At Big Hollywood, James Hudnall has a Climategate-related question. He asks, “What Will Television Do With All Their Scare-Programming?” Read the whole thing; there’s too much for me to quote to do it justice. But here’s the pith of the gist of the marrow, as James Lileks might say:
But two things happened last year that shot an arrow in the heart of the beast; one of the worst winters on record and Climategate. And the hits keep on coming. Now it turns out that NASA, who claimed for years that their data proves Global Warming is real, was actually just using CRU data all along. And the CRU couldn’t back up any of its data. In fact, they “lost the records” when they were forced to produce them. Oops!
So now these news channels who’ve been trumpeting the story as fact, all those cable networks who spent millions on documentaries hyping it, all those TV shows hawking green as the in color; they all look like fools. Or worse, they look like they were in on what will go down as one of the biggest scams in human history.
What would you do if you were in their position? It’s not hard to understand why they’re carrying on like Climategate never happened. They have a president in the White House as clueless as they are, pushing the Cap and Trade agenda as if those darn glaciers are just about melted. We have to do something fast! Not a moment too soon, kiddies.
The climate scam is worth trillions of dollars and who knows how many millions, if not billions have been spent to win over the public. Too bad the public is losing interest fast. People are increasingly saying it’s all made up or at best, exaggerated. You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle, The cat has left the bag. There’s no going back to the lies and spin. But our friends in the media are still living a lie. It’s like they threw a party and only their mom and a few friends showed up. What was once a hip thing to be a part of, like smoking, is fast becoming a loser tattoo on their foreheads.
The public’s trust is evaporating and it’s not helping that many in the media are circling the wagons. As their ratings drop and their Nielsens tank, as the suits upstairs start laying off staff, they’re going to have to deal with reality. Something they’ve tried to deny all these years. Yes, folks. The warm-mongers are in fact the deniers.
The economy is in a down-spiral. Telling people they need to cut back is like rubbing salt in their wounds. Promising them “green jobs” is like telling a 40 year old Santa Claus is coming to town.
A 1930s scare film such as Reefer Madness was seen as high camp by liberals by the time the 1970s rolled around, as were Jack Webb’s anti-communist efforts of the late ’1950s. But seventies liberals, perhaps spurred on by the title of Alvin Toffler’s 1970 book Future Shock, if not the actual contents, had plenty of fears of their own, and wanted you to share the cold sweat of their own brand of paranoia.
Recall the horrific slate of politically-oriented science fiction films that Hollywood churned out in-between 1968′s 2001: A Space Odyssey and 1977′s Star Wars. Films such as Soylent Green, Silent Running and ZPG were obsessed with the Malthusian nightmares of overpopulation and deforestation that dominated the overculture of the time. Rollerball depicted a world controlled by giant corporations, at precisely the same time that Steve and Woz were cobbling together the first Apples in their Bay Area garage. They were followed by Leonard Nimoy’s cheesy synthesizer-scored In Search Of TV series a few years later, which explored Global Cooling, Killer Bees, Deadly Ants, and other ’70s obsessions.
Today, these ’70s efforts are seen as equally campy as Refer Madness became three or four decades after its release. The eco-doomsday films of the naughts, such as The Day After Tomorrow, M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening, and Al Gore’s own An Inconvenient Truth are well on the way to becoming late night camp TV themselves, and at much faster rate as their equally schlocky predecessors.
Perhaps someone can recut Al’s film and dub it “Climate Madness.” Maybe hire William Shatner to cut an exaggerated Jack Webb-style parody opening.
Who knows: “Climate Madness” could eventually even have the same impact on its genre as his wife Tipper’s efforts to curb raunchy lyrics in pop music.
Related: Zombie observes some camp Malthusian performance art on the Streets of San Francisco, here.
Uh, Ed, did you really mean The Perfect Storm? I think you may have meant The Day After Tomorrow.
JFH,
Indeed I did. Thanks.
Al Gore is really an evil man who has founded a false religion based on lies. He is so self aborbed that he cannot even recognize that there is another point of view. His followers are legion ; they have infiltrated the public schools and some parochial schools brainwashing young children to be very afraid of imaginary dangers. As a politicized vice president he partook in the world of lies and deceit which is the American World State; he brought much suffering and evil throughout the world.
anAL GOREtentive
Thanks for keeping up the pressure, Ed. It’s nearly impossible to find a liberal that will admit when he’s wrong, and this is particularly true of those who worship at the temple of Mother Earth eco-alarmism. They are too heavily invested in their religion to admit defeat.
I just got back from the future in my DeLorian, and I thought I should post the following headline from the New York Times (july 7 2018)
“Al Gore Found Dead”
Former VP Al Gore was found dead today in his bathroom. The cause of death is still being investigated however comments by the coroners office indicate the cause of death may be self inflicted.
Estranged wife Tipper Gore had this to say “following his release from prision for fraud, Al has been very depressed an would not speak with any of his former friends”.
Sources close to Mr. Gore described him as despondent over the seizure of more of his personal assets under a cort ordered liquidation to settle class action claims which were upheld by the appeals court last year……
The elmer gantry of our age.
Somebody put a cork in his orifices and send him to the moon already.
Climate change is real. Climate change is man affected. The science is out there and it proves this – a few errors does not make the whole thing false. The longer you keep spreading your disbelief then the slower it will take us to act – and the more dangerous the outcomes will be. Al Gore did not start this – scientists have been aware of our warming climate for decades – Al Gore just brought it into the mainstream. The IPCC was established in 1988 – well before Al Gore made his movie. I was working on climate change projects for years before Al Gore made his movie.
The gig is up El. Give it a rest. Climate change has been around since long before mankind. However, the scam being pushed on the world’s free people has finally been exposed and thoroughly debunked. Now real scientists and engineers who were polite and shy and kept their mouths shut for fear of typical predictable leftist retribution have found the strength to finally stand up to the phony scientists helping to push this fraud of historic magnitude. Crawl back under your rocks and figure out your next scam.
Just as the man-made climate change supporters attempted to make the medieval warming period disappear from the public’s consciousness in the same way the Soviets would re-write their encyclopedia every few years to adjust for the changes in leadership and alliances, the most bull-headed among those pushing the line that man is causing climate change are trying to push the revelations of the past six months into the memory shredder.
They may not mention the CRU data in their latest talking points directly, but they still try to sneak it’s claims into their arguments, as Gore did this week when he finally had a rainstorm instead of a winter snowstorm hit the northeastern states. The specific data may be toxic right now, but the assumptions from the data live on in their minds, and they’re hoping they can paper over this rough period for a while until people forget what the East Anglia kerfuffle was all about and they can go back to making the same overwrought claims they were making prior to last fall.
EL, you’ve wasted your life then.Don’t feel to bad, lots of people wasted their lives pimping eugenics and earth being the center of the universe.
James who? Who cares?
How many falsehoods in two sentences…
One…
Two…
Three…
Four…
Five…
Ah, the promised new age of citizen journalism. Non-entities talking bx to each other and with such wonderful prose as…
Sending the MSM down the river!
Poor Lazar. You seem like a sweet person but totally and completely hoodwinked.
Essential reading: Al Gore’s last, best hope:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_son_in
El Lazars mate posts EL:
“Climate change is real. Climate change is man affected. The science is out there and it proves this – a few errors does not make the whole thing false. The longer you keep spreading your disbelief then the slower it will take us to act – and the more dangerous the outcomes will be.”
“Climate change is real” WOW YES IT IS “Claimate change is MAN affected” OH OH back to normality NO IT ISN”T I give you the SAME challenge I gave your soul mate( clone) LAZAR. Give us PROOF link us to ONE just ONE SCEINTIFIC PROOF than MAN and MANS CO2 emmissions ALONE are te CAUSE of Glaobal Warming. Hint you might start with showing us PROOF that the Glabe has been warming for the PAST 15 YEARS after all MAN’s CO2 emissions have NOT fallen but have contiued to GROW in the last 15 YEARS.
Like I did with LAZAR I am not holding my breath because I KNOW you have no PROOF whatsoever.
17. Pragmatist,
Lazar is so far gone he’s beyond hope. It’s like trying to convince someone that wearing too much sunscreen is actually a bad thing and our skin needs vitamin D for vitally important functions to survive. The ‘science’ was settled then too when we were told to wear SPF bazillion only to find out a little afternoon sun is the only way we can recharge our vitamin D which is crucial to our bones and so much more.
*sigh*
Perfect. Absolutely correct. Mann and his minions are money merchants, no different than the Tulip vendors of long ago Europe. Obama is clueless. A dolt without the dunce hat. We have never had a more ignorant President.
The sad part is all of the bullshitters survive. They are recycled by libs. Ehrlich, Mann,Hansen, etc. are rewarded for their scientific malpractice as if they were knights that went after a beast heroically, instead of tripping on the way to the out house, which was their real accomplishment. Hucksters. No different than Elmer Gantry.
@EL
It’s good to have a voice of reason here. I had to study global warming last year for debate. I realized that most scientists agree that there is a warming trend. A reputable scientist that doesn’t believe in global warming is hard to come by.
@ck
Where’d you get that comeback, the toilet store…?
@Pragmatist
Who believes that global warming is human-caused? Effing NASA, that’s who!
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
In the article above…
“Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800′s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.”
Oh and I visited the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. and they seem to think its human-caused, too.
Boom roasted
21. Adrian,
Hey, cutie pie. You’re adorable when you’re feisty!
Anyhoodle, nasa also said this, honey puddin’:
NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
Psst (I really think the earth is just one hot and cold bitch like me…ahhhhhh wimmin’)!
Delia, keep tryin’ to help the misguided, but don’t hold your breath. . . .Zombie: don;t be hatin on In Search of. . . .I loved that show when I was a little kid(back in the 70′s).
.
Yup, it was them Cave Men (& Wimmins) driving around in their SUV’s that ended the last Ice Age (15,000 yrs ago). The oceans rose 250 feet, as 2-3 mile high glaciers melted. The Earth’s crust flexed, as the enormous weight was shifted.
We must reduce CO2. Outlaw the production of Champagne … the bubbles are CO2.
Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is real. Water Vapor comprises 98% of the Greenhouse Gas envelope.
“There is no statistically significant Global Warming in the past 15 years” …. Phil Jones, Head of East Anglia’s CRU [Climate Research Unit]. Dr. Jones is currently ‘on leave’, while they sort out the mysteriously released emails, climate records and computer code that documents the lies, distortions, and actions to vilify scientists with opposing views, including preventing them from publishing.
“El” is right. The scientific case that demonstrates the warming of the Earth and the likelihood that it is human activity causing that warming hasn’t suddenly changed since ‘climategate’. As far as I’m aware, none of the world’s major science academies have retracted the joint statement they made some years ago. And it’s not just those librul academics. Who says “For us the debate on climate change is over. We are tackling the challenges of a new energy future”? That would be the greenies at the Shell Oil company.Who “accepts the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is unequivocal and ‘very likely’ due to human activity”? Not Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but BP. Even Exxon has pulled its funding to pro-sceptic lobby groups because their “position on climate change diverted attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner”.
Rick Z — that isn’t what Phil Jones said. What he said was that the warming that has been observed didn’t quite reach the 95% significance level, but that a 15 year span was too short to really expect to see statistical significance.
#25 Richard Hall – So, you’re going to quote Shell Oil Company which “Accepts the findings of the IPCC”? Seriously? Do you not understand that once again you support the assertion of this article that it all leads back to the CRU? Shell>IPCC>CRU. And the CRU cooked the books. It’s all a fraud.
Sheesh.
Rick, Richard does happen to be correct regarding what P Jones said. Typically, 30 years is required for climate trends so there isn’t enough data yet to have 95% confidence level yet.
That being said, temperatures have been stable or slightly declining for last 7 years globally, not just NH. Fact, NASA lowered temperature data 0.35 degrees F from 1960 to 1975, completely erasing the 0.3 F cooling trend and changed it to a 0.03 F warming trend. And that’s just one decade!!!! We are basing all temperature data on obviously flawed datum.
It would seem that I am a “denier,” however, as a biologist, all I want is the truth. Unfortunately there is no truth as the is no clean temperature data. I can’t even explain to you how ticked off I am over this worldwide debacle. It’s disgusting that these fraudsters call themselves scientists when everything they do goes the opposite of the scientific method.
@Delia
It’s certainly adorable when someone of your obviously limited intellect thinks they’re right.
However, my article is one from the official nasa website, while yours is from a blog. Therefore, my article trumps yours. So how about you stay in your playpen. This is grown up talk.
@Richard Hall
I agree. Climate research has been carried out by a variety of organizations, and most scientists agree that humans cause global warming.
@Delia
NASA gov’t website and Smithsonian Museum of Natural History vs. blog post
Again, boom roasted
The article concludes:
Still feisty, I see, Adrian.
Here’s more on your beloved and trusted NASA right here on PJM from February:
Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files
-And, part two:
Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files (part two)
Adrian,
No offense and not here to start an argument, but you can’t use the agency in question as a source to back up your claim. That’s like me saying that that Clinton did not have sexual relations with that girl because he said he didn’t.
NASA has admitted they altered data. This isn’t an assumption. They like to call it homogenization, but then refuse to tell why or how they changed the temps, period. Hanson readily admits to raising NH temps by 0.33 F from 1965 to 1980. Where there was a 0.3 decline in temps, NASA changed it to a 0.03 increase in temps. That info can be found on NASA’s website and all over the internet. And, yet, no one asks why. Doesn’t that at least concern you just a little?
Now that decades and decades of raw data has been “lost”, there is no way to really know what is happening out there. And regardless if temps are rising or falling or doing nothing, the so called scientists have destroyed their credibility but not allowing others to check their calculations. That isn’t science. That’s politics.
Something does not compute. The AGW wingnuts say humans are responsible, yet we have the same group shoving a trillion-plus dollar boondoggle of a “health care” bill down out collective throats. One of the arguments being, it will increase the human lifespan of tens of millions of humans.
Well, if humans are the problem, we should be getting rid of them, right?
Unless . . . unless . . . this whole “health care” bill is a plot to get rid of more humans . . .
Nah.
“Soylent Green is people!”
34. Banned by Huffpo!
ROTFLMAOOOOOOOO!
Thanks, I needed that, banned.
Check it out:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92osoylent.phtml
Delia,
We’ve known for donkeys years that solar variation effects climate change. We know what we know thanks to climate scientists. Y’know, the corrupt fraudulent Al Gore is fat climate scientists. Meantime, read the abstract to the paper, and compare with the denial media spin…
Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon (2009), Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing, Science, 325(5944), 1114-1118, doi:10.1126/science.1172872.
@Chance N
I appreciate your civility. I have two responses to your post.
1) NASA recently announced that this decade (2000 to 2010) has been the warmest on record. They publicly stated they were wrong about the data from 1965 to 1980, but they still stand by their claims that the Earth is warming, because new and more reliable data shows that it is.
2) Almost all scientists agree that the Earth is warming. That argument is pretty much settled. The argument is over whether humans are causing the warming. The NASA article that I posted said that humans are causing global warming. I mean, they have both computer models running environmental simulations and satellites orbiting the Earth measuring temperatures and atmospheric conditions. If they can’t be trusted, then who can?
@Delia
Again, responding to my argument with another blog post And, for the third time, boom roasted
@Delia
According to the NASA article:
“A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun’s energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.”
4th time: boom roasted
“another blog post”
Hey, shit for brains, baby Adrian, then why are you on this “BLOG POST” if it ‘blogs’ have no meaning to your teensy little pissant mind? Why are you HERE AT ALL? Surely you and your pathetic monkey fuck mind have better things to do? RIGHT? RIGHT? AM I RIGHT, titty baby?
BTW, Santa and the Easter Bunny ain’t real either, fucktard.
Adrian, if ‘blog posts’ mean so little to you, then why the heckies are you here?
Adrian the ‘blog denier’ posting on a blog. BOOM ROASTED> LMFAO
Hey, Adrian. How much skin you got in the shell-game? You act like your waggly lil’ arse is in the high-stakes AGW B.S.?
Be honest, how much ya ‘in’ for? Thousands? Multi-thousands? Please, don’t say ‘billions’ like ‘Al Bore’…lmao
“NASA has admitted they altered data.”
Yup, and they’re still doing it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
At this pointt, I distrust EVERYTHING that comes from NASA or any other organization pushing AGW theory.
If they said the sky was blue…I’d assume they were being dishonest.
43. Dave Surls:
“If they said the sky was blue…I’d assume they were being dishonest.”
EXACTLY. And, my apologies to all for my over-usage of obscenities.
35. Delia
The tragic thing is, we’re flippin’ doomed. I feel really sorry for my kids, they’ve got a real mess to clean up. . . . . . . . .
@AdrianI appreciate your civility. I have two responses to your post.
1) I don’t disagree that the last decade is the warmest on record, however we must make many assumptions for this to stick. If the data is “bad”, how do we know. Just playing devil’s advocate. Also, it can still be the warmest decade on record AND be cooling. I think the cooling is questionable – it’s definitely cooling in northern Hemisphere, but appears to be slightly warming in southern. Every graph I see for world temp looks flat and possibly slightly down over last 9 years minus the rogue year of 2005.
2) Agree again. The warming won’t continue forever though, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. CO2 has far exceeded 2500ppm historically and yet ice ages happen. This is why I fully believe that CO2 is not the driving factor and no amount of taxation on emissions will have any noticeable effect. Once again, that’s my opinion after studying this in detail for 3+ years and reading 1000s of articles.
2 continued) And you ask, who do we trust – well, i don’t know any more. I’m sure that most climate scientist are just and “do the right thing”, however no amount of debate will convince me that Hansen and Jones and Mann fall into that category. Here is an example – what it I was taking a calculus test and one of the questions is highly complex. In the gigantic space to work out the problem and come to a solution, I just write the number 2. Maybe it’s the correct answer, maybe not. With you being my professor, wouldn’t you want to know how I came to that answer? Scientist fall under that same criteria -show your work. it’s not science if someone can’t prove or disprove your work. Adrian, can you at least agree to that? All I would like to see is transparency. right now, there is zero.
@Dave
“If they said the sky was blue…I’d assume they were being dishonest.”
Technically, the sky isn’t blue. it’s the opposite of blue as thats the only color being refracted back to your eyes
I’m actually on your side but couldn’t resist. Cheers.
@Adrian
One last thing back to your #1 point. I fully believe that we are tied for warmest decade with statistical insignificance between last decade and late 1930/early 1940s. Also, it has been noted by the Great Phil Jones himself that, in the 30s, the temperatures rose at an almost identical rate to the 90s and possibly even quicker. And yet, the MSM love to report that the temp increase in the 90s was “unprecedented.” We all know how much the MSM loves to portray massive gloom and doom – that’s how they sell themselves and make money, however the uninitiated believe what the read without questioning, i.e. 80% of the US.
Adrian, I respect your opinion, as well as everyone else’s here, but no one here or anywhere can convince me that there is enough proof to point the finger at CO2. It just doesn’t hold water either with real world observations or scientifically. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the thermal properties are known, however it’s logarithmic doubling are short lived due to saturation and also due to water vapor absorbing at same wavelengths. 1000ppm of CO2 will have little if any effect on temperature, regardless of what it does in a vacuum jar in a lab on an experiment completed over 100 years ago.
Time to get off my soap box and back to work. Happy debating and keep it clean, Folks.
@Chance N
Agree to disagree. Good discussion.
45. Banned by Huffpo:
“The tragic thing is, we’re flippin’ doomed. I feel really sorry for my kids, they’ve got a real mess to clean up. . . . . . . . .”
My 22 year old daughter (only child) is engaged to a man with three children from a previous marriage and has had a vasectomy. I would love for my boo-bear (my pet name for her) to have a bio-child of her own but, the way things are going right now that’s no longer a blip on my mental radar.
It’s sad that our youth have given up on us. Truly sad and all because some slick Snake Oil shuck-n-jivers have convinced us that we can’t live without them.
Adrian — The NASA article that I posted said that humans are causing global warming. I mean, they have both computer models running environmental simulations and satellites orbiting the Earth measuring temperatures and atmospheric conditions. If they can’t be trusted, then who can?
Dr. Roy Spencer, that’s who. In running UAH his data also says that the 2000′s were warmer than previous decades. Satellite data largely confirms much of the land based observations. This much appears to be true and factual. However, he’s not running a model designed to simulate the effects of CO2, so he’s been looking at natural oscillations like the PDO, AMO, and so on.
It appears that the upshot here is that the majority of warming seems to be tied to natural cycles (e.g. 20th century warming being a recovery from the LIA) with CO2 playing a role, but not *the* role.
Assuming you want to factor out water vapour GHG effect the best place to look at temps solely for CO2 would be desert Tmin. There’s no humidity to fudge things. If CO2 is having an effect, it shows up in low humidity areas. Sure enough, desert station Tmin is rising, which is to be expected given the rise in CO2. This much appears to confirm Arrhenius and/or the basic physics of GHG’s (this is counter to the prevailing silliness here.)
It’s interesting, however, to note that there’s no stick shape, no sudden jumps. This in and of itself contradicts the GCM’s NASA relies upon; the lack of a stick shape says that the imagined feedbacks are…. ummm… imagined. Not necessarily reality.
It’s one thing to note that the planet is getting progressively warmer, observing temps/CO2 and positing that Arrhenius was largely correct. It’s something else to prostrate yourself before the GCM altar: models are not data, and using models as a club to beat people with makes you look like little more than a Tamino fan capable of little more than Pavlovian regurgitation. Any imbecile can claim X = authority and quote x; this requires nothing special. Nor is it a thoughtful contribution to a discussion. It’s an argument with a win claimed by fiat. I say you need to contribute something original and useful or simply STFU.
In sum, humans contribute to global warming. They are not the cause of it. And before you ignorant denier types get your knickers in a twist, note that 10,000 aborigines can burn the landscape and affect local temps quite a bit. Humans alter their environment; we always have. We contribute to everything, whether we’re trying to or not.
Mods — can you fix the closing italic bracket in the previous post please? Hard to read now. Ack.
Thanks, G.L.