the charge with a nifty concept of solar roadways. This video is three years old. Google “Scott Brusaw” for up to date info on the current (no pun intended) state of his roadway R&D.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Yes, Ray, you ARE good at stirring the pot. “Here’s a guy who is LEADING THE CHARGE with a NIFTY concept”? Hate to play whack-a-mole on the topic of Solar Roadways again since we had a whole thread devoted to it not long ago, but this bears answering.

      This clip is four years old, and Solar Roadways has made little progress (other than suck at the government teat and try to get fools to part with their $$$ and buy in). The guy says he has “zero marketing skills”? That’s BS—-he does an excellent job of selling his little “mission from God”.

      As I said on the other thread, “It’s a freakin’ ROAD, people”, and he has thrown everything but the kitchen sink in there to appeal to everyone—just like the Swiss Army Knife—-lots of “tools”, most of which don’t work very well and take up space that could be used for the main purpose of the knife—A BLADE—just as this is a distraction from the purpose of a road.

      It has heating elements, LED’s, microprocessors, animal sensors, water collection and treatment, buried cables, recharges cars, and is made from recyclables? Will it also make those who drive on it smarter and more attractive to the opposite sex?

      As gingerbaker or someone else said, this is a solution in search of a problem. And slot cars? If he really wanted to talk sense, he’s be talking about bringing back trolley cars.

  4. jimbills Says:

    Since we’re already a bit off-thread here, I thought I’d share a recent talk from one of the better systems thinkers:

    “Humans and Planet Earth: Transitioning from Teenagers to Adults as a Species”

    • rayduray Says:

      Thanks Jim,

      Nate is pretty convincing. Although I would say I have a bit of a problem with his talk’s title: “Planet Earth: Transitioning from Teenagers to Adults as a Species.”

      What I’m witnessing in a number of different ways is the devolution of adult to teenager behavior and comprehension as we “advance”.

      Take a quick look at the most popular words by alphabetical order at Urban Dictionary. For example, the first three most popular words at “B” are not beautiful, bountiful or beneficence. http://www.urbandictionary.com/popular.php?character=B

      If you look at “A”, “C” and “D” you get similarly lizard-brained responses.

      Another way to view this? http://iphysioperth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Devolution_of_Man.jpg

      ***
      Since we’re suggesting intelligent if off-topic presentations at the moment, let me add that there’s a pretty informative and well-written item on water available here: http://www.theautomaticearth.com/physical-limits-to-food-security-water-and-climate/

      • jimbills Says:

        Hi. I think he’s referring to a hoped-for maturation as we advance further down the path we’re heading. Hagens is someone who thinks our destination is pretty fixed, but that we might be able adapt in positive ways to a negative situation. He’s not saying we’re maturing right now.

        I view ‘progress’ very skeptically these days, as I see more of a devolution in humanistic (one that increases in rapidity) terms, all while we are easily distracted by the bright, shiny things of technology. We have iPads, and we think our children playing Angry Birds is a miracle – nothing like the old days where they had to run and play outside, using their imagination as a guide.

        Hagens mentions the Idiocracy effect that has taken place since the rise of agriculture ( http://www.livescience.com/24713-humans-losing-intelligence.html ) and the much more recent fragmentation of attention spans due to social media (this is weak link, but I’m too distracted right now to search for a better one, ha ha – http://www.sociallystacked.com/2011/12/how-social-media-has-made-people-less-focused-and-more-self-centered ).

        I don’t think there’s any doubt we’re ‘dumber’ now than we were even 50 years ago. Why on Earth would we spend two seconds caring what a celebrity who hosts a consumerist game show thinks about global warming? We only care because our attention spans have devolved to sound bites, celebrity worship, and Twitter feeds.

        I’ll read the Nicole Foss link. Thanks.

      • jimbills Says:

        Reading the Foss article. Some back research led me to this small clip:
        http://www.alexandracousteau.org/expeditions/colorado-river/death-of-a-river

        Which, really interestingly, is the EXACT same region proposed for the massive wind tower turbine mentioned in another recent post here (that would have massive water consumption):
        https://climatecrocks.com/2014/05/17/wind-power-tower-proposed-for-desert-areas/

        Again, a bit from the tower proposal with the city of San Luis – “The agreement covers a number of items including, but not limited to, land zoning, rights-of-way, utilities and provides that the City of San Luis will guarantee the supply the water to fuel the Tower Project for a minimum of 50 years.”

        • dumboldguy Says:

          The Nicole Foss clip was excellent—-a nice compendium of a lot of useful facts.

          When I first saw the Wind Power Tower, I said to myself “Bold concept (if it works) but where are they going to get the water?” Anyone who has ever been to Yuma County AZ (on the border with Mexico) would ask the same question, because it is one of the hottest and driest places in the country—-I merely passed through, and don’t intend to ever return (at least not in summer).

          Extensive web searching has failed to come up with any answer. The tiny city of San Luis (population ~15,000+) has a nice website that lists “News” items going back several years. It includes such things as when the city will collect Christmas trees but NOT ONE mention of the Wind Power Tower. Another “News” item announced the recent interconnection of the two halves of the city water system to even out water distribution.

          Further searching reveals that the town relies on six wells (250-600 feet deep) to supply 7 million gallons a day of VERY hard water. The projected loss of 25% daily of the 2.5 billion gallons needed by the Tower amounts to ~600+ million gallons, which approaches 100 times the total water available to San Luis right now. San Luis is not far from the Colorado River, but, as jimbills linked, it is almost dry by the time it reaches there and DOES actually disappear after it crosses the border and before it reaches the ocean.

          The Israelis had the right idea—build the Tower near the ocean and use salt water—-somebody is dreaming if they think it will work in San Luis AZ. .

    • andrewfez Says:

      -You only need to decouple GDP from fossil energy use at a rate of 1 or 2% per year (I’ve forgotten) for good things to happen a few decades down the line. I thought we recently did start the decoupling?

      -Jervins Paradox is not comprehensively elastic, and doesn’t take into account supply constrained pricing, or technological leap frogging.

      Overall i enjoyed his talk.

      • jimbills Says:

        Thanks for taking the time on it. It’s really worth it for anyone interested in the subjects of energy and the environment.

        Jevons Paradox can be overcome IF there are suitable demand constraints put in place in addition to the technological efficiencies – such as a carbon tax. But it holds true in a broad way that isn’t sufficiently recognized by the environmental movement.

        On decoupling, Hagens talks about production of goods and its contribution to GDP as it correlates to energy (fossil + renewables + nuclear). These are tightly linked. GDP gets all sorts of funky in today’s calculations due to increases in the service industry (as opposed to goods), the financial sector, and just plain jimmying the figures to present a positive outlook. It’s very hard to get clear and reliable data.

        The service industry, and the financial sector, both completely rely on the goods sector – industrial production really is our economy, even though we in the West might be mostly marketers and PR people. GDP to energy use really needs to be considered on a global basis in a globalized economy.

  5. miffedmax Says:

    From now on whenever I get in a discussion with a denier, I’m going to claim to be a scientist, just like James Taylor! I took science classes in college, AND I followed some of the links on CDCW! I mean that’s practically doing post-doc work.

  6. Gingerbaker Says:

    “… doesn’t give him the right to make %#@*&*& STUPID jokes…”

    The Constitution gives him that right.

    He says he was joking – that it was parody. I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    • jimbills Says:

      This will be my only post about Sajak, as I don’t think he’s worth the time of day, but the latest tweet wasn’t his only about global warming:
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-trolls-the-global-warming-crowd/

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You can mindlessly give him the benefit of the doubt, but I prefer a more Darwinian approach. People like Sajak and Limbaugh and their ilk would have been eliminated from the gene pool back in the days when STUPID meant life or death. I am one of a number of folks who fantasize that they could be transported back to the streets of Tombstone AZ in the 1880’s and have a shootout with Gasbag Rush over his lies. We should remove these folks from the “gene pool” of discourse today, just as recently happened with the fool in NH who called Obama the N-word.

      And I do think the freedom of speech clause was meant to protect intelligent and responsible dissent from the majority, not to give free license to self-absorbed, useless, and STUPID people. I will remind you that you have no constitutional right to scream FIRE in a dark and crowded movie theater just because think it would be “funny”. IMO, you either speak responsibly, keep it to yourself and shut the $@*&# up, or pay the price for stupidity.

      PS Don’t forget that the same folks who brought you the Constitution also passed things like the Alien and Sedition Acts and had no problem whipping their slaves if they got “uppity”.

      • Jim Housman Says:

        You are really on another planet if you think people like Rush are stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing, is very good at it and achieving great fame and fortune in his chosen pursuit. The fact that so many of us find him and his ilk repulsive does not make him stupid.

        Fantasizing about shooting people is probably left unsaid.

        I am with you about having a rational understanding about who our founding fathers were. They did some wonderful things but in the context of the world they lived in. We need to constantly ask ourselves what of their work is still revelant today but not lose track of the potentially catastrophic result of constitutional changes.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          You miss my point about “stupid”. I spoke of a past context in which Rush’s attitudes and behaviors WOULD have gotten him killed. Any “cave man” who so rashly denied reality by strutting around like Rush would likely have been dispatched by the first sabre-tooth who saw him. An arrogant bigmouth like him would have been a walking dead man in the American West of the 1880’s. Among others, Sandra Fluke’s brothers and father would have done him in as a matter of honor, and would not have been charged. Have you forgotten that duels were fought back then? Even by Congressmen?

          If you think Rush’s “talent” deserves a “very good” and think he has achieved “great fame and fortune”, YOU are looking at it from the wrong angle—-perhaps from that “other planet” you mentioned. IMO, what he does IS stupid, in that it goes against the greater good of the nation, and, in the long run, all of mankind.

          You think “fantasizing about shooting people” is beneath your “sensibilities”? Are you familiar with the recorded history of mankind? Men have been hacking each other to pieces since we started writing it all down, and some people just plain deserve killing. If someone had shot Hitler in the early 30’s, some 50 million people might not have died in WW2.

          Have you ever served? Many who have served have killed or been killed (or been ready to so) in the name of God and Country. IMO, Rush is far more dangerous to the country than some camel jockey on the other side of the world with an AK-47. Rush’s propagandizing builds support for those who send our troops off to fight these insane wars. This is not Tombstone AZ in 1880, and my fantasies are just that. However, if someone DID shoot him, I would contribute to his defense fund.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        “You can mindlessly give him the benefit of the doubt, but I prefer a more Darwinian approach. People like Sajak and Limbaugh …”

        1) mindlessly? Why are you being personally insulting to me? That’s inappropriate. I’m giving you fair warning.

        2) Limbaugh has a huge documented history of climate denial. Do you have any information about Sajak that would justify linking him with Limbaugh? Anything?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          You’re giving me “fair warning” of what? Do I need to keep my weapons close at hand? Your state of high dudgeon over an inconsequential insult is noted. Get over it and worry instead about things that are more important, like the inordinate power over some people that the “celebrity cult” has in America, and how damaging that is to the nation.

          IMO, waving the Constitution about as you “happily give the benefit of the doubt” (and thereby actually enable and encourage begavior like Sajak’s) IS mindless. He IS a “celebrity”, has a “following”, and should use that platform for good, not STUPID attempts at self amusement and self-aggrandizement.

          It’s true that Sajak is far down the continuum from Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, and other “celebrity NON-expert bigmouths”, but he has a record of conservative activism in general and STUPID comments about climate change. (see jimbills link above) Should we wait until he works his way along the continuum until he reaches somewhere near Ted Nugent level?

          He has called you and me “unpatriotic racists”. He said it for fun and should pay the price. Simple. If it were my Tea Party neighbor saying it to me, I’d merely call him an A-hole and we’d have a laugh, but he’s not my neighbor.

          PS Since you seem to be so “in tune” with the Constitution, what are your thoughts about how the Supremes seem to be interpreting it in such a conservative way? I speak of Citizens United and McCutcheon particularly. Do you think the Constitution gives corporations the same “speech” rights as people? (and the plutocracy the right to buy the country?)

          • andrewfez Says:

            I don’t follow the Citizens United stuff as much as i should but it occurs to me that ruling a billionaire should be able to contribute as much money as they want to politics and restricting such would be restricting their freedom of speech only defeats that which it is supposed to be protecting: for every other single man in the country that’s not a billionaire then suffers inequality with regard to freedom of speech in politics as a function of their relative poverty. You give one man a ‘right’ by the taking of that right from millions of others. You’ve silenced the majority of the people’s ‘speech’, that one man may talk as much as he pleases.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yep, you have nicely summarized what the minority (dissenting) opinion was on the Court.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: