Newsflash: Climate Deniers Not Normal

June 25, 2015


Climate Deniers processing that climate is changing, both globally, and politically.
This will be a sadly fascinating document for future historians.

Marc Morano’s Climate Depot:

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.

McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.

“I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers,” McCarthy told doctors, health professionals and others gathered at a White House summit. “You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

McCarthy then remarked how “normal people,” and not skeptics would eventually win the global warming debate. Implicit in her remarks is the contention that skeptics are somehow not “normal people.”

Rush Limbaugh radio transcript:

McCarthy then remarked how ‘normal people,’ and not skeptics would eventually win the global warming debate. Implicit in her remarks is the contention that skeptics are somehow not ‘normal people.'” Deniers, skeptics are not normal people. But the people that believe in man-made global warming are normal because of the science. You know, that, folks, is the single biggest reason to not believe global warming because the science isn’t science. The science is made up, it’s filled of hoaxes and so forth, but the bottom line is science is not up to a vote.

You always hear things like the consensus of scientists agrees. There is no consensus in science. You don’t take a proposition, put it up to a vote, and if a majority of scientists agrees, then, voila, we have just made a scientific discovery. Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. And that’s all global warming is. There are all kinds of really smart and really credible scientists, you know, men and women that wear white coats, too, that have every bit of scientific data they need to debunk and blow holes through every bit of manmade global warming theory, which is all it is. It isn’t science.

Below – Jon Stewart bonus:


62 Responses to “Newsflash: Climate Deniers Not Normal”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    I’ve come late to this thread and don’t have much to add to what has been said. I AM impressed with the quality and quantity of the comments, and pleased to see some new names among the commenters.

    Just a few observations:

    Gina McCarthy deserves a medal.

    Kudos to caerbannog for ripping the throat out of Scottish Sceptic, with help from livinginabox. That will teach him not to approach the cave so casually.

    The John Stewart clip is side-splitting funny.

    Morono is a moron, and Faux News is an abomination in so many ways.

    No matter what the topic, it is the “normal” state of humanity to have a certain percentage of people who are “abnormal” in their reasoning abilities, ethics, morality, and general level of sanity—like Limbaugh, Morono, and all the Faux Newsies. We can only hope that the “normals” overpower them soon.

  2. […] McCarthy made news, well, Fox News, this week, with her comments that climate deniers are “not normal’. […]

  3. […] McCarthy made news, well, Fox News, this week, with her comments that climate deniers are “not normal’. […]

  4. iheartagw Says:

    Of course anyone who is a “climate denier” is not normal.

    But no one is denying the climate.

    No one is even denying that the climate changes and is changing.

    No one is even denying that CO2 emissions have no impact whatsoever on atmospheric warming.

    What is at issue is the degree.

    And that, you snot-nosed basement bloggers, is precisely what you warmists have yet to quantify.

    You shrilly shout “climate change”.

    But you have yet to quantify any “change” whatsoever. Despite going on 20 years of alarmism now.

    And until you can quantify, it remains unmeasurable.

    And if unmeasueable, it is not science.

    Show me the objective metrics and I shall believe.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      And we hear from another one who is obviously not normal.

      “snot-nosed basement bloggers”, he calls us? (and shrilly?)


      And as for “No one is even denying that CO2 emissions have no impact whatsoever on atmospheric warming”, I for one am strongly denying that CO2 has no impact on atmospheric warming—-it most certainly does—-it causes it.

      This one is such a stooge that he ain’t able to not use double negatives.

      Go away!

  5. 4TimesAYear Says:

    Nothing going on on this planet that hasn’t happened before. Our 4% contribution to CO2 isn’t enough to make that big a difference. I’m sick of this crazy nonsense. They keep finding that CO2 sensitivity isn’t as great as they thought it was. It’s time to stop the fear mongering and deal with real pollution – atmospheric CO2 is not pollution and it’s not a problem.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      We’ve got a live one, folks. Spouting inane observations and bald assertions—-making non-specific references to some unknown THEY, talking about fear-mongering and REAL pollution, and showing us a really neat handle! What more can we ask?

      I know, how about why he picked that handle? My guess based on limited information? He suffers from severe mental constipation brought on by trying to digest the simplest scientific truths about AGW, and is only able to go “4 times a year”. And when he does “go”, it’s in the form of horribly stinky and offensive mandibular diarrhea like this comment.

      Does anyone want to waste time educating him on the very limited science (all wrong) that he included here? Not me—-I’ll just mock him and hope he goes away.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      4 percent? actually its 40.

      and as far as happening before, yes, extinction events have happened before.
      that in itself is not reassuring.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yep, out “contribution” is not 4%—-that’s a PFTA number—–it’s 40%, and it DOES appear to be making a BIG difference in the global climate—THEY have gathered much good evidence to support that.

        I wonder what kind of pollution our friend with the constipated brain thinks is REAL?

        • 4TimesAYear Says:

          How about pollution that you can *see* and is *toxic*

          • dumboldguy Says:

            How about you really saying something of substance rather than just spouting inane horseshit in an attempt to “pollute” the discourse here?

            adjective: toxic


            synonyms: poisonous, virulent, noxious, deadly, dangerous, harmful, injurious, pernicious

            noun: pollution

            the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

            synonyms: contamination, adulteration, impurity

            Pollution doesn’t have to be “seen” to be “toxic”, and most pollutants, unlike smoke and smog, are known by their effects, not by what can be “seen”. CO2, Methane, NO2, SO2, Ozone, and many other substances are definitely pollutants when they are present in quantities above what occurs naturally, and even naturally occurring levels of toxic substances can be a “pollutant” for some life forms.

          • 4TimesAYear Says:

            Please explain how the current levels of atmospheric CO2 is toxic. They allow up to 8,000ppm in submarines.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            The CO2 concentration in a human exhalation is 40,000 ppm, and 8000 ppm is an arbitrary number that would appear to give an adequate safety margin. See data below.

            “Basis for original (SCP) IDLH: The chosen IDLH is based on the statements by ACGIH [1971] that a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm produces signs of intoxication, and a few minutes of exposure at 70,000 ppm and 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. AIHA [1971] reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life. In addition, Hunter [1975] noted that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness”.

            “ther human data: Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975]”.

            As usual, since you are a DENIER who is only looking for cherry-picked info to support your ignorance, you have totally missed the point anyway. The concern is not the toxicity of CO2 to air breathing organisms when inhaled, but its effects as a GHG and impact on global warming, which IS increasingly “toxic” (reread the definition) to the biosphere as the concentration goes up. Apples and oranges.

            (PS Were you born this dumb, or did they teach it to you at DENIER school? You must have aced the course.)

          • 4TimesAYear Says:

            You do know that the effect is logarithmic?
            Knock off the ad hominem attacks.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            WHAT “effect” is logarithmic? Do you have a point?

            And it is not an ad hominem attack to point out such obvious truths as “you are a moron, idiot, or imbecile”. They would be ad homs only if they were untrue.

          • 4TimesAYear Says:

            No, it’s ad hominem when you respond to arguments by attacking the person, period.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide valid counterarguments, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact. Period.

            Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of an argument might be impolite, but it doesn’t automatically make it an ad hominem. It’s only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot—but not the other way round. Period.

            To make that clear to you (since you don’t seem to be too smart), that means that you are an idiot-moron-imbecile because you make idiotic-moronic-imbecilic and wrong statements. If you did not do so, I would not be making factual statements about your mental deficiencies. Period.

            Nothing I have said in this comment is an ad hominem. Fact and double period.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            4TAY—-Forgot to mention that you can do some experiments at home to test CO2 “toxicity”. Put a bag over your head, rebreathe the same air for a while, and note what happens. If you use a plastic bag and duct tape it around your neck, it won’t take long for you to learn a really big (and final) lesson.

      • 4TimesAYear Says:

        Where are you getting that our contribution to CO2 is 40%? That article does not say that our contribution is 40%. Read it again.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Those of us whose brains are not befuddled by denialism don’t need to read it again, but for you we’ll go back and show you that the article does in fact say exactly that.

          The article clearly states—-“The WMO’s data for 2013 shows the global average level of atmospheric carbon at just under 400 parts per million, about 40 percent higher than in ­pre-industrial times and higher than in any other period in at least 800,000 years”.

          That means that since we have started burning fossil fuels, the level of Co2 in the atmosphere has risen from a long term level of about 240-260 ppm to 400 ppm, which is an increase of “about 40%”. Take a reading comprehension course (or remove your denialist blinders when you read).

          And when you have “upped your game” to the point that you comprehend, go look at the “hockey stick” and all the other data that shows how the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past couple of centuries and global warming (and its effects) go hand in hand. It’s because you deny the science and math that you are called a “denier” (and fool, moron, or idiot) by rational people. The science says that the ONLY thing that explains global warming is the excess CO2 that man has put into the atmosphere—99.9% of all climate scientists agree on that.

          • 4TimesAYear Says:

            That’s how much it has increased. Please prove that man is responsible for all of that increase. Sorry, but that hockey stick is manufactured. They left out a huge chunk of history to get it. Stop using the term denier. You are in denial if you think climate didn’t change until we came along.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            google “Suess effect”
            see also, one of my oldest, but still useful vids

            suggest you get up to speed to avoid embarrassments in the future.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            That hockey stick is “manufactured”? WHAT? Is it a “manufactured” result when you count the change in your pocket and determine you have $1.37 or when you look at a clock and see that its 9:14? (and out the window to see whether that’s 9:14 AM or PM?) The hockey stick is a result of looking at a large quantity of observable and verifiable data that INCLUDES a “large hunk of history” of many kinds—-rational analysis of facts beats ignorant spouting of BS every time—-you should make the switch—-then maybe we’d stop calling you DENIER.

            And yes, climate HAS changed many times—-we have gone through many recurring ice ages in recent earth history, and should be entering another one right now—-unfortunately, it looks like AGW has short-circuited the normal chain of events, and the hockey stick is one piece of evidence of that.

          • 4TimesAYear Says:

            No, the temps are not tracking CO2 levels as they should if CO2 had the kind of effect you claim it does.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            The temps are NOT tracking CO2 levels? Your half-assed OPINION (called a bald assertion in the logic world—look it up) is meaningless. Say something significant and back it up with data or go away—-you waste our time.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Denier cherry picking.

Leave a Reply to dumboldguy Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: