Please, MSNBC, can we stop now?

MSNBC has added Bret Stephens, climate denier formerly of the WSJ, lately of the NYT, to their list of commenters. Shame on them.

Also, shame on Wikipedia and others for referring to Stephens as a journalist. He is no more a journalist than Anne Coulter. He is a commenter. (He’s way better than Coulter, of course.)

Prior related posts:

Out of the gate, Bret Stephens punches the hippies, says dumb things

Honestly, New York Times? You are entitled to publish all the opinions, but not to endorse your own facts!

My letter to the New York Times

Dear New York Times: Climate Change Is Real

The New York Times Bites It With New Climate Denier Columnist

Apparently the widespread opposition to Stephens, which included a lot of tweeting, has driven him off Twitter.

And, MSNBC has added climate denier Hugh Hewitt as a host of a Saturday morning program. Read this expose from MMFA for the documentation on Hewitt’s climate denial.

Spread the love

69 thoughts on “Please, MSNBC, can we stop now?

  1. Irony: Batshit going “GROUP THINK!!!!” because it’s “bad, m’kay, when there’s no plurality” and thinking that a group (two people is still a group) is one person.

  2. Wow – “thinking that a group (two people is still a group)”

    Strange, I thought Greg was saying “shame” on MSNBC and Wikipedia?
    By hiring people with different viewpoints, they have apparently “shamed” themselves because they strayed from group think.

    Here’s the “irony” – Wow thinks that the two people are the “group” from this sentence:….”Shame on them for straying from group think!!”

    Which mean he thinks the two people are straying from themselves.

    Classic.

  3. The notion that MSNBC has been a bastion of left wing thought and promoter of decency has long been put to rest.
    At least they didn’t try to find someone as dishonest as Fox’s Jessica Waters, who, during a discussion of CNN’s admission of error, said:
    ‘ “Imagine if a Fox News producer said “they are pushing a bogus story about the president’s birth certificate just for ratings, and the CEO is on board with it, that would be national news.” ‘

  4. Greg,
    This is Celeste at The Pump Handle. Liz, Kim and I are having a terrible time logging into ScienceBlogs because of a JetPack error message. Have you had any problems?

  5. Hey Greg,
    Still waiting for you to explain your word version warning rules and who they apply to?

    You own the blog, I would think you could respond to such a simple question…

  6. Netherlands
    June 29, 2017
    After nearly sixty years of natural gas exploitation in the province of Groningen and a worldwide sale of Dutch gas, complete areas are getting uninhabitable, because of earthquakes ruining houses, farms, churches, monuments and soil. What are the effects of the overexploitation of non renewable energy for the economy, the land, richness and well being of citizens? The USA can open its gas tap fully and unconditionally, but what happens than?
    Climate Change and Earth Change are two sides of the same medal. People help raise the temperature of oceans, land and atmosphere and in doing so people bring earth to the melting point of poles and glaciers. In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses. The president of the USA and the GOP are (blindly) applying for a historic role as fuse igniters. Not a thing to be proud of. They are literally playing with matches. Time for change. Laren NH, Thursday 29 June 2017, 23.38 PM DT.

  7. “In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses”

    Meaningless wordsalad babble.

  8. No, it was an excellent choice of words, great boogers.

    Go learn what the earth’s crust is made of and how moronic your bullshit was.

    Hell, just go learn. Something. ANYTHING.

  9. I read something recently about blog writers and how they can
    be considered journalists in Australian Law.
    I personally find the standard of media these days very dismal, especially science reporting.
    There are some notable standout exceptions.
    Robyn Williams comes immediatly to mind.

  10. By hiring people with different viewpoints, they have apparently “shamed” themselves because they strayed from group think.

    So if a serious news outlet hired a geocentrist flat earther, or AIDS Denialist would they also be going against group think? Or if a teacher tells off a child for saying that 1 + 1 = 3, is that encouraging group think?
    To quote The Princess Bride:
    You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  11. Looks like I’m going to have to explain it to you as if you were a fifth grader, Betula.
    Ignoring and excluding people who hold views contrary to the normal consensus is not Group Think. Geocentrists hold views contrary to the consensus. Flat-Earthers hold views contrary to the consensus. AIDS Denialists hold views contrary to the consensus. It is not group think to ignore or mock those groups, and it is not “straying from group think” (your phrase) to hire climate denialists when the evidence that they are wrong is so overwhelming as to be total.

  12. “Looks like I’m going to have to explain it to you as if you were a fifth grader”

    You’ll need to dial it down. Special needs fifth grade isn’t low enough.

    Try trump level.

  13. Julian – “it is not “straying from group think” (your phrase) to hire climate denialists when the evidence that they are wrong is so overwhelming as to be total”

    Then why the “Shame on them” for hiring him?

  14. Because they hired people who ignored (and are continuing to ignore) the evidence. Anyone here would respond exactly the same way if a museum hired David Irving as an expert.

  15. “Anyone here would respond exactly the same way if a museum hired David Irving as an expert”

    Don’t knock one of Betula’s heros.

  16. Oh, I get it, the people who deny something that has actually occurred, are the same as people who have questions about predicted catastrophic-only future scenarios based on estimated climate sensitivity derived from imperfect computer models that are used to create policies that redistribute global wealth as a way to achieve social justice and equality,

    Makes sense.

  17. Wow – “You’ll need to dial it down. Special needs fifth grade isn’t low enough.”

    This, from Wow, who reads these words:

    Betula – “John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil Company is on the Board of Advisors of Climate One…
    You know what this means don’t you? That’s right, Michael Mann is being backed by big oil!
    And that my friends, is how you play the liberal retard game…
    [WARNING: Betula, watch your language.]

    And somehow sees these words:

    Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”

    Delusional. Lying. Hypocrite.

  18. So you agree. Otherwise you would have disagreed. Instead you decided to lie and bullshit off at a tangent.

    Again.

  19. Unfortunately for you, I can copy and paste your words….it’s also unfortunate for you, that you can’t copy and paste your imagination.

    I’ll just continue to prove you’re a liar and hypocrite, you just continue to imagine you aren’t…

    Fun times.

  20. Whoops writes…

    “So you agree. Otherwise you would have disagreed. Instead you decided to lie and bullshit off at a tangent.”

    By this wonderful logic, your interests and profits from your solar venture are agreed upon. Otherwise you would have disagreed. Right? When asked all you do is “lie and bullshit off on a tangent.” That is the definition of your M.O.

    You know what I find funny? “Wow” and The Donald–of who I am no fan and embarrassed to have to call our President–have very similar traits. Let’s compare…

    Thinks they know something about everything even when they clearly don’t? Check.

    Lie blatantly then try to pretend what they said was either justified or never said, despite clear evidence that it was? Check.

    Clearly and obviously delusional and unnecessarily confrontational? Check

    Offensive language towards people with mental disabilities (which to quote Greg is a “dick move”)? Check.

    Clear feelings of superiority when not justified? Check.

    I could go on.

    “Wow” and Trump. Kindred spirits I would say

  21. Well Greg at least they fired Greta Van Susteren – that’s a plus. You’d think by now with the soaring ratings Rachel, Lawrence, and Chris are having that the execs would figure out that moving to the left is more profitable than trying to compete with Fox.

  22. This discourse teaches us the importance and necessity of a minimum standard of civilized communication. For good thinking controversy is necessary as well as the classical virtues: humility, diligence, patience, kindness, moderation, prudence, justice and fortitude. This blog proofs again and again the necessity of these values, which this blog lacks completely. All topics on this blog being spoiled by trolls very much resemble the state of mind of the ‘greatest’ state of the world in decline. What we see here is a guerrilla of trolls. In this forum one at least has debunked itself as a perfect cooperative of Donald Trump. Every dictator needs a ministry of disinformation and cooperatives. Let the one whom this concerns throw the first stone. Laren NH, Saturday July 1st, 9.37 AM DT.

  23. No, it just shows that without any actual thought people will retire to complaining about presentation rather than do any effort to support their claims, great boogers.

    For instance, you never looked into the actual lithosphere of the planet earth and how much energy would be needed to supply to make it warp and move like you claim, then investigate the energy released by the melting of ice caps to see whether it would supply that energy and over what time it could occur.

    No, you just whined “But I really BELIEVE this crap!!!! Stop calling me a dumb fuck for doing that!!!!”.

  24. Gerrit B

    For good thinking controversy is necessary

    That is *exactly* the specious rhetoric deniers and creationists use when attempting to insert their rubbish into the public discourse. It is ‘teach the controversy’. Straight up.

    When you fall into pits this vast and obvious, you forfeit the right to lecture others on ‘good thinking’. Even polecats like Wow.

  25. Oddly enough, not the controversy about child raping by priests or the muslim faith (and the sharia compared to the US constitution). Nor will they want to have 50% of the time taken up at the congregation by alternative faiths.

  26. Wow – ” it just shows that without any actual thought people will retire to complaining about presentation rather than do any effort to support their claims”

    Speaking of a lack of effort to support a claim…pot, meet kettle:

    Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard”

  27. batshit never bothers. information can be refuted. blank claims are either blankly refuted giving it the “but they do it too!” excuse, or effort and work to find evidence to counter, which is just fine with the gishgallop of the runninghorse trotskies this blowing anus on the internet, because if just means that he’s “punished” everyone else with the expenditure of effort and thought.

    Or, in other words, that shitstain is crazy.

  28. Of course there are several options to take. Mix and matched based on personal and temporary preference and feelings.

    Don’t give a shit about this blowhard demanding evidence, just return the disfavour of blank assertion back. If anyone bothers to do evidence they can find out that batshit is crazy.

    Don’t bother at all. Ignore the stupid twat.

    Take the piss out of the pissant.

    Troll the shit out of it. Batshit is full of shit, though, so don’t expect much change in the amount of crap it exudes.

    Explain to others.

    Get evidence and put effort into it because you find you have time and effort to spare.

    There are more, but those are the major options.

    It’s only frustrating while you are under the impression that there’s an actual human being behind the posts batshit dumps out on the keyboard, but when you finally accept that this is just the troll fuckwit’s insistence to be a trolling fuckwit and that there was never any actual humanity behind the posts or reasoning behind them either, you can get over the frustration at not getting through and realise that there was never any getting through to begin with. So you aren’t failing to make sense, batshit just doesn’t care about what they post or what they get in response.

  29. “Even polecats like Wow.”

    Kinda pointless since this makes no actual sense. Based on past performance, I would expect this to be some sort of “burn”, but there’s no actual burn there.

    All I can think of is a song by Squeeze…. Cool pole cats.

  30. @40 – I never said it dean, if you have some sort of evidence you would like to share, please do…

    And your attempt to change the subject doesn’t deflect from the fact that i’m waiting for you to provide evidence of what you claim is my “denial”

    Be specific.

    It looks like you are going from stepping in Wow’s shit to stepping in your own…..either way, you keep stepping in shit.

  31. No betula.
    a) You have a history of lying about what others have said
    b) You have a history of lying about items in the news
    c) You have made repeated use of the word “retard”
    But, when a-c are pointed out, you avoid and say “no I didn’t”.
    So, regarding
    d) (Your) claim you never used it as a descriptor of President Obama

    the evidence indicates that is another lie.

    That’s the problem you have betula: you’ve demonstrated you don’t care about facts and that you are willing to lie about the simplest things. No reasonable person will ever give you the benefit of the doubt — and the only people you are arguing against here have reasonable objections to your comments.

  32. Oh, I get it, the people who deny something that has actually occurred, are the same as people who have questions about predicted

    Not predicted, Betula. Happening.
    Severe coral bleaching is already occurring, with large parts of the Great barrier Reef dying. Last month, Knysna in the Western Cape was subjected to violent wildfires. Heatwaves that have seen deaths are becoming ever more common.
    Climate Change is happening, and the Bills are coming due. Dismissing these as “estimated climate sensitivity derived from imperfect computer models” just shows your denialism.

  33. Wow – “So you’re saying you never denied it, batshit?”

    I’m saying you’ve been caught being a lying sack of shit over and over again and you’ve got nothing to defend yourself other than to ask questions that have no purpose other than to deflect the fact that you’re been caught being a lying sack of shit over and over again and you’ve got nothing to defend yourself.

    It’s really quite simple.

    Do you deny it?

  34. Julian – Right, because wildfires and heatwaves have only occurred in your lifetime….

    Tell me Julian, what percent of the .8C rise in GAT over the past 140 years is known to be a direct result of man, and how
    much will the planned development (on a global scale) of the poor nations reduce that percent over what period of time in order to prevent ant wildfires and heatwaves from occurring in the future?

    By the way, I know you don’t know the difference, but this is a question, not a denial…

  35. Tell me Julian, what percent of the .8C rise in GAT over the past 140 years is known to be a direct result of man,

    All of it. See AR5 WG1.

  36. Oh, I get it, the people who deny something that has actually occurred, are the same as people who have questions about predicted catastrophic-only future scenarios based on estimated climate sensitivity derived from imperfect computer models that are used to create policies that redistribute global wealth as a way to achieve social justice and equality

    This is denialist bullshit. The severity of climate impacts will depend on the extent to which CO2 emissions are cut over coming decades. It’s in our hands. Catastrophic outcomes are not yet inevitable, although the clock is running on that. But at present, ‘CAGW’ is a false framing within denialist rhetoric.

    Sensitivity is not solely derived from models; the primary evidence is palaeoclimate behaviour. Interestingly, the best estimate from palaeodata is ~3C, in good agreement with modelling.

    Aaaand the key point underpinning all the denialism is of course, Fuck You (Brown) Jack. ‘Wealth redistribution’ is another right-wing trope designed to rile up the masses and distract them from two self-evident truths:

    – Since it is clear that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation we must limit emissions or pay a heavy price for not doing so

    – Therefore any technology transfers to assist developing economies in avoiding a coal-fired industrialisation will be massively cheaper than BAU and will benefit all of humanity.

  37. “Wealth redistribution’ is another right-wing trope”

    Well, that’s good to hear, because I was thinking the poor undeveloped nations needed money from the rich developed nations for development. I misunderstood that the poor nations will be hit by climate change the hardest and the rich nations are to blame. You know, just compensation, social justice, equality and fairness…

    And then I was wondering how this development on a global scale, what with the increases in manufacturing, transportation, shipping, infrastructure, consumption, use of the earths resources etc….would affect overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run.

    Anyway, that’s all behind us….no worries.

    Thanks BBD

  38. Well, that’s good to hear, because I was thinking the poor undeveloped nations needed money from the rich developed nations for development.

    They do, and I said so:

    – Therefore any technology transfers to assist developing economies in avoiding a coal-fired industrialisation will be massively cheaper than BAU and will benefit all of humanity.

    But the benefits will be universal. If it makes you feel better to ignore the fact that the global north is indeed responsible for the climate impacts that will indeed hit the global south sooner and harder, then you can. Just think of it as an investment in the global future and a way of avoiding much, much higher costs of BAU and severe climate impacts.

    It is an essentially conservative view, so should feel natural to the right-leaning mind.

    And then I was wondering how this development on a global scale, what with the increases in manufacturing, transportation, shipping, infrastructure, consumption, use of the earths resources etc….would affect overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run.

    The whole point of tech transfers and development aid is to avoid a high-carbon industrialisation of developing economies. I just explained this. Do nothing to help and much, much more coal will get burned.

  39. BBD – “an investment in the global future and a way of avoiding much, much higher costs of BAU and severe climate impacts”

    Severe climate impacts? Sounds a little bit like “a false framing within denialist rhetoric”…

  40. Julian – Right, because wildfires and heatwaves have only occurred in your lifetime

    Better keep that straw man away from any open flames, Betula. My point was that wildfires and deadly heatwaves are becoming ever more common, and that AGW is the reason for this.

  41. Julian, so do you have some “peer reviewed “evidence that wildfires in Knysna are due to AGW?…or we just have to assume it was…because it’s a wildfire, and the GAT has risen .8C over the past 140 years.

  42. Severe climate impacts? Sounds a little bit like “a false framing within denialist rhetoric”…

    Well, that’s because you are a denier. You deny the palaeoclimate and modelling evidence pointing to ~3C ECS, and (implicitly) the ecosystems science that shows that when the speed of environmental change outpaces species’ ability to migrate or adapt, food webs unravel.

  43. Nothing is exact, but very close…even the IPCC gives a range.

    “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

    But I do enjoy the way you evaded my question…

    So do you have some “peer reviewed “evidence that wildfires in Knysna are due to AGW?

  44. Neither Bret Stephens nor Hugh Hewitt have yet to show evidence of understanding much of anything about Science. And yet they weigh in on climate change, a topic which has its roots in science. Science deals with everything, and everything affects everybody, so everybody seems to feel that they can weigh in on scientific topics.And they do. How unlike Medicine or Law, professions which have managed to successfully mark off their lucrative turf with professional associations and laws. As a result, we now have a culture in which pontificating on law or medicine without the appropriate credentials can be illegal in many cases. Scientists, on the other hand, are watching helplessly as the TrumPruitt nightmare dismantles lifesaving scientific rules based on scientific principles.

    There is some sort of cultural phenomenon going on which involves an increasing tendency of media hosts and politicians to engage in uncivil, uncivilized, unempathetic, divisive behavior, saying things that unabashedly make other feel pain and discomfort, without ever advancing a sound, useful, productive position, without ever advancing a goal that both sides can work towards…….. and these are things that Stephens and Hewitt excel at.

    MSNBC is probably largely funded by advertisements for fossil fuel powered cars. Who knows what pressure their advertisers have put on MSNBC to make them accept fossil fuel apologists Stephens and Hewitt into their lineup?

  45. “engage in uncivil, uncivilized, unempathetic, divisive behavior, saying things that unabashedly make other feel pain and discomfort, without ever advancing a sound, useful, productive position”

    Stop you whining and leave Wow alone!!

  46. ” show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3″

    So not 0.8 after all.

    Moreover, it’s 0.88C over the past 52 years (the 1951-1980 baseline) as of now, an decadal rate three times your claim, batshit.

    So, you have it entirely wrong. By a factor of near enough three fold.

    And you wonder why nobody believes you, batshit?

    Sad.

  47. Wow, you conveniently left out the IPCC part that stated “over the period 1880 to 2012”, so you will have to take up your “three fold” issue with them….

    Anyway, at least now I can expect you to present some “peer reviewed “evidence that wildfires in Knysna are due to AGW.

    Thanks.

  48. No, I completely showed up your claim about it being 0.8C over 140 years is errant bollocks, batshit. My “threefold issue” is with you lying again, retard.

  49. Betula

    As surface temperatures rise, there will be a greater likelihood of wildfires. Many other factors are also involved, but AGW is increasingly one of them. This is so utterly uncontroversial and obvious as to be scarcely worth mentioning.

  50. Re the temperature squirrel, if we update to the present, it’s probably >0.9C with about 0.6C since 1970.

    Diversionary nonsense, as per.

  51. Wow, thanks for providing that “peer reviewed “evidence that proves the wildfires in Knysna were due to AGW….it was very helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.