Unclear on the Concept: Media Still Struggles to Get “Denial”

December 8, 2016


Media still unclear on concept of “denier”.
Here’s a tip.

You cannot wake a person who is pretending to sleep. – Navajo

Phil Plait in Slate:

I said that Exxon knew about fossil fuel–induced global warming for 40 years; DeSmogBlog has more on that. It’s pretty damning.

Also in the interview I mentioned Marshall Shepherd, who was president of the American Meteorological Society. He coined the wonderful term “zombies of denial,” so please read more about that.

We need to arm ourselves against the barrage of weaponized denial we’ll be facing for the next four years. Trump himself, and his proxies as well, have no trouble at all just bare-faced lying to the American public. We must stand ready to fight against this. Whether it’s the racism, the xenophobia, the misogyny, or the attacks on science, it is no exaggeration to say that our culture, our country, and even our very existence depend on us.

Climate change is already one of if not the biggest threat our species has faced. I still have hope: When challenged, Americans have a history of meeting adversity head on. As I’ve written before:

When Americans are challenged, we rise up and do our best. I honestly and truly think that we can, that this is an opportunity to show the world that we won’t stick out heads in the sand. We’ll face this issue, and we’ll figure out how to minimize it, how to circumvent it, how to manage it. I don’t believe in phony platitudes, or empty motivational slogans, so my words here don’t ring hollow to me. They’re simply the truth. We went to the Moon, we put rovers on Mars, we look outward to the Universe and forward into the future. That’s America.

Climate change is one of the largest existential threats we face today. It’s time to face it down.

I wrote that before the election, but it’s still true. It’ll just be a lot harder with Trump and the GOP in charge. That means we have to dig in and deal with them, too. We can do this. We have to.



50 Responses to “Unclear on the Concept: Media Still Struggles to Get “Denial””

  1. Gary Evans Says:

    And in the Guardian too:


    “Trump picks climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt to lead EPA”

    They’re not sceptics, they’re deniers. I keep trying to correct Guardian editors, but it’s a struggle.

    • Keep right on committing political suicide with your “denier” talking point, I won’t do anything to stop it. Except perhaps to say the disinterested folks and wavering AGW believers / fencesitters might just go out and try to find verbatim in-context transcripts of where Pruitt or any other person y’all try so hard to vilify actually said they deny climate change. Prove such statements exist, in other words. But they are going to come up empty handed, and then they are going to wonder why it is that the talking point has floated around all this time in the face of zero evidence backing it up. And that’s when you start losing those folks, because it will become unavoidable for them to see that the only climate change deniers in this issue are enviro-activists demanding a STATIC climate set at an arbitrarily chosen level from 150 or so years ago.

      Meanwhile ….. did I mention anything recently about the light at the end of the tunnel for y’all being an all-new EPA train coming straight at you? I’ll say it again, get your exit strategy together where critical thinkers will welcome you to a more informed life, or prepare to live a life of being perpetually ridiculed and pitied.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        H-e-e-e-e-e-r-e’s Russell! The Heartland Whore is back, getting his ticket punched, singing his very tired one-note song titled “Prove It”, and sounding ever more delusional. I said it on the other thread where Russell first brought up the EPA train (wreck), and will repeat.

        GET SOME HELP, Russell! You are losing touch with reality. (To say nothing of boring us to death—–ZZZZZzzzzzz……!!!!)

      • otter17 Says:

        So, Russell, from your comment that somehow folks are demanding a static climate at 150 years ago, are you implying that it doesn’t matter if the climate changes, adaptation is the only response?

        What if you were in some way convinced that the science was correct, in that human GHG emissions are the cause of recent warming and it will continue substantially, with sea level rise, etc. Is adaptation your preferred response as well?

        In other words, what is your particular means for dealing with the scenario if you were hypothetically convinced of moderate or high end AGW.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          You show your disconnectedness from reality by attempting to talk science with Russell. Have you not been coming to Crock long enough to realize that Russell knows no science, has a very narrow non-reality-based agenda, and is here only to troll? Or do you fancy yourself a “troll whisperer”? Your attempts to fill that role at WUWT have certainly met with little success.

