Who Needs Elitist Experts on Climate Change?

January 28, 2015

Droll skit from Lake Wobegon. Only 2 minutes long. Why not?

Elite: Script from January 24, 2015 broadcast of A Prairie Home Companion:

GK: When the surgeon comes in to say hello before he opens up your skull to see what that big dark spot on the CAT-scan was, you don’t want to see a guy with a toothpick in his mouth and a baseball cap on his head..

TR: Hey—- how’s it goin’? My name’s Bubba —- put her there. (BUMP AND CRASH) Whoops. Didn’t see that. Anyway — just wanted to say howdy, Brian, and we’re going to put you out in a moment, and then we’ll —- open her up—- you know —– and see what we’re dealing with here, okay?

GK: My name isn’t Brian, it’s Carson.

TR: Oh? Oh! Right. I was looking at the word “brain” —- thought you were Brian. That old dyslexia kicking in. Anyhoo—- you take it easy (FADE, CLINK OF SURGICAL STUFF)

GK: He may be a nice guy, but suddenly you want to see his whole medical school record, not just the certificate. —- Same when you board the plane and you’re right behind the pilot and he bumps his head on the door—-

FN: Ouch! Goldang it! Boy, that smarts! Whoa! Son of a gun! Hi— — how are we doing there? (SHAKES A LOCKED DOOR) Oh. That’s the lavatory. Someone’s in there. Cockpit’s up there. Boy o boy. Rough night last night.

GK: You look at him and he doesn’t have the tight crewcut you like to see on a pilot, he has long hair and it looks like he spends a lot of time fussing with it. You want an overachiever for a pilot, not a narcissist. Same when you turn on the TV and you hear your U.S. Senator talking about science —–

TR (DRAWL): There is no hard evidence that human activity contributes to climate change, or that carbon dioxide is involved —- I mean, heck, trees give off carbon dioxide —- no, sir, the simple truth is that a United Nations conspiracy is behind this, trying to regulate carbon emissions to cripple our country. That’s what we’re dealing with here.
GK: You don’t want the U.S. Senate operating in a fantasy world, do you? No. You hear him speak and suddenly you reassess your feelings about elitism. Everybody’s opposed to elitism, until suddenly you need someone smart —- and when it really comes down to it —- your life may depend on an arrogant jerk who knows what he’s doing.

GK: …..a message in the public interest from the American Elitism Institute in Superior, Wisconsin.

39 Responses to “Who Needs Elitist Experts on Climate Change?”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    An excellent way to spend two minutes. I like “droll”, but there is so much truth in this skit that it’s sad as well as funny. We have too many Bubbas on the planet (and they are allowed to vote and hold office).


  2. I’ve loved A Prairie Home Companion since way back (owned a Powdermilk Biscuits t-shirt until it disintegrated), but did you fellows catch the errors by the “Senator”? Guys like Inhofe, citing skeptic climate scientists, have not said there is absolutely no human effect in climate change or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. And Jeez! Trees ABSORB CO2 and give off oxygen. Elitist skit-writer science comprehension error there, further giving the appearance of AGW believers not having their basic science nailed down. Now, for the bit about a UN conspiracy, one could say that appearance might be reduced just a tad if IPCC / UN sustainability folks weren’t pushing solutions that pretty much strangle any economic situation they’re placed in. Solutions to a problem, by the way, which skeptic climate scientists dispute in detail regarding whether the IPCC has made its case on the situation actually being a human-caused problem.

    But speaking of conspiracies, how’s that 911 Truther/ChemTrail-style one working out for ya when it comes to digging up proof that skeptic climate scientists received payments with instructions to lie and misinform? Are you really, really sure that’s an AGW defense tactic you want to stick to? Are you really sure the character assassination defense tactic is a good idea, particularly when you have guys like Garrison Keillor infusing it with such easy wipeout errors?

    Meanwhile…. cue up commenter “dumboldguy” in ..3..2..1: “GO AWAY!!”


    • So, skeptic climate scientists “dispute in detail regarding whether the IPCC has made its case on the situation actually being a human-caused problem” AND they “have NOT said there is absolutely no human effect in climate change or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”. Do they say that an increase in greenhouse gasses is responsible for a little bit of all of the warming OR do they say that greenhouse gasses are responsible for all of a little bit of warming?


      • If you try reading their material, I think you can figure that out for yourself. No?


        • They all agree that the Earth is warming.

          Some, such as Norm Kalmanovitch, Art Robinson and Willie Soon say that CO2 is not the primary cause. So they would be in the “little bit of all of the warming” camp.

          Some, such as Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels, say that warming projections are too high. So they would be in the “all of a little bit of warming” camp.

          Lindzen’s paper was credible enough to be analyzed. He hypothesized that the water vapor feedback is a negative feedback, and therefore will reduce the magnitude increase in warming relative to CO2 increases. When his paper was challenged by other scientists, and by satellite measurements, he said he made some stupid mistakes.

          Rather than analyzing the underlying physics, Michaels, “asymmetrically” uses statistics to make his case.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You waste your time, Charles. Russell was just deflecting with “If you try reading their material, I think you can figure that out for yourself. No?”, and didn’t expect (or want) an answer.

            He doesn’t understand the science (good or bad) that the denier scientists (not “skeptics”) or real climate scientists propound, not will he comprehend what you have said here. He has said he is not a scientist and the bottom of the barrel and walked in off the street—-don’t stretch him beyond his capabilities.

            His specialty is “denying the existence of the denier whores who are paid by Heartland and the Kocks to lie about AGW”. Leave him to that unworthy endeavor and leave science out of it.


          • Having already read “their material”, I did not waste much time, DOG.


          • We’re making progress here. Commenter charleszeller just imploded the “climate change denier” talking point. Next, we will hear some Greenpeace/WWF/NRDC/Occupy person proclaim, “We know where charleszeller lives.”

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Cough, cough, hack, hack, and rub your eyes, folks (and maybe take a shower). The cloud of straw dust that Russell has stirred up as he brings out his tired old straw men is a big one.

      Clueless Russell still seems to think his mindless parroting of denier distortions and misstatements of fact (BS for short) will gain some traction on Crock. Oh well, at least he stayed away for a while and we wouldn’t want to interfere with him receiving his “whoring for Heartland” pay check.

      By the way, Russell, did you get a raise for 2015? And isn’t it fun to watch your Heartland buddy Willie Soon get destroyed over his failing to disclose his “whoring for Heartland” (and Exxon Mobil etc)? I just signed a petition to the Smithsonian to send his ass down the road.

      Yes, Russell IS clueless, or he would understand that when someone has no character to begin with, it is impossible to “assassinate” it. AGW needs no defense anyway from fools like you, Russell, and the side issue that you have built your life around is just that—-a side issue that no one pays any attention to as the AGW situation worsens.

      And here you go, Russell. …3….2….1….GO AWAY!

      (But DO come back, just not too often—once a month is OK—-you ARE entertaining)l..


      • Well, thanks for that last invite there. Sorry for being away for as long, but as you might know, I’ve been busy.

        Always the irony, that our friend “dumboldguy” says what I say is ‘parroting of denier distortions and misstatements’ (or, well, you know his two-letter shorthand description). Problem is, when anyone reads my work over at my blog, what they soon see is that the two-letter description “dumboldguy” speaks of is …………………………. wait for it …………………… verbatim copy with full transcript web links of your own beloved material! Verbatim quotes straight out of Gelbspan’s, Gore’s, Oreskes’, etc stuff, that when you compare the related narratives side-by-side, they don’t line up right! Worst of all, you fellows can try this yourselves, pretending I never existed. It’s just as much fun as when you take what some “Bible-is-literally-word-for-word true” and point out where one section flat out contradicts another, or when you ask him where Cain’s wife came from. Ka-BOOM! Give it a shot sometime. See if you can get four of Gelbspan’s tales about his 1995 ‘skeptic corruption discovery’ to line up perfectly straight.

        Sign as many anti-Dr Soon petitions as you like, each one of them will implode in the face of the sheer lack of evidence proving any donations he (or more accurately his department) got came with instructions to fabricate false material. Then you have the Ka-BOOM of when he said for all to hear, “I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research.”

        Meanwhile, maybe our man Peter here keeps me around because I boost the comment rate. If you are really into conspiracy theory, how do you know he doesn’t pay me as a double agent shill to keep you fellows on your toes?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Yes, once a month is plenty, Russell, and if and when you do return, please spare us the Gish Gallop (look it up) of PHD BS (Piled Higher and Deeper).

          What’s ironic is that you keep coming here and crapping up the discourse on Crock with comments and then tell us to “read your (BS) over at your blog”. Why should we go there, considering that you allow NO comments on your blog, as evidenced by this bit of hypocrisy posted there?:

          Says Russell: [ * 10/28/14 Author’s note: I endorse the pledge of Transparency, Accountability, and Openness as advocated at the TAO of Journalism web site, but in a bit of full disclosure, I don’t feel I can sign the pledge because of my reluctance to allow all varieties of so-called ‘open dialog’ comments to be placed at my blog posts – which that site’s pledge mandates.]

          It’s OK for you to waste our time on Crock, but we can’t refute your BS on your site? Yes, that’s hypocrisy—-don’t hold your breath waiting for us to show up under those conditions. You also asked on 10/28/14 whether this was “as questionable as the LA Times’ refusal to allow comments from “climate change deniers”?? The answer is that it’s MORE questionable—-the LA Times is merely refusing to print LIES, and we would hope that any reputable newspaper would do the same—you are doing the exact opposite and refusing to print TRUTH that refutes your lies, and that actually goes beyond questionable and approaches despicable.

          Gelbspan’s, Gore’s and Oreskes’ narratives “don’t line up right!”??? WRONG!! They DO line up right except for the very small and insignificant portions that you have built a life around in order to earn your Heartland paycheck. I’ll say it again—-you go back TWENTY freakin’ years to talk about Gelbspan but have NEVER once responded when I say “Let’s talk about Arctic Sea Ice”. As Tommy Lee Jones the marshal said to Harrison Ford the fugitive—-WE DON’T CARE (about Gelbspan’s or Gore’s alleged sins).

          And re: “Sign as many anti-Dr Soon petitions as you like, each one of them will implode in the face of the sheer lack of evidence proving any donations he (or more accurately his department) got came with instructions to fabricate false material.”

          Do you think inserting your tired old BS about “….lack of evidence that donations came with INSTRUCTIONS TO FABRICATE false material…” is going to make that “implosion” statement true?. Are you going to say for the 100th time “prove it”? Conflict of interest is conflict of interest, impropriety is impropriety—-Soon did NOT abide by the disclosure rules of the Chinese publication and has
          embarrassed the Smithsonian.

          And his comment that “I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research.” proves that he is a whore. You must think we are all stupid if you expect us to believe that Heartland, Exxon Mobil, Murray Energy, the Kocks, and all the others give all that $$$ to you and Soon without expecting you to say what they want to hear. If no one but Greenpeace gave Soon any money and Greenpeace gave him large piles of it, their shared (even if unstated) expectation would be that his research should support Greenpeace’s goals. If it didn’t, the $$$ flow would stop. If you ever stop singing your one note song, Heartland will cut you off in a heartbeat.

          Lastly, Peter doesn’t need you to “boost the comment rate” here, and we certainly don’t need to be “kept on our toes” by someone who is as flat-footed a fool as you. If anything, you likely hurt the comment rate because many stay away from a thread while you’re here spouting your BS and Gish Galloping. Peter is also far to smart to pick a guy from “the bottom of the barrel who just walked in off the street and is not a scientist” to be a double agent on Crock. He needs someone with enough knowledge and skills to really stir us up, and that’s not you. Or haven’t you noticed that you really don’t draw much attention here, and that it’s less each time you appear?

  3. lesliegraham1 Says:

    “Trees ABSORB CO2 and give off oxygen”

    Er…… that was part of the caricature of a clueless denier.
    Duh!

    In fact I took it to be a reference to Ronald Reagan who famously said: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” but maybe not.

    You ARE hilarious though – further giving the appearance of AGW deniers not having their basic sarcasm nailed down let alone basic science.

    And while I’m at it – fully 6% of deniers DO deny that the climate is changing at all!

    You know you would appear SO much more intelligent if you stopped posting comments.
    Just sayin’

    • dumboldguy Says:

      leslie,

      You have stolen my thunder with “….you would appear SO much more intelligent if you stopped posting comments”, and it is a far more polite way of saying “GO AWAY” to Russell than he deserves.

      Yes, just as Rick Perry’s handlers think he would appear much “smarter”if he never said anything but just walked around in his new $500 “Don’t I look smart?” glasses, Russell would be well served by keeping his mouth shut.

      Russell’s handlers should get him some glasses too, have him ditch the dumbass visor, and tell him to stop talking. Then he might approach Perry in “smartness”. Here’s a clip of Russell in action. Perhaps you wioll be able to stay awake for the whole thing—-I wasn’t able to and had to ‘rewind” a few times. Isn’t Russell impressive? I particularly like the bit where he waves books around and intones things like “….and on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates the whole book….”.

      Note that Russell, (who has a degree in business administration and knows NO science), early on gives us the “I am not a scientist” BS that is becoming a mantra for ignorant denier shills like him and the various Repugnant politicians.

      Of course, there exists the possibility that Russell is playing the “caricature of a clueless denier” role to entertain us and secretly thumbing his nose at his employers at Heartland. If so, they’re too dumb to notice, so they keep paying him, he doesn’t starve, and we get entertained. Life is good.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        PS I forgot to say that watching the first half-minute or so of the clip is more than enough to show all you need to know about Russell. Watch at least that much, and more if you can stand it.

        • lesliegraham1 Says:

          I tried – really I did – but I began losing the will to live around about 3.30 when he explains – er – something. What was it now?
          Oh yeah – that climate scientists – or maybe that was climate “scientists” – or was it Al Gore? Anyway – he explained that somebody was trying to ‘reposition climate science as theory rather than fact’.
          I’ve absolutely no idea what he is talking about and clearly neither has he.

          I agree with one thing he said though “The Heartland Institute are scaping the bottom of the barrel”.
          Geez – it’s just embarrassing.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Embarrassing? Apparently not to Russell or the fools at the Heartland conference who listened to him.

            Russell actually gets paid to do this. Amazing.


          • “…. Russell actually gets paid to do this. …”

            Or else I don’t, which is what stands when not a single one of you can prove money arrives in my bank account for this along with explicit instructions to do this.

            Bop over to my latest blog post and take the suggestion where I suggest you should yell, “It doesn’t matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove!”

            I pull your string and you give me the same old name-calling line. Doesn’t matter who I taunt, AGWers are like money in the bank, a gift that keeps on giving.


          • “Reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” Geez – it’s just embarrassing. Google search it.

            I was told by no less than a board member of the Society of Environmental Journalists that numerous people had documented the corruption of skeptic climate scientists, but if you take the kind of effort you seem to abhor – basic critical thinking / intellectual curiosity – you’ll soon see not one person independently corroborates that line as proof of a sinister industry directive, and the main promulgator of that line never offers you, me, or the rest of the planet proof that the line was any sort of industry directive at all.

            Clearly I most certainly do know what I am talking about and that would be readily obvious if you took the time to read my material at my blog.

            Hopefully Peter Sinclair will chime in and reassure us that commenter “lesliegraham1” is not a good representative of the kind of people who inhabit ClimateCrocks, i.e. those who have at least more than a sentence or two’s worth of familiarity with their own anti-skeptic book authors/speakers.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More attempts to divert and deflect, and more mindless “prove it” demands from Russell. I suggest that anyone who wants to see examples of how “industry directives” work need only go to the tobacco controversy to see how “directives” are hidden.

            “Clearly I most certainly do know what I am talking about and that would be readily obvious if you took the time to read my material at my blog”.

            Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! That is priceless! “I’m a genius and I can prove it”, says Russell—-“Just ask me and I’ll tell you”. (Don’t bother going to his blog, folks—-it’s a boring monologue and you’re not even allowed to ask questions, never mind disagree).

            Russell does have a small and very strange sense of humor though, as evidenced by “Hopefully Peter Sinclair will chime in and reassure us that commenter “lesliegraham1″ is not a good representative of the kind of people who inhabit ClimateCrocks”. That can be nothing BUT a joke—-if Russell is serious, he is sicker than I thought, and if Peter is going to “reassure” us of anything, it will likely be that Russell is allowed on Crock only to serve as a very bad example.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        DOG, that’s cruel. Funny, but cruel.
        I’ve been reduced to breathless giggles before watching this video, but even I would not have been so cruel as to post it.
        One more reason why I welcome Russell here. Proving my points ever so more convincingly than I could.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Yeah, a bit cruel maybe, but you are a much “nicer” person than me and I am too old and tired to be patient with fools like Russell. And I wouldn’t have done it except that the snide and self-satisfied BS in his comments just begs for the truth to be told. I’ve watched this clip several times and no longer giggle much when watching it. He said in his own words that he is “the bottom of the barrel” and has no more expertise than some guy who “walked in off the street”—-the world should hear him say that.

          It’s actually sad the way Russell keeps holding up his (extensively) bookmarked books, reading passages from them that differ slightly in wording, and trying to make something significant out of those “discrepancies”. Doesn’t he realize that he is actually pounding the truth into the heads of the assembled Heartland Zombies by doing so? They hear the words of Gelbspan and Gore and Oreskes over and over, and Russell’s “argument” about what they mean is basically incomprehensible. A mindless and self-defeating tactic, IMO.

          No, I feel no mercy when it comes to Russell—-he’s a paid whore for Heartland and all whores should know that they will get smacked around from time to time—-it’s what happens to all who sell themselves. If he wants to avoid “cruelty”, he should GO AWAY. (But come back maybe once a month so we can have some variety in our village idiots—-at least he doesn’t whine like Omno).


          • “… just begs for the truth to be told …”

            If only you could find this truth. Everybody is still waiting on that, in case you haven’t noticed.

            “…. no more expertise than some guy who “walked in off the street”—-the world should hear him say that ….”

            Sailed right past ya on what I meant by that, didn’t it. Helps if you watch more than just the first few seconds of the video. Or do you bury what I say about details in the big accusation not lining up right?

            “… a paid whore …”

            If only you could find this truth. In case you haven’t noticed, nobody is relying on you as a source for the evidence, and when they go looking for it, all they are going to find are more and more bits undermining the entire notion that skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers are ‘paid to lie’. Are you really, really sure you want to be inadvertently pointing folks in that direction?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, everybody is still waiting for the FULL truth to be told, and they will never get any of it from you or Heartland. Much truth is told on Crock and I am glad to do my small part in helping that happen, particularly when it comes to revealing truth about DFAO’s like you. (DFAO will be used as shorthand for Deluded Flaming Anal Orifice in future—-you have earned the title)

            You missed my saying that I have watched this clip of your “performance” at the Heartland conference several times? That’s a given because it is so soporific and also requires several “looks” before your maunderings can be deciphered. I don’t know “what you meant” by that first 30 seconds, but only a DFAO would think that it was a good way to establish credentials and gain credibility with the audience. “Bottom of the barrel, not a scientist, walked in off the street” is what someone who is unsure of his facts and seeking sympathy from the audience would say, i.e., “believe me because I’m pathetic and ignorant and need this job”.

            And you ask, “do you buy what I say about details in the big accusation not lining up right?” Short answer is that the “details” about what one obscure person wrote in 1995 (TWENTY freakin’ years ago) and ten years ago and what has been “revised” in the last five years is a horse that too dead to beat for anyone but those like you who are grasping at straws. Who cares if Gelbspan, Gore, Oreskes or anyone else made minor errors or misstated a few facts (deliberately or inadvertently) when the overwhelming weight of the evidence they present about AGW and deniers is irrefutable. Over that same time span the planet has warmed to record temps, Arctic sea ice is disappearing, Antarctic ice is sliding off the continent at an accelerating rate, weather is getting more extreme, droughts are spreading, and AGW marches on. You should learn some science so that you can join the discussion about all that.

            “….when they go looking for it, all they are going to find are more and more bits undermining the entire notion that skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers are ‘paid to lie’. Are you really, really sure you want to be inadvertently pointing folks in that direction?”

            Yes, Russell, I am really really really REALLY sure that folks should be pointed in “that direction”. Now that you have baldly asserted that “all they are going to find are more and more bits undermining the entire notion that skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers are ‘paid to lie’.”, it’s incumbent on YOU to back that up—point out to us what these “more and more undermining bits” are and where they can be found. You are All Hat and No Cattle, just like Perry, and the advice to ditch the visor, get some “look smart” glasses, and (above all) shut your mouth is still the best you’ll get.


      • “…. on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates the whole book ….”

        LUV it when you do things like that. Absolutely love it, because what you just illustrated was the exact thing you psychologically project onto skeptics, the tactic of using misinformation or, dare I say it – outright lies. Why didn’t you use a real quote of when I compare one book error to another?

        You know full well I never said the quote you have. So why torpedo your own credibility using a tactic that supposedly deplore?

        Bent on committing political suicide as a rep for the larger collective of AGW believers who hate misinformation but only too gladly show the shadow side of steam coming out of coal plants? Hmmmmm??

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Russell in his ignorance and smugness says “LUV it when you do things like that……Why didn’t you use a real quote of when I compare one book error to another?”.

          Why? Because I was just mocking you, Russell, and the things you point out as ‘errors” are meaningless, inconsequential, and deserve no notice.

          In the “through the looking glass” world you inhabit, pointing out what a deluded flaming anal orifice you are may “torpedo my credibility” with other DFAO deniers, but in the real world of truth that is 99+% of the discourse on Crock, my credibility is enhanced by speaking truth about your foolishness.

          Have you noticed that NO ONE here is on your side? Do you think they don’t understand that the only reason you come here and spout BS is because you’re a paid denier shill? A Whore for Heartland? You ARE clueless!


    • I imagine the “6% of deniers DO deny that the climate is changing” figure are enviro activists themselves who are advocating that the climate remain at a static level from around 100+ years ago. Lest anyone forget, 88.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, though.

      Well, P.H.C. listeners are very wonkish on political history, but that Reagan quip was quite obscure, so if that really was Garrison’s intent, it probably sailed past quite a few heads. I’d think if he wanted to get that far into the political weeds, he would have pinned the economic conspiracy angle on the ol’ Club of Rome folks or the Trilateral Commission (oh, wait, they’re doing the ChemTrails now, right?)

      Sure about sarcasm, are ya?

      ” …. SO much more intelligent if you stopped posting comments ….” Psychological projection, we much? Catch my drift? Or am I being obtuse?

      (oopsey, more of that unnailed-down sarcasm)

      And again with the denier talking point, when I’ve already challenged folks to point to a single place in my writings going back to 2008 where I ever said climate does not change?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Leslie is rightly ignoring Russell’s incoherencies here. I am sitting at the computer because it is below 20 degrees here in N VA, the wind is howling, the wind chill is in single digits, and my gas furnace is working hard pumping out the hot air and CO2—-so I have nothing better to do and will waste time replying to some of Russell’s BS this morning.

        “Lest anyone forget, 88.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, though”.

        “….would have pinned the economic conspiracy angle on the ol’ Club of Rome folks or the Trilateral Commission (oh, wait, they’re doing the ChemTrails now, right?)

        “Psychological projection, we much? Catch my drift? Or am I being obtuse?”

        “(oopsey, more of that unnailed-down sarcasm)”

        Oopsey? OOPSEY!!!? Sure about sarcasm, are ya, Russell? All of those are third grade level, at best. You need to take some sarcasm lessons—-maybe your local library has Sarcasm For Dummies on the shelf. And a better question is “Why do you keep attempting to wage battles of wits with us when you’re only half-armed”? (I first heard that one in the third grade).

        “…..that Reagan quip was quite obscure….”, and “….sailed past quite a few heads….”, and “….far into the political weeds….”? Really? Were you paying any attention back when he said it? Those of us who were concerned with the environment certainly “caught” it back then, and it caused quite a stir and much discussion. Our “side” still brings it up from time to time, and I think the PHC crew probably responded to it well and with understanding, undoubtedly far better than they would have to your utterly stupid “economic conspiracy Tri-lateral commission, Club of Rome, chemtrails” attempt at sarcasm. Get the Sarcasm For Dummies book! Soon!!! Please!!!!

  4. Gingerbaker Says:

    But speaking of conspiracies, how’s that 911 Truther/ChemTrail-style one working out for ya when it comes to digging up proof that skeptic climate scientists received payments with instructions to lie and misinform?

    Oh, please. Proof is rampant:

    1) Patrick Michaels admits 40% of his income from Big Oil (http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry)

    2) “Gelbspan reports Richard Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”[8]

    A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that “he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since.

    Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil[21], but does not appear to have filed a tax return with the IRS since 2007. [1](http://www.sourcewatch.org:/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen))

    Roy Spenser:

    ” George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests — including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org database. ”

    Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose “Resisting the Green Dragon” campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

    Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group’s major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world’s richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.” (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html)

    4) The Koch brothers have been spending titanic amounts of money to fund groups which tell lies and spread skepticism and rumors about climate science and climate scientists:

    “Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html)

    and:

    “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
    The Koch Brothers: Funding $67,042,064 to groups denying climate change since 1997.” (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/)

    5) “Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show ” (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon)

    6) “Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29)

    The various interest groups funneling monies for the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil and others are not funding actual science, and you know that Mr Russell Cook. They are funding propaganda. That you claim that these recipients are not deliberately or provably lying is an argument which is completely full of shit – they are receiving money to write and speak and what they write and speak are lies.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Good Job, Gingerbaker, although it’s a shame you had to spend so much time assembling the data—-most of us were already familiar with it, but it IS nice to see it so nicely assembled in one spot like this. You might add to it the latest news from Russell Crook himself

      Posted on January 30, 2015, on that POS site Russell runs called the Gelbspan Files Russell got himself a nice raise from Heartland! Being full of shit CAN pay off!

      “…. I’m given a strings-free $24,000 grant this time, for the full year”

      “….my critics ….imply my efforts…..are written by, directed by, approved by, and paid by people who supposedly shill for the fossil fuel industry.”

      Mere than an “implication”, Russell—-it’s a certainty (and don’t bother saying “prove it”—-I’m too busy proving that the sun rises in the morning and tides go in and out)

      If I remember, Russell started out at $12,000 in 2013 and got a $6000 raise to make it $18,000 for 2014. For 2015, he is given another $6000 raise at the beginning to get to $24,000 All he has to do is keep the lies coming and Heartland will reward him with $$$.

      And I love the “strings-free grant” BS. It’s a quid pro quo, not a “grant” that Russell will get, and Russell will earn it by his continued whoring for the fossil fuel interests, just as will all the folks you mention in this comment. Too bad Russell is such small potatoes that he will never make the big bucks that the other whores do.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        if they’re “strings free”, maybe I should apply?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          You jest, but maybe you should really consider that. Think about it. The ranks of those who accept AGW are growing—even DFAO Repugnant politicians are moving that way and almost all scientists are already there. It’s pretty big news when any denier “gets religion” and accepts AGW into their heart. Imagine how big a deal it would be if someone of your stature in the AGW believer world went the OTHER way—-over to the dark side. Has any AGW believer done that in recent memory? You could be like Lindbergh flying the Atlantic!

          You would certainly get 15 minutes of fame out of it and most importantly, you could get rich by whoring for Heartland and the Kocks the way Russell does. Isn’t that what it’s all about?—-money?

          You’d be worth WAY more than Russell’s puny $24K to Heartland. You’d have so much $$$ that you could vacation in Miami instead of Greenland and have REAL ice in your scotch rather than that nasty old Eeeeemian stuff that prehistoric seagulls pooped on. You could also afford to buy multiple pairs of “Don’t I look smart?” glasses and compete with Perry and Russell in the “image wars” (although Russell will likely never develop much of an “image”—-too many handicaps to overcome).

          You could appear on the Rush Limbaugh show! Inhofe would have you testifying before Congess every day! All of the 1699 amazing people who now follow Crock would turn into a torch and pitchfork carrying, stone throwing mob and attack you, and that would give you instant credibility.

          So many possibilities and so little downside—–all you’d have to do is give up all personal honor and sell your soul to the devil. (It was so easy for Russell).


        • By all means, give it a shot. There is not a thing holding you back.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “By all means, give it a shot. There is not a thing holding you back” says Russell, proving I was right when I said it was easy for Russell to “sell his soul to the devil and give up all personal honor”.

            So easy for him that he thinks it would be easy for anyone else to do the same. Poor Russell, he is sadly out of touch with how good and honest people think and behave..


      • “… a shame you had to spend so much time assembling the data …”

        Particularly when the ‘data’ is still, like all of the other such tries, devoid of the kind of proof of a conspiracy that would stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing. Man, that’s embarrassing.

        “… M[o]re than an “implication”, Russell—-it’s a certainty ….”

        Ok, so I won’t ask that you prove it, but don’t expect that any of your pals will ask you for your evidence, seeing how you couldn’t even do so for people on your side. On these “raises” you speak of….. don’t they fall well below what the Occupy folks consider to be money that people need to live on?

        Plus, since I had been saying things not one bit different for the years prior to receiving grants, then by default I have not been corrupted by the donations. So, how do you know I was ever corrupted in the first place? Does your failure to prove that have something to do with your ongoing failure to prove anything I say about the contradictions in your own beloved material are actually lies? For example, Gore saying Gelbspan discovered leaked memos that Gore quoted from years before Gelbspan ever mentioned them?

        Can’t do a thing about that one, can you. I didn’t print what Gore had in the Inconvenient Truth movie companion book or his Earth in the Balance over those leaked memos, and neither did Chuck or Dave Koch. Al did.

        Face it, your own beloved material is a cancer eating the issue out from within.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Who’s trying to “prove” any conspiracy at the “courtroom evidentiary level“, Russell? I myself operate from the premise that “if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk. it’s probably a skunk”, any you and yours certainly fit that, particularly the bad smell you leave wherever you go.

          You can sing your two note song of “prove it” forever, Russell, and that won’t change what all honest people know to be the truth—-you’re a “Merchant of
          Doubt”, albeit a minor one, and that’s a certainty.

          As far as “…. I had been saying things not one bit different for the years prior to receiving grants, then by default I have not been corrupted by the donations. So, how do you know I was ever corrupted in the first place?”.

          It’s time to put that one to rest. Just as a little leaguer has to play high school and college ball and show that he has “the right stuff” to earn $$$$ in professional baseball, aspiring AGW denier BS writers like you have to come up through the system. Heartland may be dumb and dishonest, but they aren’t dumb enough to pick names out of the phone book and just send them $$$$ with no ROI.

          IMO, you corrupted yourself when you made a conscious decision (conservative that you are) to try to make a living spouting conservative BS about AGW, and then “peddled” yourself to Heartland when you had a portfolio of written BS to show off. I.E, you “auditioned”. You can rationalize with “which came first?, the chicken or the egg” BS all you want, but you’ll never convince us that you’re not a whore bothe before and after your employment by Heartland. Stop wasting your time asking us to “prove it”.

          Face it, Russell, you are fighting a losing battle. You and all the other whoring deniers fail to realize that your lies are part of the cancer eating the denier world out from within. As more and more truth is accepted by the people, you will have less and less impact, and Heartland will have less use for you. Start looking for another job (I’m sure mom doesn’t want you back in her basement mooching on her).


    • “…. with instructions to lie and misinform ….”

      I keep placing that baseball on a T-pole and you guys keep whiffing at it instead of hitting a home run or even a dribbler past one of the bases. Plus, what possible climatology expertise do you have to prove what skeptics say are lies?

      One of these days you’ll figure it out: you, Oreskes, Gore and Gelbspan have NEVER had proof that what skeptic scientists and skeptic speakers say is influenced, bought, corrupted, or whatever other label you place on it, such that they say something that they all flat out know is not the truth.

      Keep swinging, if it makes you feel better, but maybe instead you need to take a swing at all of those you listed and ask ’em why they have never provided you with anything beyond worthless guilt-by-association. E.g. “5) “Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies” was blown out of the water when he said in a 2011 Reuters report ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUSTRE75R2HD20110628 ) “I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research.”

      These strikeouts of yours must eat you alive. BTW, that journalist intern at the Boston Globe citing Kert Davies to trash Dr Soon? Not a well thought-out idea. I emailed the article writer directly to suggest that Pulitzers are not awarded to regurgitations of worn-out old talking points, but they can be perhaps be deserved after an investigation of just where those talking points came from.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Russell thinks that a stream of deluded and glib obfuscatory BS is going to negate the truth in gingerbaker’s comment. What else can he do but try that, since truth is not on his side.

        And it’s laughably ironic to hear Russell ask “what possible climatology expertise do you have to prove what skeptics say are lies?” This is from “Mr. bottom-of-the-barrel, walked-in-off-the-street, NOT A SCIENTIST” himself. LOL and LMAO! The answer? WAY more than you do, Russell—-that’s why you refuse to talk about the science of AGW—-STILL waiting for you to talk to me about Arctic Sea Ice—-why won’t you do so?—-why do you keep muttering about Gelbspan-Gore when no one cares?

        PS I have answered Russell’s Gish Gallop of crap only because I have nothing better to do this AM AND also want to be charitable and help him get his ticket punched so that Heartland will pay him. No whore should walk around in the cold without earning something for the effort. Unlike Russell, I am a nice guy.


  5. Following the science is typically much more interesting than following the money. However, that’s not your thing, Russel, so I’ll swing at your t-ball. Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was the lead author on Dr. Soon’s “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” paper. Now, that’s funny!

  6. dumboldguy Says:

    That’s actually hilariously funny. Monckton is one of the biggest jokes in the whole denier world—-talk about bottom of the barrel, walk in off the street non-scientists—-Monckton’s inadequacy makes Russell look like Einstein. Are you sure he is even able to write? (I thought he specialized in making funny faces as a communication tool). Or did he simply sell his name to a ghost writer for use on Soon’s propaganda piece?


Leave a Reply to charleszeller Cancel 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: