This is a must watch video from the US Senate:
I’m pretty sure I heard once that there is a rule in the Senate that you can’t call another Senator a liar using that word (lier). So when you see Senator Whitehouse not using that word, that may be why.
Storified by Greg Laden· Tue, Feb 26 2013 10:47:37
On February 17th, some 40,000 people showed up at an event in Washington DC in order to draw attention to the most pressing issue of our time: Climate Change. Another group of people also attended that rally. They represented the Climate Science Denialists, which in the US overlaps considerably with the Tea Party. They wore yellow jackets and called themselves “The Light Brigade.” This follows the tradition of the Tea Party, who in their early days used the nickname “Teabaggers” for themselves, a term which refers to a particular sexual act, or so I’m told. I was reminded of this because the original Light Brigade was a hapless military unit commanded by incompetent boobs who made major mistakes causing the unnecessary deaths of a large number of people carrying out a futile and senseless act.
In other words, the Light Brigade that showed up at the Forward On Climate Rally in Washington DC on February 17th, 2013 of which there were about 15 according to reports, resembles the Light Brigade, the unit of light calvary at Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War that charged to their deaths on October 15th, 1854, in a number of ways. However, the real victims of science denialsm is everybody, not just the soldiers who forgot to question, to reason.
So, in honor of Climate Science Denialism and the new Light Brigade, which I’ve decided to rename the Lite Brigade, I’ve adapted the famous poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. As follows:
The Charge of the Lite Brigade
by Greg, Lord MockingyouHalf a brain, half a brain,
Half a brain onward,
All in the valley of Climate Change
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
“Charge for the facts!” he said:
Into the valley of Climate Change
Rode the six hundred.“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man inform’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Climate Change,
Rode the six hundred.Carbon to right of them,
Carbon to left of them,
Carbon in front of them
Tornadoes and thunder;
Superstorm’d with surge befell,
Blindly awash in the the swell,
Into the rise of temps,
Into the mouth of Hell
Ocean acidification.Flash’d all their untruths bare,
Flash’d as they denied in air,
Science and data there,
Charging and lying, while
All the world wonder’d:
Plugged in the battery-charger,
But the coal based grid was broke;
Hannity and Rush they
Reel’d from the IPCC report
Shatter’d and sunder’d.
Then they got a new contract, but
Not the six hundred.Carbon to right of them,
Carbon to left of them,
Carbon behind them
Hurricanes with thunder;
Superstorm’d with surge befell,
New Orleans went to Hell,
Tea did not come out so well
Lies through their jaws brought Death
Told science to go to Hell,
And left it all to them,
Storms for our grandchildren.What were they thinking, crazed?
O the wild charges they made!
All the world wondered.
WTF are have they said?
Look at the Light Brigade,
Ignorant six hundred.
Peter Gleick, my sbling here at scienceblogs.com (see his blog here) is famous for a lot of things, but about one year ago he went up against the Heartland Institute and in a daring effort of investigative (if avocational) journalism, revealed that right wing conservative/libertarian “think” tank’s nefarious plans to interfere with science education in an effort to discredit climate scientists in the eyes of the American public and our students through a series of rather smarmy tactics, including some really obnoxious billboards.
Scott Mandia at “Global Warming: Man or Myth?” has written a one-year-later retrospective of Gleick vs. Heartland. Check it out: Peter Gleick vs Heartland Institute – Scorecard One Year Later. And the Winner Is?
Scott compares the “accomplishments” of the Heartland Institute over the last year with Peter’s activities to produce a rather lopsided score card that resembles what would happen if the local High School football team went up against the Baltimore Ravens.
… at any serious level, and then, only if enough Republicans get thrown out of the House to allow committee work and legislation to happen. From The Hill:
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have rebuffed Democrats’ bid to require the high-profile panel to hold hearings on links between climate change, extreme weather and threats to coastal areas.
On Wednesday the Committee, along party lines, voted down Democratic amendments to its formal oversight plan for the 113th Congress.
One defeated amendment, from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), would have required hearings on the role of climate change in drought, heat waves, wildfires, reduced crop yields and other effects.
…
A second defeated amendment, by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), called for hearings on climate-related coastal threats including sea-level rise, more frequent and intense storms, and ocean acidification.
…
More votes – with a similar outcome – are expected when the meeting to approve the oversight plan resumes next week.
Waxman is offering a third amendment calling for a hearing on recent reports that warn, “the window for action to prevent irreversible harm from climate change is closing rapidly.”
…
In case you are reading this 40 years ago hence from a refugee camp somewhere inland from the flooded East Coast urban zone, these are the people who’s children you should find in order to demand your explanation:
Fred Upton (MI)- Chairman
Ralph Hall (TX)
Joe Barton (TX) – Chairman Emeritus
Ed Whitfield (KY)
John Shimkus (IL)
Joseph R. Pitts (PA)
Greg Walden (OR)
Lee Terry (NE)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Tim Murphy (PA)
Michael C. Burgess (TX)
Marsha Blackburn (TN)
Phil Gingrey (GA)
Steve Scalise (LA)
Bob Latta (OH)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)
Gregg Harper (MS)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Bill Cassidy (LA)
Brett Guthrie (KY)
Pete Olson (TX)
David McKinley (WV)
Cory Gardner (CO)
Mike Pompeo (KS)
Adam Kinzinger (IL)
Morgan Griffith (VA)
Gus Bilirakis (FL)
Bill Johnson (OH)
Billy Long (MO)
Renee Ellmers (NC)
As I mentioned, I’m busy, so I’ll just do this in pictures, kinda like a cartoon:
There was no “walk back” by Joe. He merely added some links.
The results of the poll so far:
Personally, I’m hoping for “Force him” … that would be fun to watch.
Meanwhile, there is a lesson here. Science denialists like Anthony Watts do not want to be disagreed with. I think we may have already known that, though.
Related posts:
I know, right?
Anthony Watts, of the science-denialist Whats Up with That blog, has got his shorts in a knot because of a post I wrote indicating that he is a boob. He is upset because in a screen shot of him talking about a totally absurd pseudo-scientific claim that should have been rejected out of hand, I failed to include enough of the post to show that he was skeptical about the claim.
Let me be very very clear: This is not a claim to be skeptical about. This is a Teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars claim. A person who has reported debunked claims about alien life again and again, reporting in a fake scientific journal, has made an absurd claim. To understand the level of absurdity check out PZ Myers post, written after mine, which goes into more detail about the “journal.”
I did not need to show that Anthony Watts was skeptical because that wasn’t the point. The point was that it was funny that he was looking at this claim at all. But, fine, if he really needs me to include the snippet where he expresses his laughable skepticism, I can do that. Here, Watts says.
This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up.
… thus indicating skepticism. I’m sorry I did not include that sentence in the … wait, wait, hold on a sec. Hey, I DID include that phase about “if it holds up” in the original post? But Watts is saying that I did not include any of his skeptical language. Who is this Anthony Watts guy, some kind of liar? Huh.
Maybe he means this bit, the bit after the phrase “Look at what the electron microscope shows of a sample purported to be from the meteorite:” … that’s where he says I cut off the post, let’s see what he says there. Of the claim of Alien Life stuck to a meteorite, Anthony Watts says
It looks convincing, and the paper says: “Contamination is excluded by the circumstance that the elemental abundances within the structures match closely with those of the surrounding matrix.“, but I remain skeptical of the claim.
I’m sure most of my regular readers will see why this is really funny. I didn’t really cherry pick Watts. I showed how he posted on this claim of alien life stuck to a meteorite, and I did not claim that he had been taken in and I said nothing about his skepticism one way or another. But, Watts is a minor leader in the Science-Denialist movement focusing on climate change, and you all know that those folks life to cherry pick.
Does cherry picking really bother Anthony Watts this much, and his readers, who have commented heavily on my post? If so, then they should stop doing it themselves!
Watts complains that I don’t provide a link to the original story. It is against my blog policy to provide links to science denialist sites. It would be unethical for me to do that on a regular basis because it would enhance the google juice of pseudoscience. I’ve got children. I want them to grow up in a better world, not the world that Anthony Watts wants them to grow up in. So, no. Now and then, if necessary, I’ll link, but normally not.
Then he goes on and on with a really boring post, but there are two comments in that post I’ll address briefly.
First, he complains about spelling. I know, I suk as speling. But it isn’t just that. I have a disorder that causes this. I am disabled. When Anthony Watts make fun of my spelling he is being an “Abelist” (or is it Ableist? Whatever). Nice guy. But that’s OK, many people are unaware that such a condition exists. I’ve gotten used to the thoughtless comments about that, even from friends, and I do appreciate having the spelling errors pointed out.
Second, Anthony Watts says, “The difference between myself and Mr. Laden is that WUWT isn’t afraid to have topics for discussion that might be proven wrong.” That’s not true. At the moment, I’m getting ready for publication on this blog a post about the highly controversial yet very interesting Ozone Theory of tree death and, believe it or not, a post about Aquatic Ape Theory from one of the main proponents of that theory. Recently, I was ruthlessly attacked for my position on the Flores (Hobbit) hominids, and I’ve invited the author of that attack to give me a guest post. He’s not gotten back to me on that, but a third colleague who has an opinion that might be very different the one I expressed has agreed to do so. These should all be interesting posts! And, these are all examples of me engendering discussion of topics where my previously stated position may be proven wrong. This is science we’re doing here. Being proved wrong is one of our main objectives.
(The Ozone and Aquatic Ape posts are delayed by sickness in my family, which has taken a few days out of my schedule and caused me to spel even werse!)
One last item, about meteorites with life on them. There is actually no reason to believe that a meteor or two having fossil or isotopic evidence that conforms to would call life could land on us from Mars. There are all sorts of problems with such data, and it is good that we have Robots on Mars checking things out there more directly. But the sample in question may not even be a meteorite, and yes, anyone in the climate sciences who has the remotest clue about anything should recognize what a FW diatom looks like, not necessarily to identify it to genus or species, but sufficiently to be suspicious. This meteorite, the one Anthony Watts laughingly accepts as something to be “skeptical” about, is not the same thing at all. Not even close. In fact, it might not even be a meteorite, according to Phil.
You may know the blog What’s Up With That. It is Anthony Watt’s anti-science blog, dedicated to climate change denialism.
A current post reports the finding of life forms from another planet, in a meteorite.
This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up….
This is from a recent meteorite find in December 2012. A large fire ball was seen by a large number of people in Sri Lanka on December 29th 2012, during that episode a large meteorite disintegrated and fell to Earth in the village of Araganwila which is few miles away from the city of Polonnaruwa.
Look at what the electron microscope shows of a sample purported to be from the meteorite:
Then he shows a picture of a rock with a bunch of contemporary Earth Based diatoms stuck to it.
It is very fun to read the comments. I provided a comment that will not be printed because Watts never prints my comments, but I’ve screen captured it for you (it is below).
Phil Plait has reviewed the Alien Life in the Meteor story here, and as I said, it is not alien life come to earth in a meteor. It is (I guess) a fragment of a meteorite with fresh water diatoms stuck to it. There are fresh water diatoms stuck to your shoe, your car tires, your dog, everywhere. The silica bodies of these tiny algae are part of the dust, not as numerous perhaps as skin cells or, certain times of the year, pollen, or the loess blowing off the melting glaciers and such, but common. This is why real scientists grind down the meteorite, cross sectioning it, before looking at the sample.
As Phil points out, this report is by a “scientist” who has made many outrageous and incorrect claims about aliens, reported in a journal that is famous for printing bogus and incorrect science, the methods are obviously bogus and anyone who knew anything about, say, climate studies (where fresh water diatoms are used all the time as proxyindicators) would at least be suspicious, and would know how to check for veracity of the claim.
Anthony Watts, the anti-science global warming denailist, was not equipped to recognize this bogus science as bogus. We are not surprised.
The UK Met Office, a climate agency, released some information about the immediate future, based on modeling. Briefly, it notes that natural cooling effect may temporarily ameliorate the increase in temperatures caused by global warming in some locals; it does not say that global warming is attenuated in any way whatsoever. It is more of a long term weather forecast than a climate change prediction.
The climate science denialist community, a community run by willfully wrong miscreants and with a following of mostly ignorant sycophants, and which only likes modeling when it seems to show what the denialists want it to show, made much inappropriate hay of thisleading to BBC Today to produce this headline:
“Met Office Does Not Believe that Global Warming Will Be As Severe As Previously Predicted”
When asked, the Met Office says they’d prefer the following headline to reflect what they were saying:
“Latest forecast for the next five years show that the earth will continue to be at record high levels, and there is a fair chance that new records will be made during that period.”
Here is the BBC fixing their mess-up:
Sad to see Today digging in rather than getting on board with a vigorous effort at making it right.
Climate change science denialism has pretty much run its course. We’ve been experiencing a large number of climate change related events (see this list for a brief summary) lately. It may well be that the number per year of such alarming events will go down and up over time. It may be that we will forget that some of them are happening because we grow used to them. But they are happening at a larger rate than just a few years ago, the years are getting warmer and warmer, and the effects predicted by the science have been manifest as predicted, but for on thing: They are happening sooner, faster, and worse than predicted in many cases.
But even tough climate change science denialism is now being moved aside (rightfully so) it is still out there an you may encounter it. Many of the active denialists can’t really back down because they are so invested in the denialism that doing so would require that they admit that the effects of denialism on policy have been deadly. Science denialists do, in fact, kill people indirectly whether it be in the form of anti-vax denialism, climate change science denialism or some other form.
There is a web site that specializes in addressing the various questions denialists raise in order to cast doubt on the real science. We are no longer at the point where pro science people need to have the answers ready when the denialsts show up, because that just gives them more credit than they deserve. Rather, the appropriate response is to point them to this site: Skeptical Science
Oh, and guess what. There’s an app for that! Here: Skeptical Science on the iPhone or iPad
. If you want the app for Android or some other platform, click through to the site and look in the sidebar.
More information on global warming and climate change HERE.
And by “Prestigious” I mean …. well, see for yourself in this story from Media Matters for America (Reposted with permission):
ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “king of the skeptics,” and “a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a “con job” based on “subprime science.” Morano gained prominence working for two of the most vocal climate deniers in the U.S.: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who notoriously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and Rush Limbaugh, who we named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year in 2011 for his steadfast denial of climate science and wild conspiracy theories about the climate change “hoax.”
These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 “Climategate” controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
Due to his history of smears and lies, Morano’s media influence is usually confined to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. But in December, CNN invited him to “debate” Bill Nye on climate science, and in doing so elevated his marginal views to the mainstream press for the first time all year. For all this, Marc Morano has earned the distinction of 2012 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.
Morano Worked In Communications For Climate Deniers Rush Limbaugh And Sen. James Inhofe. Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington.” Limbaugh continues to use Morano’s material on his radio show to misinform his millions of listeners.
[via Esquire]
Morano went on to work for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who has called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” As Inhofe’s communication director, Morano fed misleading talking points on global warming to climate contrarians, conservative bloggers, and right-wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute. [Esquire, 3/20/10] [Climate Depot, 9/18/11] [Media Matters, 12/19/11] [Think Progress, 2/17/09]
Morano Relished When His Blog Was Called “Toxic And Divisive” By A NY Times Reporter. Morano now runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com, which distorts climate science and often attacks individual scientists. New York Times science reporter Andrew Revkin called Morano’s blog “divisive and toxic,” to which Morano responded: “If by ‘divisive and toxic’ you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!” [ClimateDepot.com, 5/8/12]
Morano Said Climate Scientists “Deserve To Be Publicly Flogged.” Morano seized on the 2009 “Climategate” controversy to call climate change a “con job” and accuse scientists of “ginning up a crisis.” He told The Daily Climate that he saw the controversy as an opportunity to sow doubt about climate science, saying: “I seriously believe we should kick them while they’re down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.” [Scientific American, 3/1/10]
Morano Defended Billboard Comparing Those Who Accept Climate Science To The Unabomber. Morano has close ties to the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that hosts regular conferences and dispatches “experts” to deny that manmade global warming is a serious problem. To promote a recent conference, Heartland sponsored a billboard that associated acceptance of climate science with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. When Heartland faced backlash from corporate donors and even some of its own staff, Morano defended the billboard, calling it “edgy”:
This is so silly. Every day now, skeptics are compared to Holocaust deniers and the media yawns. But Heartland does an edgy billboard accurately reflecting the views of those featured in it and the media acts as though they are offended?
Heartland has received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, ExxonMobil and other corporations with a financial interest in confusing the public on climate science. Morano has spoken at five Heartland Institute conferences, and is featured on Heartland’s list of global warming “experts.” He received an award from Heartland in 2011. [Media Matters, 11/28/12] [Heartland Institute, accessed 12/12/12] [Heartland Institute, 5/15/12] [Heartland Institute, 6/30/11]
Morano Gloated That More Americans Believed In Haunted Houses Than Global Warming, Saying “Science Wins.” In 2010, Morano received an award from Accuracy in Media, a group that has defended legislation in Uganda that threatened the death penalty for the “offense of homosexuality” and promoted conspiracy theories including that President Obama was not born in the U.S. In his acceptance speech, Morano touted that in “the fall of 2009, more Americans believed in haunted houses than manmade global warming, and I’m not making that up. Science wins in the end.” Morano also said that he didn’t “understand” why Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, is “taken seriously.” [YouTube video uploaded by Accuracy in Media, 2/18/10] [Media Matters, 2/7/12] [Accuracy in Media, 2/16/10]
Fox News Hosted Morano To Discuss Climate Change At Least 5 Times In 2012. A search of Nexis and Media Matters‘ internal TV archive reveals that Morano appeared on Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto at least five times in 2012 to spew misinformation on climate change. Here are a few highlights:
Morano Often Appears On Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones’ Show. Alex Jones is a radio host who thinks that a “New World Order” of secretive elites is trying to take over the world, impose an authoritarian government and “exterminate 80% of the world’s population.” Jones, who was one of the most prominent 9/11 truthers, has made outlandish claims, including that the government is trying to “encourage homosexuality with chemicals” in items like juiceboxes, and that Bill Gates is promoting vaccines because he is a eugenicist trying to sterilize people. Morano often appears on Jones’ show to promote conspiracy theories of his own:
[Media Matters, 2/25/11]
CNN Hosted Morano To “Debate” Bill Nye On Climate Science. In December CNN’s Piers Morgan hosted a “debate” on climate change between Marc Morano and Bill Nye “The Science Guy” without disclosing that Morano has no scientific background and is paid by an industry-funded organization. During the segment, Morano misleadingly claimed that “we’ve gone 16 years without global warming according to UN data,” adding:
MORANO: On my Web site there’s literally — it demolishes the idea of a hockey stick, new peer-reviewed study, so the idea that Bill Nye is just going around saying CO2 is up, therefore global warming is dangerous, we should be concerned, it’s not. It’s not dangerous.
In a blog highlighting the segment, CNN identified Morano as an “expert” on the issue and said he “presented an alternate theory regarding the impact, and concern, associated with carbon dioxide.” The blog did not clarify that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a problem and is driven by human activity. [Media Matters, 12/5/12]
Morano’s Advice To GOP Candidates Who Accept Climate Science: “Keep Your Mouth Shut.” During the Republican primary season, Morano told E&E News: “You can believe in the science of global warming if you’re a GOP presidential contender if you keep your mouth shut about it and you advocate no quote-unquote solution to the problem.” [E&E News, 5/23/11]
Morano Blasted Gingrich For “Accepting The Science.” Morano has repeatedly criticized Newt Gingrich for appearing in a 2008 Alliance for Climate Protection ad with Rep. Nancy Pelosi in which he said “our country must take action to address climate change.” Morano called the ad “toxic” to Gingrich’s presidential campaign, and complained that Gingrich was “accepting the science”:
He’s acknowledging the problem. He’s accepting the science. He hasn’t backed away from endorsing Al Gore’s approach to man-made global warming. That’s why he’s going to have a problem. Newt Gingrich was not just giving aid and comfort to the opposition. He was the opposition to the global warming skeptics. [E&E News, 5/23/11]
Morano Pressured Gingrich To Cut Climate Chapter From His Book. When atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe was identified as a contributor to Newt Gingrich’s book of environmental essays, for which she was asked to write an introductory chapter on climate change, Morano went on the attack. He dismissed her work as “trash science” and encouraged readers to contact her directly by repeatedly posting her email address on his blog. Morano also blasted Gingrich as a “long-time warmist” who shows “no signs of recanting,” adding: “This is how Newt uses his intelligence?” Ranting on ClimateDepot.com, Morano wrote:
Gingrich has revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is, & always has been – -a committed believer in man-made climate fears! The fact that Hayhoe was chosen to write a chapter in his new book is all we need to know. Will Hayhoe be his potential pick for climate advisor?! Gingrich has never left Pelosi’s couch! If the GOP can only come up with Newt or Mitt — is an Obama 2nd term all that scary when it comes to climate? Just asking…
Gingrich later scrapped Hayhoe’s chapter after Rush Limbaugh — Morano’s former boss — highlighted the story on his radio show. Morano celebrated the news with the following headline:
[Media Matters, 1/4/12] [ClimateDepot.com, 12/9/11] [ClimateDepot.com, 12/30/11]
Morano Raised “Concerns” About Romney’s Stance On Climate Change. At the Heartland Institute’s 7th climate change conference, Morano raised “concerns” that some of Mitt Romney’s advisors accept the science of climate change, saying “it’s a little bit scary who he’s surrounding himself with.” He added, “It’s very frustrating for global warming skeptics when you realize who is the Republican standard bearer right now and how far we’ve come… We need a president who actually can stand up to this whole global warming brigade.” [ClimateCrocks.com, 5/30/12]
Morano Falsely Suggested That Former Romney Global Warming Advisor Favored Forced Sterilization. Last year on Alex Jones’ show, Morano expressed concern that Romney would accept manmade global warming if he were elected President, noting that he was advised by John Holdren — now President Obama’s senior science advisor — while he was governor of Massachusetts. Morano went on to suggest that Holdren supported forced sterilization, when in fact he had merely co-authored a book 32 years prior that catalogued such methods among many others but did not endorse them. From The Alex Jones Show:
MORANO: [Romney] had John Holdren as one of his advisors in Massachusetts when Romney was on his global warming kick.
[…]
AARON DYKES, ALEX JONES GUEST HOST: So just for the viewers who may not be following the name game here. You’re talking about John P. Holdren, Obama’s global warming and white house czar, who calls for a $4 billion 4 billion person genocide over overpopulation and is experimenting with this geoengineering in the atmosphere –
MORANO: Yes.
DYKES: –over global warming.
[…]
MORANO: Romney is getting a free ride in these [Republican primary] debates. John Holdren was partnered up with Paul Ehrlich. Paul Ehrlich proposed forced sterilization agents in our drinking water in the 1960’s and 70’s. [YouTube video uploaded be TheAlexJonesChannel, 10/24/11] [Media Matters, 9/17/09]
Morano Urged Romney To Pick VP Who Denied Climate Science. Responding to rumors that Mitt Romney was considering Condoleezza Rice as his running mate in 2012, Morano told Politico:
Why, oh why would Romney choose a V.P. who is smitten with the U.N. climate process[?] The stench of the carcass of the U.N. global climate treaty process is overwhelming, and despite this, Rice in 2011 regretted that Pres. Bush rejected it. Romney could do so much better than to pick Sec. Rice. [Politico, 7/13/12]
He later cheered Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, saying, “It will be so refreshing to have a VP candidate who actually understands how warmists… have perverted science and turned it into pure politics.” [ClimateDepot.com, 8/11/12]
At CNS News, Morano Uncritically Broke “Swift Boat” Story Smearing Sen. John Kerry. Before working for Sen. Inhofe, Morano worked as a reporter for Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the right-wing Media Research Center. In 2004, Morano broke the story about the attacks coming from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, uncritically repeating unfounded accusations that Sen. John Kerry did not deserve the Purple Heart award he earned in Vietnam. But FactCheck.org noted that “the veterans who accuse Kerry [of lying to receive his war medals] are contradicted by Kerry’s former crewmen, and by Navy records.” Morano also repeated claims that Kerry accused soldiers of war crimes “knowing that was a lie.” But Kerry simply relayed the stories of other Vietnam veterans, and he intended them as an indictment of military leadership rather than a condemnation of soldiers. [CNSNews.com, 5/3/04, via Newsmax] [FactCheck.org, 8/6/04] [Media Matters, 8/23/04] [CNSNews.com, uploaded 7/7/08] [CNSNews.com, uploaded 7/7/08]
Morano Led “Swift Boat” Effort On Vietnam Veteran Murtha. In early 2006, Morano co-authored a story for CNS accusing Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a critic of the war in Iraq, of exaggerating injuries suffered in Vietnam and lobbying for undeserved service awards. The article was seen by many as an ad hominem political attack meant to obscure legitimate policy discussion. Morano’s story was also criticized for relying on convoluted sources, many of them potentially tinged by political bias, and recycling years-old uncorroborated charges. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, pointed out that Murtha’s service awards had actually been subject to extensive and well-documented Marine Corps approval decades earlier, and blasted “extremist Republican operatives” and others for “denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree.” [CNS News, 1/13/2006] [Washington Post, 1/17/2006, via Nexis] [Media Matters, 1/17/2006] [Huffington Post, 1/15/2006] [ConWebWatch, 1/18/2006] [New York Times, 1/18/2006] [Boston Globe, 8/5/2006]
Morano Used “Climategate” To “Swift Boat” Climate Scientists. Morano played a key role in fueling the “Climategate” controversy, seizing on hacked emails to accuse scientists of “corruption” and “fraud” and to declare that global warming is nothing more than a “con job.” Even after multiple investigations cleared scientists of these charges, Morano continues to claim that Climategate exposed “collusion” and “deliberate manipulation of facts and data” by UN scientists. Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been relentlessly attacked by Climate Depot, recently said that Morano is paid by “vested interests to ‘swiftboat’ climate scientists, to try to distort our work, to try to undermine the public’s credibility in the science.” [ClimateDepot.com, 11/20/09] [ClimateDepot.com, 2/17/12] [Scientific American, 3/1/10] [Conservative Roundtable, 5/7/10] [ClimateDepot.com, 11/23/11] [ClimateDepot.com, 12/3/12]
Morano Smeared Gay Attendees Of AIDS Fundraiser. In 1996, Morano attended a fundraiser for AIDS victims on behalf of the Family Research Council, an organization that has been labeled a “hate group” for its factually-challenged attacks on LGBT people. In a column for Human Events, Morano claimed that during the dance party there was “evidence of illegal drugs” because “Snorting could be heard” through the bathroom stalls. But then-Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), who sponsored but did not attend the event, testified that no complaints were lodged with security. Morano also claimed to have witnessed “illegal sexual activity” in the main auditorium, which was used by conservative columnist Armstrong Williams to say that the event was an “orgy” and a “homosexual free-for-all.” But as Rep. Gunderson stated, “Absolutely no one but Mr. Morano claims to have seen this incident. But one must wonder why he did not film it. One must wonder why he did not report it to security.” Morano later claimed that he tried to capture it on camera but was unsuccessful. The Washington Times reported that “no participant contacted by The Washington Times confirmed” Morano’s claim that he “saw men engaged in sexual relations.” Morano’s column, which was identified as an example of “the journalism of bigotry and prejudice” by Rep. Gunderson, further promoted stereotypes about gay people:
The image of young active health conscious men, drinking bottled water and consuming fruit [at the fundraiser] is a study in contrast. The reckless lifestyle inherent in the gay experience results in a notably reduced life span. The life expectancy of a homosexual male is estimated to be no more than about 41 years old, regardless of AIDS. The homosexual community’s credo seems to be “Die young and leave a pretty corpse.” [Congressional Testimony, 5/14/96] [Congressional Record, 5/15/1996] [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 12/12/12] [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/2/96, via Nexis] [The Washington Times, 5/5/96, via Nexis] [The Advocate, 6/25/96]
Morano Is Paid Over $150,000 A Year By An Oil-Funded Organization. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative policy and lobbying organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. CFACT also received over $300,000 in 2011 from Donor’s Trust, an anonymously funded group that PBS called the “number one supporter of the groups” that deny climate change. CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form lists Morano as its highest paid employee at over $150,000 a year. [Media Matters, 11/28/12]
CFACT Claims “Global Warming Claims Are Failing.” CFACT denies that there is a scientific consensus on manmade climate change and claims that “real world evidence” shows that “global warming claims are failing.” [CFACT.org, accessed 12/11/12]
Max Greenberg contributed to this post.
Top “Ten” Recent Books (focusing on 2012 but including the last few years) on Climate, Science denialism, Energy, and Science Policy are (including one Post Warming novel) are:
by Maggie Koerth-Baker
by Haydn Washington and John Cook
by Daniel Grossman, TEDx Books (Kindle Single)
by Shawn Lawrence Otto
by Hunt Janin and Scott Mandia
, a novel by Gareth Renowden
by Michael Mann
by James Lawrence Powell
by Chris Mooney
by Chris Mooney and Sheril KirshenbaumAny other suggestions?
But not as severely as they should have been.
The IPCC, as you know, comes out with a set of reports every five years. The reports are written by groups of experts. Draft reports are widely accessible to people who register themselves as “experts” and there is no quality control in that process, in order to keep things as transparent as possible. This means that the worst climate change denialists can simply sign up as “experts” and flood the scientists trying to write these reports with irrelevant and stupid comments, thus, I presume, wasting valuable time and effort. But, such is the cost of transparency, which is important.
But, even the climate change denailits, who tend to be a rowdy group with with only a vague grasp, if any, on ethics and who generally have very little respect for truth, have to promise to not release any part of the draft that they have had the privilege to see and comment on. This is very important for reasons that are so blindingly obvious I won’t bother explaining them here.
Well, over the last few days, one of the denialsts, in comments on one of the famous denialist blogs, released sections of the report. The part he released, essentially, said:
“There is this idea X which suggests that Y happens. There is no evidence that this is true but we looked carefully at it and there is still no evidence that this is true.”
But by cherry picking and providing a lie as context, the climate change science denier (CCSD) made it say:
“There is t his idea X which suggests that Y happens. Y means global warming is not real. This is in the ICPP report. This is a game changer.”
Below I’m going to give you links to a handful of the blog posts out there that explain exactly what happened, as well as a document just released by the IPCC expressing regret that one of the “expert reviewers” did this thing that should not have been done.
I wonder if that person’s “expert” status will remain in place. It probably should. The whinging and moaning that would result from someone violating the rules being tossed out, from the CCSD afflicted community, would be more annoying than letting the jerk continue to pretend that he is an “expert” on something.
Landmark climate change report leaked online
Leak of Climate Panel Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process
IPCC report leaked then cherry-picked
Major IPCC Report Draft Leaked Then Cherry-Picked By Climate Sceptic
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
PDF File of Statement By IPCC is HERE
Imagine the following scenario. Two guys are walking down the street, in different cities. Guy A has two PhDs, one in quantum physics with a focus on dimensionality dynamics, the other in astrophysics with a focus on relativistic aspects of gravity and black holes. She has published dozens of peer reviewed papers on both topics and is a brilliant mathematician. Guy B never took a physics class but yesterday he finished reading large parts of The Elegant Universe. Suddenly, at the same moment, they each have an idea (they do not have the same idea … they have different ideas) about how to unify quantum level and cosmic level dynamics.
Continue reading Empowering the individual does not equal ensmartening the individual