          • otter17 Says:

            If you could quote where I am talking about the scientific basis in my comment, I could explain, but my comment does not in any way reflect an attempt to discuss the science with Russell. It is instead intended to understand where he stands on the mitigation/adaptation aspect of the issue.

            No argument that he has a very narrow, non-reality-based agenda, and sees no issue with his blatant conflicts of interest. Yes, he is indeed here to troll and falsely gloat over whatever he thinks he has discovered. That being said, I do try to understand the mindset wherever I can, and I don’t think I have covered his particular solutions mindset. It could very well be as rigid ideology-based one as omnologos’, but we’ll see. So, if you could kindly step aside and let me talk with him for one second….

            I do not fancy myself a troll whisperer of any sort, with only some brief travels to WUWT in the past. I have primarily attempted to get some form of intel on that psychology, but I have seen others there as well making their best attempts. I or others haven’t met with little success; we have met with probably no success. That being said, as a means to understand how to make progress in the larger picture, it could be described successful.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Quote where you are talking about the scientific basis in my comment, and you could explain? LOL Does not all we talk about here on Crock regarding climate change have a scientific basis? Albeit it much of that “science” is not as scientific as physics chemistry, and biology—-I speak of the “sciences” of politics, psychology, economics, propagandizing, and sociology. One must understand all of those real and pseudo sciences to have any valid opinions on mitigation and adaptation, and Russell has stood in front of a camera and stated that he KNOWS NO SCIENCE. He stands in a pile of fossil fuel $$$$ supported horseshit and YOU want to know where he STANDS? He has no “solutions mindset”, and your plea for me to “kindly step aside and let me talk with him for one second” is just more evidence of your self-absorption and lack of awareness.

            I would not call your extended October 2011 visit to WUWT “brief”. You (and a very few others) fought the good fight, made some good points, and got ignored and laughed at by Smokey and his fellow WUWT lemmings (although you DID get some compliments for being “civil”). If you think you now “better understand how to make progress in the larger picture” based on your sojourns on WUWT, you’re more disconnected from reality than I thought.

          • otter17 Says:

            The scientific basis… as in the IPCC WG1 type of scientific basis, is what I was referring, the basis concerning AGW.

            No, I asked you to kindly step aside, because you interject with insults towards me regarding a “disconnectedness from reality by attempting to talk science with Russell”. It wasn’t even an applicable insult, since I wasn’t talking about AGW science with Russell, only his hypothetical response to the issue. Sometimes you get “just adapt”, and sometimes you get “screw you, I won’t consider your hypothetical”. Sometimes, you get an actual policy suggestion, though, and it goes from there.

            I didn’t take you for the searching others’ history type, but here we are. I took a brief deep dive into there place, apparently that was in October 2011 as you point out. Thanks for that. Winning there doesn’t matter, and never would have, but understanding what it would take for activism outside WUWT is what mattered. Besides, you might not have seen a point where I got Smokey tripping all over himself. Ah, good times.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More incoherence regarding your motives with Russell, and if you think that you had Smokey tripping all over himself on WUWT, you ARE delusional. I read the entire exchange between you and the WUWT morons, and won’t embarrass you by quoting the relevant parts—-anyone who wants to see the “tripping” can go to the long thread and seek it out—it’s near the end.

      • Here’s Pruitt denying the science about climate change.


        “That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. ”

        This sounds like denial to me.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    The Navajo got it right with “You cannot wake a person who is pretending to sleep”.

    IMO, the media are not “struggling” to get it right—-they are “pretending to sleep”, i.e., deliberately avoiding the use of the term “denier” because “dissenter” and “skeptic” better suit the needs of those who are pulling the strings. (and haven’t we talked about this before?)

  3. mbrysonb Says:

    Opinions differ over whether up is down or right is wrong.

  4. otter17 Says:

    Skeptic = no, not an appropriate term since in the case of denial there is no skepticism shown towards claims that are easily debunked by reading the source material of the science or seeing an interview with a scientist explaining the concept

    Dissenter = not appropriate since it implies that there is some righteous cause or rebellion against the status quo, which is not so, since it is usually a non-scientists’ opinion that fossil fuel status quo should continue despite scientists showing with research the need to reduce GHGs

    Denier = appropriate, one who denies, or more clearly to refuse to admit or acknowledge. This is clearly the case for a non-scientist claiming his opinion in denial of the research, despite the research and scientific groups nearly unanimously saying otherwise.

    Contrarian = pretty good term, implies in some connotations a stubborn position in opposition to generally accepted fact. I fall back to this one if the denier in question complains too much, and that tends to subside the whining.

    Media can’t get too bogged down on what term to use. Pick one and move on. The folks that make some of the most offensive attacks against AGW are also the ones that whine the most concerning the term denier. You know someone has a poor argument when he/she attacks the most yet also plays the victim the most. “Denier” does NOT in any way imply holocaust denier as is so often bleated. That is as ridiculous as claiming the term “AGW believer” is implying a dark connotation to “Satanic true believer”, or “alarmist” is implying “conspiracy theory alarmist”. There is no connection, so stop whining or listening to those that are whining.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You over-intellectualize here, and your definition of contrarian is faulty—it is NOT a “pretty good term” by any measure. We are in a war here, and the tide of battle looks like it’s going to go against us for a while. You do the morons no favors by using contrarian as a “fall back”—-they need to have their ignorance shoved in their faces and be forced to deal with it. Acceptance or denial of scientific FACT is what we’re talking about here, NOT “beliefs” or “opinions”, and the ONLY acceptable descriptor for these people is denier.

      And anyone who brings up the “holocaust denier” or “AGW believers are Satanists” BS is too stupid to waste time talking to., and it’s a bit surprising that you would even mention it here.

      • otter17 Says:

        Read my words again. We are in pretty much full agreement. I never said anyone has made the statement that AGW believers are satanists, but it was simply an analogy. The implied holocaust denier whining was actually a preferred tactic for a while at certain popular denial blogs, and yes, they are a waste of time and breath.

        I think denier is the top term, but contrarian has context that is pretty much close enough, and I think more appropriate for that very small percentage of practicing climate scientists that do not feel AGW is a problem.

        non-scientist political type or shill -> denier for sure, maybe contrarian if they flip out too much and need to calm down for a bit
        scientist in that small percentage -> contrarian probably better

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I don’t need to read your words again necause we ARE in pretty much full agreement except for what I pointed out. YOU need to read MY words again, and stop doubling down and defending the indefensible—bringing up the Holocaust-Satan BS here IS just intellectualizing , and maybe even “showing off”—-even the deniers have pretty much moved past all that.

          “…contrarian has context that is pretty much close enough…”? IMO, it’s pretty much NOT close enough to make it in any way useful for our purposes, and denies that there is a pathology underlying some contrarianism that far exceeds that of the skeptics-dissenters-deniers, most of whom who have hidden motives related to $$$$. The contrarians are doing it just to be “contrary”


          Please tell us about that “….very small percentage of practicing climate scientists that do not feel AGW is a problem”. Who are they and which of them are NOT paid whores for the Koch brothers and the fossil fuue interests? IMO, Very small = count on fingers of one hand.

          • otter17 Says:

            Again, an analogy. You do need to read my words again. If asking a denier today about using the term “denier” the person would probably complain about the term citing their perception that it associates with holocaust denier. That is a completely bunk association on their part, and I have made that clear. Denier is still the top term that describes a large majority of those who have arrived at their denial conclusions from any number of biases, the primary being solution aversion bias, but also conflicts of interest financially.

            Contrarian has connotation concerning a stubborn position in opposition to a mainstream established fact. The flat earth society folks are contrarians, for example. Yes, denier should be the term of choice for any scientist that has a significant conflict of interest, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, Happer, Willie Soon, etc, being the most egregious examples.

            Yes, there is a push on their part against facts here. Skeptic and dissenter are two bunk terminologies for sure. Getting bogged down over a set of terms to use isn’t helpful, for sure. Denier as top term, use it in most all cases, especially concerning those in conflicts of interest. Contrarian can possibly be used in some cases as well. Again, we agree because the cases you describe I would contend also warrant the use of the term denier. Any defense against this, though, has to be a smart one that simultaneously calls out denial for the fact-free position that it is while engaging those confused in the middle of it all to join a positive position.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You DO go on and on, don’t you? Will you stop maundering and answer the question?

            Please tell us about that “….very small percentage of practicing climate scientists that do not feel AGW is a problem”. Who are they and which of them are NOT paid whores for the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel interests?

          • otter17 Says:

            And you DO get combative seemingly for no other reason than to be grumpy at someone. Tone it down a few notches, I have extended far more courtesy to you over minor disagreements in point of view in the past.

            Yes, and the number of scientists grows smaller over the years that fit into that category, for sure, like Muller’s defecting to some sensibility a few years back. I am not exactly sure of Judith Curry’s financials, but she may fit into that category of just going against the grain for the heck of it. I couldn’t tell you the exact number, but counting on one hand sounds about right. Hey, you are right… we agree.

            The point is that there are also circumstances of folks on the spectrum that are not full-on denial where contrarian may be more accurate (and useful to garner their support). I am not saying in any way pepper in the use of contrarian on a 50/50 basis or where it is not warranted. I suggested I had thrown a bone to some denier folks in the past, but for the most part that was just a means to keep the folks at WUWT from flipping out too much and derailing the conversation into victimization tactics. Plus, they tend to forget about the victimization for a while after I started using the “D-word” again. Never got banned, but got some practical psychology information for their profile.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            We old dogs do NOT “get combative seemingly for no other reason than to be grumpy at someone”. If you’ve ever spent any time around canine families, you know that the old dogs sometimes run out of patience with the overeager pups who are running around being pups. Usually a bark or growl is enough to get the pups to “tone it down a few notches”, but an occasional nip on the butt is sometimes needed.” It is not a matter of some human abstraction like “courtesy”, but more in the vein of helping the pups learn how to act and fit in with the pack. Some pups are slow learners.

            And are you really familiar with any of the denier scientists , their “interconnections”, and who finances them? Do you visit desmogblog often? Judith Curry is not the best example, but she HAS taken fossil fuel money and hangs around with those who do. You need to study up on the deniers.

            I will again growl-bark-nip-bite at your puppyish refusal to give up on the contrarian BS. Did you not check out the link I mentioned earlier? Can you not see that contrarian is simply NOT appropriate (and never will be no matter how much you want it to be)? https://theawl.com/which-kind-of-annoying-contrarian-are-you-4d4fc62699a6#.hmvuvicmh

          • otter17 Says:

            If you want to operate under some form of canine pack mentality as applied to humans, go right ahead. It doesn’t mean I or anybody else has to consent to it or that which is commonly considered human conduct doesn’t apply.

            In any case, back to the subject. Yes, I have known of DeSmogBlog for a number of years. I know of Judith Curry’s profile there. Refreshing my memory on her shows she admits to some hurricane forecasting for an oil company, which isn’t like the notion of publishing a piece of research that goes against a robust theory at the behest of a fossil fuel interest.

            Yes, she hangs around with full-on deniers, no doubt. Yes, she went to that ridiculous Ted Cruz hearing on “dogma”. Still, though, it appears from her blog thoughts on the matter that she would fit more into the contrarian mold. I even recall a comment from you not too long ago trying to understand here motivations, something along the lines of a woman trying to get noticed in a man’s field.

            At the end of the day, it is just a word. The thing is, those that feel that following science to inform our knowledge base and our actions have to be as accurate as possible, even though it sucks that those fighting against that can go nuts doing whatever they want. Being accurate and forceful is the way to operate, the iron fist within the velvet glove.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            It’s a shame that your thinking is so narrow, self-centered, and linear that the analogy of “old dogs barking at pups” went right over your head. Your Perceptual Screens (look it up) are so clogged with self-admiration that you are very hard to talk to.

            Humans are “pack” animals of a sort, and if you had any understanding of canine psychology you’d know about human-canine bonding and how pets (and war and working dogs in particular) bond with their humans, get educated, and become “pack”. That probably wasn’t something you studied in engineering school, so I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on your inability to comprehend, or that that there is a parallel there to “commonly considered human conduct”. Or did you never have parents and other adults like teachers who taught you how to behave while growing up?

            Since you are having such difficulty with the “old dogs and pups” idea, I will return to my blunt and rude New Jersey roots and simply say that if you had walked into a bar in Tony Soprano land where I grew up and ran your mouth the way you do here, someone would have done more than just “bark” at you. The same holds true in the military—did you ever serve?—you would have been invited out behind the barracks to be “educated”. Is that any clearer? Woof?

            LMAO at your feeble attempts to keep the “contrarian” BS alive, and especially your sneaky attempt to again put words in my mouth by trying to support your contrarian BS with a comment I allegedly made. Citation please? Give us a direct quote and source or it didn’t happen. And how you can make any “contrarian” connection with “…something along the lines of a woman trying to get noticed in a man’s field” is beyond me—-most words have fairly well-defined meanings, at least for some of us, and you would be a far better communicator if you recognized that rather than come up with your own meanings, particularly after you pontificate about …”being as accurate as possible” and “…accurate and forceful is the way to operate”.

            (And I’m still struggling to find “coherence” in “the iron fist within the velvet glove”. WTF are you talking about?)

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      Those are some good points.
      I would like to add that in my opinion, there is a large segment of people that are just plain ignorant of the facts because they live in a misinformation bubble created by deniers. They aren’t themselves deniers because they haven’t actually been following the climate science, but only the strawman version ala FOX ‘News’ Limbaugh, Breitbart etc.
      I see myself as living in a sort of bubble as well, only when it comes to climate science, it is a bubble of actual information backed by real science, real scientific consensus (not argument from authority), and real data understood in context and with nuance and an understanding that this is a long view backed by valid statistical analysis and empirical facts.
      So for them, I would tend to call them misinformed, but since there is an element of them also being gullible and far from skeptical, I think that the terms ignorant and incurious also apply.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yep. Someone coined WIFI to describe them—Willfully Ignorant Functional Illiterates

        • skeptictmac57 Says:

          Ha! I’ll have to remember that one. Haven’t seen that before.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I first saw it several years ago on Personal Liberty Digest, that cesspool of right wing and libertarian idiocy run by Bob Livingston (who will also sell you vitamins, supplements, gold, silver, and survivalist books). It was used by a poster with the handle GALT, and he, I, and others used it to get all the “Patriots, Real Americans, Warriors” etc. frothing at the mouth. Those who were able to deal with the multi-syllabic words, that is—many were not, and just stood on the sidelines and drooled.

            In the case of climate change deniers, you are correct in pointing out that their willful ignorance leads to their functional illiteracy.

          • skeptictmac57 Says:

            He sounds like Alex Jones

          • dumboldguy Says:

            He’s a cut above Alex (who is certifiable), and has cleaned up and “prettified” his website—-still has some real morons writing articles for it and some fully baked commenters, though. Go take a look—-I haven’t been there in a while, and it might be interesting to see what they think of Trump.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Went to Personal Liberty for a look-see and the first article I hit talks about media, contrarianism, Breitbart, climate change, and Delingpole—-quite interesting and relevant to this post.


        • skeptictmac57 Says:

          The ‘willful’ part is key, because I have had frustrating conversations with people who are obviously educated and intelligent enough to understand the actual science, but their politically motivated filter will not let any contrary information in that they are not already anchored to. It is a massive problem for science communicators.
          David McRaney of the ‘You Are Not So Smart’ podcast and book, is working on a new book that aims to understand how people change their minds about deeply held beliefs. I think he will have some pretty interesting results when it’s done if it is as good as his past work. Stay tuned.

        • Lionel Smith Says:

          WIFI – like it, describes the Cook to a Tee.

      • otter17 Says:

        I like the term “fractally wrong”. Rational Wiki has an amusing definition.

        Yeah, I still think “denier” though is appropriate for these authoritarian follower psychology types as well. I don’t think “misinformed” adds anything more than the denier term already shows.

        At least in my mind, I don’t think the way in which one arrives at the conclusion to deny established science matters so much as the fact that person is still denying established science. They may be misinformed as well, but they still are still deniers by definition, I believe.

        • skeptictmac57 Says:

          I see what you mean, but the nuance that I was trying to get to is that some people who we think are rejecting mainstream science are actually rejecting the strawman version that they have been fed because of their information bubble. They have never been exposed to the actual science.
          You see the same thing with creationist believers who doubt evolution. They are rejecting the ideas of evolution that their ignorant preacher railed against from the pulpit, much like Limbaugh and Hannity preach from their pulpits.
          So in effect, they can’t be denying climate science’s AGW, because they don’t even know what it is.

          • otter17 Says:

            Hmm, interesting, and a good point. Still, though, at the end of the day the follower types would deny the statement from national academies that (paraphrasing) recent global warming is caused by humankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases and will continue to a significant degree if such emissions are not reduced significantly. They still deny that statement, and have had every opportunity with just the stroke of a keyboard to look up any number of AGU, NAS, etc, statements on the subject. One doesn’t need to be an expert in the subject, but one does need to have some inkling that science works.

            I mean, even the top-tier deniers that work for think tanks or political campaigns could potentially fall under the term misinformed since they too came to their position from researching information from within the denial bubble. They too followed someone else’s info. Granted, these folks also may have had the financial or political incentive to stay within the bubble from the beginning, but I don’t see that situation as all too different from the followers. With the availability of information at one’s fingertips, I don’t see the preacher or the followers being all that different anymore.

          • otter17 Says:

            Possibly, “willful denier” for someone that has actively created disinformation, versus “misinformed denier” for those that just follow it.

            In any case, the worldview is “fractally wrong” haha.

  5. J4Zonian Says:

    The line between conscious and un, between someone doing something willfully or not, is hard, sometimes impossible, to define, especially when the only evidence is in print. So WIFI isn’t accurate enough for our needs.

    I prefer the term ”denying delayalist”. Conscious or not, the function of the behavior is to delay having to confront reality and to delay solutions to climate catastrophe, and at some level there’s always denial, whether it’s of the existence, the human genesis, the direness, or the necessary solutions to climate catastrophe. More than 95% of the people in the US share in the denial, and therefore the delay, to some degree. Of course there are lots of reasons, nuances, circumstances, ramifications, and differences in degree, but to solve the crisis, we need to deal with the whole range of denial—intentional, unconscious, unwitting, small, major, passive, active…

    In this discussion, the difference between delusional, ignorant and lying is hard to figure, but those are the only possible reasons for the rampant denial we see, and in the end, they’re all the same thing. Everyone who makes statements of denial is all 3, although in some cases they’re only lying to themselves. Trying to differentiate what we can’t is useless, counterproductive and tangential; dealing with denying delayalism for what it is is the rational, reasonable response.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Denying delayalism? Lord love a duck! (or are you trying to be a contrarian here?)

      If I recall, you were the first to bring up the Wetiko on Crock, and IMO, that’s the best explanation for the behaviors we see in virtually all fields of human endeavor. Have you changed your mind there?

      • J4Zonian Says:

        The Wetiko Disease is a superb non-medical (or meta-medical) way to diagnose what’s wrong with civilization—the best way I know to constellate and explain civilization’s symptoms. Within that diagnosis are different behaviors and ways to categorize behaviors. And there are other ways to think of such a complex set of problems. (Wilhelm) Reichians call it the Emotional Plague; Jungians have different ideas. Psychiatrist Judith Herman calls at least part of it Complex PTSD; it has elements of addiction (Chellis Glendinning). George Lakoff adds valuable insight with his description of conservative and progressive impulses, although he’s a linguist and cognitive scientist and his lack of deeper psychological knowledge prevents his ideas from being what they could be, I think. Attachment issues are at the root of every problem I can think of. I often think of our problem as Civilizational Autism. None of those exclude any others; they’re just different ways of seeing the problem, and thus enable addressing different parts of it. A multi-pronged approach is the only way to fix such a wicked problem; we need to see it in as many of these and maybe other ways as we can.

        Wetiko is a disease with many, many symptoms; denying delayalism is one set of them. So many people exhibiting it justify denying their denial by saying they admit climate is changing, but denying delayalism involves denial of many different aspects of climate truth. In the end it’s not just a symptom but part of the multi-layered defense of Wetiko disease itself.

  6. andrewfez Says:

    Denialist is the term i used because it implies a more active role than just passively not accepting something. A denialist actively authors, echoes and spreads propaganda inside a targeted system to create an intended result.

  7. Gingerbaker Says:

    “evil f***ing liar” works for me.

  8. Glen Bennett Says:

    Most people ride in or drive automobiles, most people heat their houses with oil or natural gas. Lots of people go places in airplanes. They understand that there is fuel involved. We know that when an airplane takes off with us onboard, it has 1000s of gallons of gas. When we land thousands of miles away, it must be refueled. Where do they think that matter, (ie atoms), goes to? Fill up an oil tank in your basement and 2 months later after heating your home and hot water, your delivery many comes and puts in another 150 gallons. Where do they think the first 900 pounds of fuel went? Do they honestly think it just disappears? Multiply this times millions of units and many decades of use and what do we get? Ever think about all the actual calories of heat generated by internal combustion engines, furnaces, car heaters, brake pads, steel making, electric generation etc? So eventually the heat we artificially generate for our own comfort and gratification escapes to outerspace which can easily absorb said heat, but it is not instantaneous. We know that the planet Venus is as hot as it is only because of a runaway green house effect. (I don’t know why all that carbon dioxide is in it’s atmosphere but we know it is there, we might want to see it as a cautionary tale.)
    Question for ya. We know that the Republicans are climate change deniers, Donald Trump is well…you know, Democrats and Hillary talk a fair game and have tried with minimal success to slow the release of carbon dioxide, so if HRC was elected President would all be right with the world? I think that if you want the obstruction pulled out of the travel lane we need The Green Party and Jill Stein.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      I don’t disagree with your conclusion but you need to check your science. The amount of extra heat put directly into the Earth’s system by the things we burn is less than a rounding error compared to how the greenhouse process really works. (I’ve never even seen anyone mention it except a raging denying delayalist not worth reading.) Visible sunlight comes into the atmosphere, is absorbed at the surface and reradiated as infrared. That’s held in by greenhouse gases so it accumulates at the rate of 4 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs every second. Any basic text or website about climate catastrophe and the greenhouse effect will explain the process.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The actual figure for waste heat’s contribution to global warming is almost exactly 1% of the amount produced by the greenhouse effect. Almost but not quite a “rounding error”, and it’s unfair to call it that—-every little bit of extra heat hurts.

        Glen only mentioned it as an afterthought to his other comments anyway. I’d much rather chastise him for his thinking that the Green Party and Jill Stein offer any real hope.

        • J4Zonian Says:

          I’ve never seen any estimate of direct heat’s contribution that high. Got a citation?

          As a long-time member of the Green Party I know well how small, ineffective, disorganized and personned by inadequately brilliant political folks the party is. And I’ve always been lukewarm on Stein. Being all those things, the Green party sure doesn’t attract talent suitable enough to seem like it’s poised to take over the US.

          However…the thwarting of the Sanders campaign by the firmly ensconced leadership (and most of the rest) of the Democratic party, and lack of any apparent post ass-kicking insight, apologies or even questioning by those who thwarted it makes it equally clear that that bunch of compromised, corrupt wishy-washy corporate conservatives offers little hope of anything but a slightly slower cruise toward ecological collapse and fascism. For the same reasons that the very practical, wise, compassionate principles and policies of the Greens–by far the most in-touch-with-the-reality-of-the-world of any party in the US–are either ignored or rejected out of hand by the vast majority of the people in the US, it seems unlikely that any faction of the Democrats can arise that could be of any use in saving ourselves from utter destruction. The Lesser Evil Gambit, used in election after election after election by the corporate duopoly to stay in power despite far, far, far, far, far, far better choices in ideas and people, is even stronger now that Der Orange Narzisstischer has been maneuvered so close to power.

          And yet, this is exactly what we have to make happen if we expect civilization to survive–one of those 2 unlikely choices, or some third way to miraculously arise from the ashes of them. It seems counterproductive to join the usual circular firing squad and reject any of them.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “I’ve never seen any estimate of direct heat’s contribution that high. Got a citation?” Here’s one from a reliable source. You can also find higher numbers on WUWT and from Roy Spencer. As deniers, they seek to confuse the issue—-anything to keep us from looking at CO2.


            Nice little rant on the politics. (I like “Der Orange Narzisstischer”). What seems counterproductive at this point is “expecting civilization to survive”. I have been watching mankind’s “one step forward, two steps back” dance with Gaia for the last 50+ years, and now that it has gone to THREE steps back with the ascendancy of D.O.N. and his cronies, I see little hope. Your three “choices” are actually self-rejecting, since none of them can move things forward rapidly enough.

            Nothing will happen until the SHTF with CAGW, and we are too puny to mount any kind of world-wide “Manhatten Project” effort to counter it as the bright-sided often suggest we can. There will be no cranking up the “arsenals of democracy” and outproducing the enemy—mankind will simply be stomped flat, along with most other life on earth. So, Happy Holidays to all.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      (I don’t know why all that carbon dioxide is in it’s atmosphere but we know it is there, we might want to see it as a cautionary tale.)

      Here’s a quick answer to why—–look down to the paragraph on “Why Venus is so hot today”. And you are correct to view it as a “cautionary tale”—-we are far exceeding the capacity of the Earth to deal with CO2 as it did early in its history, and even if we don’t get to a full-fledged Venus situation, the results will still be catastrophic.

  9. Tom Bates Says:

    Sure a lot of people posting who are sure that they know TRUTH. I suggest it would be in your own interests to take a somewhat skeptical attitude to anybody who claims they know the truth including the writer of this blog who seems like a nice chap and those he quotes some of whom like to distort and call people names. Skeptic in climate talk is one who doubts there is enough evidence to blame current warming on mans activities since a Berkeley study showed the warm up from CO2 increases from 2000 to 2009 was 2/10th of a watt per square meter which turns out to be 0.0044 percent of the average solar gain of 893 watts per sq. meter. That is not a whole lot of warming. Other evidence puts the earth warmer in 1000 AD than today and for most of the last 4000 years except for the little ice age which we are still warming out of.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Since I’m here talking to Jeffy, I”ll give a short reminder to the village idiot Bates that it’s the trapping of some of that solar radiation that’s causing the global warming, and that the scientists have been unable to come up with any explanation other than the greenhouse effect resulting from so much excess CO2 (and other GHG) being generated because of man’s burning of fossil fuels and technological “life style”.

      It’s not the relative sizes of the “in and out” numbers that Bates quotes (and has NO understanding of)—–it’s the fact that there’s a net imbalance. Or have we explained this to him many times before? Are we “Einstein insane” because we expect him to one day understand and accept the TRUTH?

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: