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. Come on! When are you going to give up this sillyness and join the vast majority of people who have joined us sceptics and now look at CO2 in a calm sensible head?

    It’s not that difficult! Everyone else is doing it.

    • That should read “Calm sensible way”

      • greenman3610 Says:

        document “vast majority”.

        WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

        In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

        Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

    • You’re not calm. You’re not sensible. And you’re not looking.

      • Correct. Tin foil hat conspiracy theory nuttery is not calm or sensible, deniers embrace it like true religion. This is the latest slogan from deniers. I see it all over the internet.

        Consensus is not a vote. It comes from accumulation of evidence.

    • livinginabox Says:

      Just because you gave yourself a nom de web that includes the word ‘Sceptic, doesn’t mean you’re a sceptic, or even that you even have the slightest understanding of the word. It’s fairly clear that scepticism isn’t one of your strong-points. It is also fairly obvious that your level of understanding is abysmal, especially regarding the climate which is complex, but you have failed even to comprehend the basics. There is so much evidence that shows you are wrong, a true sceptic would have looked at the evidence and asked questions and looked to see if those questions had been answered. There are of course features of the atmosphere that have yet to be answered, but the fundamental physics haven’t changed. We have known for well-over a century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. we have also known for decades that the Earth is warming and we know that natural forcings are not responsible. CO2 is a feedback and a forcing and we know that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity.

      Of course, if you were a true sceptic, you would already know this. Perhaps you should change your nom de web to something that better describes you.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “Perhaps you should change your nom de web to something that better describes you”?

        How about Scottish Blether (a Scottish word)? Or Scottish Moron. Imbecile, or Cretin? Not as alliterative as Scottish Skeptic, but certainly more accurate.

        • livinginabox Says:

          Even assuming that Scottish Septic is Scottish in origin, his zombie-arguments are merely boils that have long been lanced. There have been many Scots of impressive intellect and achievement, Scottish Septic is merely acting as a counterbalance to those greats in terms of intelligence and learning, to bring-down the average intelligence of the Scottish population to the same as everywhere else.
          I am firmly of the belief that he should remove any references to Scotland, Scottish, Scots & etc.

          For instance, James Croll, from Janitor to Fellow of the Royal Society.

        • earlosatrun Says:

          If you want an alliterative insult, revise the name to ‘Soused Scot’, or perhaps ‘schnockered Scot’, perhaps even ‘snookered Scot’.

          Don’t call him a snotty scotty though, used tissues served a purpose when they collected the snot.

          No need to use the other terms, as they are pejoratives when you use them like that. 🙂 Normal morons, imbeciles and cretins are very nice people and don’t usually act like trolls.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Since it seems we want to wander off into corners here, let’s look at using the even more alliterative “Scottish Sheep Shagger Skeptic”. I’m sure the other members of the Commonwealth won’t mind if we borrow one of their pejoratives.

            We can then call our friend who is “more of a scientist” than real scientists because he has an MBA and WAS studying archaeology by the title of “Four S” for short.

            (Although I do like the “snookered” a lot and the “soused” as well. Shall we try for five or six S’s? And in the U.S., add yet another with the ever popular “Shithead”? And “Stupid SOB” comes to mind too. We can then all just hisssssssss with S’s whenever that Soused Stupid SOB Snookered Scottish Sheep Shagger Skeptic Shithead that thinks he’s a scientist makes his appearances on Crock)

            PS livinginabox understates the scientific contributions of the Scots. It’s amazing that so many great minds and discoveries came out of that one small country. Kelvin, James Watt, Fleming, A.G. Bell, Maxwell, Napier, and Hutton, in addition to the amazing James Croll were either Scots or did their work in Scotland. Men and discoveries that put them up with Einstein and Newton. Take a look at the Scottish Scientists Hall of Fame.


            It truly is a shame that SSSSSSSSS so sullies the name of all Scotsmen and Scottish scientists by identifying himself as “Scottish”.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Has everyone looked at Scottish Sceptic’s blog? It begins with a display of his towering intellect and communication skills:

        “This is the blog of Mike Haseler and what you may wish to know about me is that I am a Climate Scientist as I am more of a scientist than most who work on climate”. WHAT?

        That is followed by:

        I studied physics, electronics and some philosophy at St.Andrews
        I have an MBA from Strathclyde
        I was studying archaeology in Glasgow.

        Yep, there is no doubt that makes Mikey “more of a scientist than most who work on climate”.

    • miffedmax Says:

      Not even a majority of your fellow Scots agree with you, which is why Scotland has one of the most advanced renewable energy infrastructures in the world.

  2. redskylite Says:

    The “False Consensus Effect” is explained well by John Cook (of the University of Queensland and Skeptical Science), that is where people mistakenly think that most others hold a similar view to themselves.

    Much effort has been devoted to counting scientific papers to get the 97%+ consensus figure (in agreement that mankind has influenced the climate), as is the effort in worldwide opinion polls, showing actual divides of opinion on this topic.

    Even if you still hold onto to belief that your own opinion is superior and correct, it seems kind of inhuman to risk our Islands, cities by the seafront and future populace quality of life when so many learned papers suggest we are on a dangerous path (possibly to an early 6th mass extinction event).

  3. Scottish Sceptic is someone who is very hard to take seriously, given that he isn’t able to figure out whether or not humans are responsible for the ramp-up in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


    I was defending the statement in the sceptic View. I have more than adequately backed up that statement that we don’t know how much of the CO2 rise is manmade and how much is due to the temperature rise.

    Demonstrating that humans must be responsible for the CO2 rise is a *high school* science exercise — **high school**.

    Good estimates of the minimum amount of CO2 (in gigatons) that humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are available from a wide variety of reliable resources.

    Converting those gigatons of CO2 into atmospheric PPM is a high-school exercise.

    All you need to know are the approximate average atmospheric molecular weight (trivial to calculate), the molecular weight of CO2 (even more trivial to calculate), the approximate total weight of the Earth’s atmosphere (easy to calculate, or even easier to look up), along with an estimate of the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere (per above).

    Crunch those numbers and you’ll see that humans have pumped far more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere than is required to account for the atmospheric CO2 rise. That leads to the painfully obvious conclusion that natural processes have been *removing* CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Those who continue to claim that temperature rise (rather than humans) may be responsible for the CO2 rise should be sent back to high-school and not allowed to graduate until they can demonstrate some basic scientific/mathematical literacy.

    Folks who insist that they know more than professional scientists in spite of the fact that they can’t grasp basic high-school science concepts should not be considered “normal”. (For the sake of future generations, I would certainly *hope* that they aren’t considered “normal”!)

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      Right on. It’s called stoichochemistry. Probably not included in a MBA degree.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Very small nit to pick. For some reason, looking at “stoicho chemistry” makes my head hurt every time you use it. It’s an “ugly” word. Can you use the more correct terms “stoichiochemistry” or “stoichiometry” instead?

        (And the topic is most definitely not among the courses needed for the MBA).

    • Also, you can track the isotope ratio change over time and tell where the carbon is coming from. In case the change in atmospheric composition isn’t enough for you.

  4. ubrew12 Says:

    Basically, all she’s saying is that the ‘Moral Majority’ will decide this issue, not paid deniers like Marc Morano. Because the ‘Moral Majority’ is ‘normal’ in their relationship to AGW (i.e. they aren’t getting paid to stake a position on it). Marc Morano is obviously NOT normal in his relationship to AGW: the Koch Brothers pay him a TON of money to put their words in his Mouth, and he’s only too happy to do so. That doesn’t means he’s ‘abnormal’. It means that, on this topic, he’s not your normal, average, American.

    But what am I saying? You all know this. Morano knows this. Fox News knows this. I bet HALF the people Fox is propagandizing on this issue ALSO know this. The money is not paying for us to be turned into idiots. It’s paying for us to KNOW what love is… and to prostitute ourselves anyway.

  5. Science deniers create their own version of “normal” by congregating together for comfort on various conspiracy blogs in the deniosphere. That way they reassure each other that it’s “normal” to be deviant. The Internet has helped foster their delusions because it allows people with abnormal views, from all over the world, to talk to each other in a way that wouldn’t have been possible before.

    It happens elsewhere – creationists do the same thing, as do anti-vaxxers and AIDS deniers and flat earthers. Although I suspect the last group listed know that they aren’t “normal”.

  6. How do you know when one side has lost? When they start calling the other side names.

    • No, people call each other names all the time. And 99.999% of the people who hold iron-clad opinions are nowhere NEAR being experts on any subject even approaching the actual science. When you’ve really lost is when you look at the data.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You know one side has lost when they have to rely on morons like you to make their case.

      (And that’s ignoring the fact that there are no “sides” to AGW anymore. There is the reality and scientific fact regarding climate change that supports the conclusions of 97% of climate scientists. There is at the same time a group of delusional sickos like you who have chosen AGW denialism as a medium to express their sickness. Just because both groups are talking about AGW does not mean there are opposing “sides”).

  7. Lionel Smith Says:

    Morano with that 1970’s global cooling canard is laughable. Given the number of times this has been corrected Morano has either deluded himself otherwise or is flat out lying. That latter should have consequences.

  8. I hate to rain on Neil Cavuto’s parade…BUT….there were NOT Time and Newsweek cover stories in the 1970’s about scientists calling for the coming freeze. I’m afraid he has been watching too much of Joe Bastardi lie about those exact same things.

    In fact…Joe Bastardi went so far as to show a “photshopped” picture of a Time cover in the 1970’s warning of “The Big Freeze.”

    Trouble is… was PHOTOSHOPPED. So if Neil wants to continue the lie…so be it. Science won’t change. Facts won’t change. But the FOX Lie Machine continues on into the abyss.

    FOX NEWS: “Where truth and journalism are dead.”

  9. The journalist flat-out lied about the “global cooling scare”, it appears. I absolutely do NOT think he believed what he was saying.

    Morano? He’s the snake in the grass. Notice how he very carefully crafts his words so that he can deny, deny, deny he ever “said” that. That one is a professional.

  10. Gingerbaker Says:

    The cruel irony about global cooling, is that global cooling IS exactly what we would be experiencing if [CO2] was at pre-1880 levels.

    Earth had happily been on a hundreds of eons-long cooling phase until the agricultural and industrial ages were born. And, in the 1970’s, scientists were correct to point out another cooling effect – the effect of atmospheric aerosols (air pollution) which, if it wasn’t for the increased [CO2], would indeed have lowered global climate temperatures. Those 1970’s scientists were not wrong.

    But AGW blew right through both of those doors with greenhouse warming.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: