Schwarzenegger sticking to global warming schtick

Schwarzenegger sticking to global warming schtick

aschwarzeneggerI remember around 20 years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger explained to a talk-show host how to keep making movie hits. If a film bombed, he said, he analyzed what was wrong — the script, the director, etc. — then corrected it for the next project.

He has not done the same thing with the major cause of his life, global warming. His new move is to sign up his fellow thespians for the cause of fighting global warming. Reported The Wrap:

Arnold Schwarzenegger says Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously” uses celebrities to talk about global warming because Americans don’t pay as much attention to scientists.

“Only actors really will get the ultimate attention,” the former governor said Thursday. “Scientists will never get the kind of attention that someone in show business gets.”

The project, with a long list of executive producers that includes Schwarzenegger, Jerry Weintraub and James Cameron, features celebrity correspondents who illustrate consequences of global warming including wildfires, polar ice melting, and food shortages. A Television Critics Association panel in Pasadena, Calif., took place as a wildfire raged nearby.

Except there hasn’t been any global warming in 15 years, as even the warmist Los Angeles Times reported. There’s also evidence that the sun has moved into the Maunder Minimum, meaning fewer sunspots. Fewer sunspots mean a cooler sun, which will cool the earth.

And here are today’s Drudge Report headlines:

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger, as I have reported, continues tooling around in massive, gas-guzzling Mercedes and Bentleys.

So if we follow his advice and imitate actors, we’ll all seek to own Mercedes and Bentleys, or at least cheaper, but big, SUVs and trucks.


Write a comment
  1. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 21 January, 2014, 11:17

    We are clearly living in the warmest years in history based on planetary averages— The ultra right continues to alienate thinking people when 97% of the world’s scientists agree —–

    wait for it


    Reply this comment
      • LetitCollapse
        LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 12:27

        Humans are susceptible to believing whatever we want to believe, and the facts be damned. And, to be fair, this applies to conservatives as much as it applies to the liberals. Very few people are objective today. Even reporters in the media who are paid to inform the public and allegedly obliged to honor prescribed journalistic standards to report in an OBJECTIVE manner routinely misrepresent the truth, either by act or omission. It’s extremely difficult to change a biased opinion, even with the facts.

        So I suspect your proof source will fall upon deaf ears. Mine have.

        Reply this comment
      • LetitCollapse
        LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 13:04

        Even our so-called ‘justice system’ is not objective. The double-standards are so blatant. 2 sets of rules. 2 sets of laws.

        6 big cops hold down a skinny 135# schizophrenic with toothpick arms smothering him and crushing his facial bones with the butt of a taser gun resulting in internal bleeding and consequently cutting off oxygen to his brain, documented as the cause of death.

        All caught on video.

        Then on audio we clearly hear the victim screaming for help and that he’s having a horrifically difficult time getting enought air to breathe. Screaming for his dad to help him. Telling those who are beating him that he’s sorry. We hear all this for a few minutes and then Kelly suddenly goes silent as he drifts into a comatose state.

        All caught on tape.

        And after the ‘not guilty’ verdicts are announced we are told not to believe or trust our own eyes and ears. We are told that we are acting on ’emotion’ and, basically, not to believe the evidence submitted before the court. lol.

        And afterwards the jurors go silent and do not explain to the public the rationale used to formulate their verdicts. Silence. Total silence from those who allowed the killers to walk free. No explanation whatsoever. Is that what YOU would call an OBJECTIVE and TRANSPARENT justice system?

        Objectivity??? lol. Spare me.

        Reply this comment
      • The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
        The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 21 January, 2014, 13:05

        John– Of course the 97% number is not “phony” but 3 minutes with Google wshows that it needs explanation.

        I have no problem with deniers— I find them funny!

        Reply this comment
      • LetitCollapse
        LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 13:15

        John, notice no response from SteeLOL w/regard to your ‘proof source’? lol

        See the pattern?

        See Ted run. lol.

        Be careful. If you expose too much truth he may accuse you of being a ‘back peddler’. lol.

        See Ted write. See Ted ridicule. See Ted run!!!! LOL!

        Reply this comment
    • Dyspeptic
      Dyspeptic 22 January, 2014, 10:02

      For once please try not to embarrass yourself Theodore. The term “planetary averages” has no scientific meaning in this context and “97% of the worlds scientists agree” is pure Al Gore style propaganda, as well as being intellectual vapid. Why should we care if someone who teaches Sociology at a Junior College has an opinion on Climate Science? You Chicken Little’s are sounding increasingly desperate.

      Go drink your Drone-Aid and don’t forget to fortify it with a little Captain Morgan’s.

      Now, regarding the article –

      “He has not done the same thing with the major cause of his life, global warming.”

      The major cause of Arnie’s life is, was and always will be himself and his limitless ego.

      “Scientists will never get the kind of attention that someone in show business gets.”

      True enough, which tells us everything we need to know about the vast sea of dolts who inhabit this Republic of Idiots. If you want to sell bad ideas use airhead celebrities with the scientific acumen of a carnival barker. Schwarzenegger certainly qualifies on all counts.

      Reply this comment
  2. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 11:57

    I wonder how warm it got for Arnold when Maria discovered that he had a ‘love child’ with the house maid??? lol.

    I bet the temp soared to record highs!!! lol. I bet it melted the ice the fridge! lol.

    He’s so despicable. Such a slithering snake. Whenever I see his photo I nearly vomit in my mouth.

    I request CWD to ban his photo from the site.

    Reply this comment
  3. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 21 January, 2014, 12:33

    LOL Back Peddleo!

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 13:36

      The Forbes article was published 5/30/2013 AFTER the Washington Post article (5/17/2013)and responded directly to the bogus and doctored claims. lol.

      Try to catch up!!! lol.

      See Ted flop!!! lol.

      Reply this comment
    • John Seiler
      John Seiler Author 21 January, 2014, 14:14

      This is from the Forbes article I linked to above, which responded to the WaPo article Ted linked to.

      From Forbes:
      Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

      Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

      As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

      Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

      Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

      Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming.

      When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

      Read the rest here:

      Reply this comment
  4. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 21 January, 2014, 16:09

    Sorry little buddies since you can’t work the links or read— LOL

    Jump to Navigation

    Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science
    Select Language​▼Enemies of Science Want to Confuse You About The 97-Percent Consensus Study
    Wed, 2013-05-29 07:23Ben Jervey
    .Enemies of Science Want to Confuse You About The 97-Percent Consensus Study

    Earlier this month, John Cook of Skeptical Science and his team of volunteers at the Consensus Project released the latest definitive study of global warming scientific consensus, revealing that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers with a clear view on the subject agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are the primary cause.

    Ever since, we’ve seen the predictable pushback from fossil fuel industry apologists and climate deniers.

    The loudest response comes from the Alberta-based Friends of Science, a shadowy non-profit with a history of Canadian oil company ties, which DeSmogBlog has covered extensively over the years.

    From their press release:

    Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming

    Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).

    Friends of Science hasn’t responded to DeSmog’s inquiries about their methodology, and how they came up with that 65 paper number. But we do know a lot about Friends of Science’s history and how they’ve long been closely connected to the fossil fuel industry, including tar sands giant Talisman Energy.

    Six years ago, the organization came under intense scrutiny and criticism as it was revealed that its largest donor was Talisman Energy, funneling money through a since-shuttered “Science Education Fund” at the University of Calgary in order to work with then APCO flack and Heartland-tied Tom Harris on a disinformation video that was later condemned by the University.

    The SourceWatch profile of Friends of Science explains the origins of the organization, as well as its dubious funding, in great depth. Similarly, Canadian journalist Mike de Souza has explored the connections between Alberta oil interests and Friends of Science.

    (Also see Richard Littlemore’s post about de Souza’s reporting here on DeSmogBlog.)

    For the past half decade, it has proven increasingly difficult to identify the main sources of Friends of Science funding, though their newsletters and website claim that the majority of funds are raised through private donations and supporting memberships.

    For what it’s worth, that 65 paper figure is gaining traction in the deniersphere. ClimateDepot links prominently to a similar assessment by Brandon Schollenberger.

    The problem with these evaluations is that Schollenberger and Friends of Science (assuming they used the same methodology to get the same number) only count the papers if the abstracts (not the body of the paper) explicitly state that “that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change.”

    Skeptical Science and the Consensus Project were prepared for these types of gripes. From the FAQ of the study:

    What is the significance of the papers that express no position on human-caused global warming?

    Naomi Oreskes predicted in 2007 that as human-caused global warming became settled science, fewer papers would see the need to explicitly endorse the consensus. For example, no research papers on geography currently need to state that the Earth is round. Our results confirm this prediction: As the field progresses, scientists feel less and less need to waste the valuable real estate of the paper’s abstract with an affirmation of settled science.
    Moreover, most of papers that expressed “no position” in the abstract went on to endorse the consensus in the full paper. We determined this by asking scientists to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers – a way of rating the full paper rather than just the abstract. More than half of the papers that were rated as “no position” based on their abstract were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.

    And while we’re here, it’s worth taking a closer look at the Consensus Project methodology, especially in terms of how each abstract was rated by 24 volunteers, and many climate scientist authors who self-rated their work.

    How did you independently check your results?

    Nobody is more qualified to judge a paper’s intent than the actual scientists who authored the paper. To provide an independent measure of the level of consensus, we asked the scientists who authored the climate papers to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers. Among all papers that were self-rated as expressing a position on human-caused warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. This result is consistent with our abstract ratings, which found a 97.1% consensus.

    We adopted several methodologies to eliminate the potential of bias in our abstract ratings. We developed a strict methodology (see the Supplementary Material for more details) specifying how to categorise each abstract. In addition, each abstract was rated by at least two separate raters, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.

    The entire database of 12,464 papers is available in the Supplementary Material. We have also published all our abstract ratings, which are also available via a search form. However, we have not published individual self-ratings from the authors of the papers as the “self-rating survey” was conducted under the promise of confidentiality for all participants.

    We have also created an Interactive Rating System, encouraging people to rate the papers themselves and compare their ratings to ours. We welcome criticism of our work and we expect that further scrutiny will improve the reliability of our results. By encourage more interaction, we hope people will come to appreciate the diversity and richness of climate research.

    So if you happen to read in some contrarian headline somewhere that “only 65” of the papers in Cook’s 97-percent study really confirmed manmade global warming, consider the source.

    Tags: Skeptical Scienceconsensus projectClimate DepotFriends of Sciencebrendon schellonbergertom harris

    .Ben Jervey’s blogLog in or register to post comments
    Feelings… Nothing more than Feelings..
    Wed, 2013-05-29 09:10 — AnOilMan
    Yup… nothing backing the deniers…

    Log in or register to post comments
    Goldfish in a bowl
    Wed, 2013-05-29 13:38 — Phil M
    The public are largely goldfish in a bowl,who learned nothing after the smoking debates and simply cannot recognise product defense when they see it.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Wed, 2013-05-29 15:52 — lara jorgensen
    Not one word about the Climate scientists who contacted John Cook to say that their papers were misrepresented in this study??

    Yes, that’s balanced reporting =/ Thank you Desmog!

    Log in or register to post comments

    Wed, 2013-05-29 16:41 — caerbannog666

    Not one word about the Climate scientists who contacted John Cook to say that their papers were misrepresented in this study??

    And what climate scientists might those be? (Aside from one economist who didn’t bother to read the methodology documentation very carefully…)

    Log in or register to post comments
    A partial list…
    Wed, 2013-05-29 16:53 — lara jorgensen
    Here is a partial list of scientists. I’m sure some of the names (ie; Willie Soon, for instance) will draw howls from the Desmog faithfull, haha!

    Please understand; John Cook and Dana Nuticelli are about as fringe as you can get on the warmist side of the Climate battle. I would put them right up the with Marc Morano (from the skeptic side), So this “Study” is not being taken very seriously on either side.

    Log in or register to post comments
    No howls… just derision…
    Wed, 2013-05-29 20:49 — AnOilMan
    Its amazing how you rely on being loud and ignorant.

    In your own words, you don’t need any evidence to back your position. Ergo you’re a feelie. Watch this video to get a better understanding of your position;

    In any case I look forward to you digging up a statistically significant contribution to the discussion.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Patience wearing thin
    Wed, 2013-05-29 22:43 — Brendan DeMelle

    We’ve been extraordinarily lenient with your comments here because, well, you’ve been a frequent voice attempting to offer a contrarian perspective, and not been overly caustic.

    But seriously, citing PopTech? Quoting Willie Soon just generically dismissing the study, without any substantive response or evidence at all from him or Tol or anyone else?

    That’s all you’ve got? It’s growing tiresome, and we’re not going to continue to allow this kind of inane banter and denialist link-bait you’re so fond of lately.

    So here it is, your final invitation: put up, or, well, you know… all things in moderation.

    Cite something substantive, something, anything to counter what is clearly an overwhelming majority view in the scientific community.

    Otherwise, please, just, stop. Or we’ll sadly have to show you the door. You’ve been here long enough to know the comment policy, and we’ve been extremely accommodating….

    You’ll howl censorship, I know, but honestly, you’re grasping not at straws here, but the splinters of straws.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Ok, Brendan….
    Thu, 2013-05-30 10:24 — lara jorgensen
    Brendan, I do appreciate the patience you and Desmog have shown over the last couple of years. Clearly I have attempted “stir the pot” on occasion here. But it has not been as a troll but as a person who cringes at the ‘deniers’ of both ends of the Climate discussion.

    To ‘deny’ that there is an ongoing debate is just illogical. Clearly Cook and Nuticelli’s paper is just another attempt to establish the dubious authority that many believe comes from a statment of “Consensus”. This has not worked in the past and isn’t working now.

    I urge all here to look at both sides of the debate and all that that involves; ie, reading skeptic blogs and scientific papers that don’t conform to YOUR idea of Climate change. At the very least you will learn a lot, at best you hone your critical thinking skills and form your own opinions, not blindly accept what someone wants you to believe.

    Finally, to Brendon; Something I’ve never undersood about the comment policy is how so many people here get a pass with the ad hom attacks (this thread is an excellent example) but others get scolded for basically posting contrarian views.

    In any case, feel free to ‘show me the door’ if needed. I will continue to visit and read at Desmog and many other blogs because that’s what I like to do.



    Log in or register to post comments
    The irony of Denial
    Thu, 2013-05-30 10:54 — climate criminal

    A truthful description of your so-called experts might well sound like an ad-hominem, but that problem is yours and theirs, the ironic consequence of their actions.

    The trouble with your so-called experts’ numerous incompatible versions of bastardised parodies of climate science, is that they are also incompatible with oceans of coherent, peer-reviewed evidence.

    As for debate, there is no significant debate in the peer-reviewed literature about the basis for the recent anomalous warning, or many other aspects of the science. The scientific debate is limited to minor details. Where as your so-called experts are primarily focused upon producing disinformation for the Public, which creates the illusion of scientific-debate, while being nothing of the sort, and intended to bamboozle a credulous audience.

    Log in or register to post comments
    lara jorgensen does not understand what “ad hom” means or is
    Thu, 2013-05-30 15:53 — Ian Forrester
    In typical AGW denier fashion lara jorgensen shows that she is incapable of understanding what “ad hominem” means. When someone points out to a denier that they are wrong, lying or just being plain stupid it is not “ad hominem” if it is obvious to anyone that the comments are in fact true. It may be rude, it may be insulting but it is not “ad hominem”.

    There is a simple solution for deniers who do not like to be referred to in such a way: become honest, do a bit of reading so you don’t post rubbish and behave like an adult rather than a spoiled two year old child.

    Can you mange that lara?

    Log in or register to post comments
    There is no other side.
    Thu, 2013-05-30 21:11 — AnOilMan
    Lara, all you’ve ever done is Troll. Its like a sad half witted version of Monty Python’s arguement sketch.

    I’ve willingly looked at all the counter evidence you’ve offered, and that isn’t much. Your last link was to a lot of PR agents hired by oil companies. Are you aware that many of the journals that cover your kind of material also cover UFO landing sites, and and Dog Horoscopes?

    As an engineer who works in oil companies, let me assure you that we spend no money researching climate science. Not a single penny.

    I think you belong with your high school buddy Anthony Watts and his fellow conspiracy theorists. I think you deserve the punt.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Reading for Lara
    Fri, 2013-05-31 00:29 — climate criminal
    “I urge all here to look at both sides of the debate” – The problem is that you show little or no sign of having read the mainstream science, or the evidence that details the conspiracy, the individuals concerned or the network of organisations involved in the web of lies that comprises the denial industry. While the following is not science, it catalogues and chronicles the activities of the anti-science, pseudo-science and plain bullshit operations of the vested interests who are determined to undermine the science that tells us that the climate is being perturbed by human activity. Why? So that these vested interests can maintain their profits. The John Mashey Collection
    Log in or register to post comments
    Willie Soon et al.?
    Thu, 2013-05-30 01:06 — climate criminal
    Willie Soon et al.? Co-author of the Petition document.

    Dr Morner of tilted sea-level graph fame?

    What a group of liars experts!

    Log in or register to post comments
    Don’t forget about dowsing….
    Thu, 2013-05-30 07:51 — caerbannog666
    Morner of the tilted graph fame is even more famous for his claims of having scientific evidence that dowsing really works. A quick Google search will confirm this.

    The global-warming “skeptic” community is a distinguished team indeed.

    Log in or register to post comments
    “What a group of liars
    Thu, 2013-05-30 14:00 — Phil M
    “What a group of liars experts!”

    Liars and deniers for hire.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Oh the irony Lara.
    Thu, 2013-05-30 14:15 — Phil M
    Oh the irony Lara.

    1) Cook and Nuticelli have science degrees…..Andrew (Poptech) does not.

    2) Everything at skeptical science is referenced with high quality references, Poptech does not. And even when it does, because of his lack of science training and degree in armchair expert, he doesnt realise that much of what he references either doesnt support his argument, or is so low in quality, it can hardly be considered to have run the gauntlent of high level peer review.

    3) Cook and Nuteicelli use their own names and have nothing to hide. Even a hack on their site yielded no goodies for deniers. Poptech operates under a pseudonym and has previously demonstrated that he will go to any lenghts to smear an opponent, as happeed to one of the commenters here. What has he got to hide?

    4) Andrew (Poptech) has a list of papers he believes support his/your argument, yet it has been shown many times that scientists on his list have a) either asked to be removed from his list, or b) said their paper does not respresent what poptech thinks it does. Going by your self imposed criteria of legitimacy, do you now believe poptech to misrepresent the truth and his views are fringe and worthless like you do of Cook and Nuticelli?

    5) Marc Morano does not have a science degree and is a politician. No expertise whatsoever. You are comparing apples with oranges.

    Log in or register to post comments
    Howls of laughter indeed
    Wed, 2013-05-29 17:25 — caerbannog666
    So you’ve got a tiny handful of the usual suspects (who have a history of being so ideologically blinded wrt climate change that they have no credibility in that field).

    And as for folks like Soon eliciting howls? Howls of laughter, certainly. You are righto on that one. Soon may be competent within his own field of expertise, but every time he has wandered into paleoclimate/climatology he has morphed into a hapless, incompetent crank.

    For an example of Soon’s climate-science incompetence, Google up “Soon Baliunas 2003”. Read through the methodology section of the paper that comes up in that search. If you have a lower-division college-undergraduate understanding of basic Earth science and statistics, you should easily be able to flag at least a couple of “howler” whopper blunders there, blunders that would seriously ding an undergraduate student’s GPA at any reputable university.

    BTW, anyone who would consider Cook and Nuticelli to be in any way equivalent to Morano has to be at least a few French-fries short of a Happy Meal.

    Log in or register to post comments.Search formSearch ..FOLLOW US! .SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
    Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.

    Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

    How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health, and Climate.
    .Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

    read more. . .most popular items
    Frank Giustra, President Bill Clinton’s Close Colleague, Joins US Oil Sands Board
    Over 865,200 Gallons of Fracked Oil Spill in ND, Public In Dark For Days Due to Government Shutdown
    Growing Louisiana Sinkhole Swallowing Trees, Blamed On Industrial Activity
    Exclusive: Censored EPA PA Fracking Water Contamination Presentation Published for First Time
    Harper’s Climate Concession: Canada Increasingly Desperate to Secure Keystone XL Approval .Contact Us
    Our Comment Policy
    Send us Your News Tips
    Media Contact List of Global Warming and Climate Change Experts
    Links to websites and blogs we read
    Login or Register
    . ..In Focus
    Environmental Resources Management
    Ethical Oil
    Stephen Harper
    Enbridge Northern Gateway
    Climate Change Canada
    Environmental Issues Canada..
    Buy Climate Cover-Up Now!
    Disinformation Database
    About Us
    Desmog Manifesto
    Our Comment Policy
    Our Privacy Policy
    .Keep In Touch
    Feedback? Send us an e-mail
    News, Tips, and Confidential Information
    Subscribe to RSS feed
    . ..Original textContribute a better translation

    Reply this comment
  5. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 21 January, 2014, 16:11

    There’s both sides in the interest of fair play! LOL– Not evemn close deniers!


    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 17:08

      See Ted copy and paste gibberish the equivalent of War and Peace content which only reveals his obsessive nature. He must think the longer the gibberish he pastes the more he can snow the readers. lol.

      Sorry SteeLOL. In this case more is not better. A rhesus monkey can be taught to copy and paste. It actually takes a higher form of life to use reason and logic to further an argument. lol.

      Nobody’s impressed.

      See Ted fold. lol.

      Reply this comment
      • Ted Steele, CEO
        Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 17:21

        LOL El Collapso— don’t be afraid– it’s just an opinion opposite of yours..someone can read it to you…..tut tut… won’t hurt you little fella!

        Reply this comment
        • LetitCollapse
          LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 17:43

          I could post reader comments the length of my arm too. But what would that prove? Nothing! Only that I would be a very shallow person. lol.

          I scanned your gibberish. I didn’t read the word “Forbes” even one time! lol.

          I repeat. Your blog article reference was published a day before the Forbes article. lol.

          See Ted fail. lol.

          Reply this comment
          • Ted Steele, CEO
            Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 19:53

            LOL OK little buddy!! WOW!

            Simple Simon Met a Pieman!

      • Ted Steele, CEO
        Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 17:44

        Poor Collapso– After the beating you took this weekend from your HUGE backpeddle you wan the Ted to fail soooo bad…..huh?

        Sorry little buddy, you’ll have to wait!

        Mon Back!

        Reply this comment
        • LetitCollapse
          LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 17:50

          See Ted move to the back of the class.

          See Ted wear the dunce cap.

          See the other students laugh at Ted.

          Poor Ted.

          See Ted cry. lol.

          Reply this comment
          • Ted Steele, CEO
            Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 17:53

            poor Collapso wants this BAD after the drubbing he got out here in his Fullerton debacle!!!!!

        • LetitCollapse
          LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:12

          See the teacher stand Ted at the chalk board with his nose touching the little circle. lol.

          Reply this comment
          • Ted Steele, CEO
            Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 19:52

            Poor Collapso! It’s ok little buddy!!! You’re doing the best you can!

          • LetitCollapse
            LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 22:23

            See Ted wipe the chalk mark off his nose. lol.

          • Ted Steele, CEO
            Ted Steele, CEO 22 January, 2014, 07:00

            mon back backpeddler! Beeeeeeeep Beeeeeeeeeep Beeeeeeeeeeeep!! LOL

  6. meetthenewboss...
    meetthenewboss... 21 January, 2014, 16:11

    Globull warming was a money grab from the very beginning.

    Make the laws, then “retire” into a career as a lobbyist or consultant on “green technology” etc. and scoop up all those taxpayer millions for yourself and friends.

    Reply this comment
  7. John Seiler
    John Seiler Author 21 January, 2014, 16:39


    I’ll accept the global warming hypothesis when Arnold gives up his Bentley and his Mercedes and takes the LACMTA.

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 17:14

      Not to mention getting rid of the private jet that leaves carbon imprints from here to eternity!!! lol.

      These people are super hypocrites. Don’t do as we do. Do as we say!!! lol.

      I wonder what Maria thought when the maid brought the kid over to the mansion and he was a spitting image of Arnold?

      I wonder if she thought it was only a coincidence??? lol.

      I wonder how she finally figured it out?

      Reply this comment
    • Ted Steele, CEO
      Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 17:19

      John— LOL— I don’t care if you accept it–it does not offend me, it offends common sense that yo do not and thats peachy with me. So because AHHnold has bad carbon conduct, you won’t accept it? Hmmmm—- seems like you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

      The main thing to remember though John is…

      That rug tied the room together.

      Reply this comment
  8. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 17:46

    Breaking News: Bond Guru Mohammed El-Erian resigning as CEO of Pimpco.

    Gee, what does he know that we don’t???? lol.


    Reply this comment
  9. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 17:51

    OH and I saved the best for last!

    Back Peddeleo/Collapso

    My article was published the day BEFORE THE FORBES piece!!!!!!

    Look at the dates little buddy!!!

    Beeeeeeeeeeeee Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

    Mon Back

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:14

      Your lame blogged article doesn’t even mention the word “Forbes” once, Mr. Dunce cap. It doesn’t even reference ‘Forbes’. So how could it refute it??? lol.

      See Ted demoted one full grade!!! LOL!!!!

      Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:30

      Read the dates on the links, dunceboy.

      desmogblog = 5/29/2013

      forbes = 5/30/2013

      29 comes before 30. lol.

      But I commend you. At least you linked your source this time as opposed to just copying and pasting text without linking the source and giving due credit. So you are capable of learning. But then so was Pavlov’s dog. lol.

      See Ted count backwards. lol.

      Reply this comment
      • Ted Steele, CEO
        Ted Steele, CEO 21 January, 2014, 19:44



        That’s what I said about the dates!

        Have you been drinking again?

        LMAO the article I posted came the day before and adresses the critique and the big oil money…

        Helllllloooooooooooo McFly! LMAO

        I doubt you understand it! Oh MY!!

        Reply this comment
        • LetitCollapse
          LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 22:18

          I have an IQ story problem for you, Ted.

          2 reporters from different newspapers wrote 2 separate articles on the same story. But there seemed to be varying versions of the same event. Reporter #1 published his article on 5-29-2013. Reporter #2 published his article on 5-30-2013. A reader who read both articles claimed that Reporter #1’s article critiqued Reporter #2’s article.

          What would you ask the reader?

          (a) What did the critique say?
          (b) Were Reporter #1 and Reporter #2 having an affair?
          (c) How could Reporter #1 critique Reporter #2’s article when #2’s article hadn’t been published yet?
          (d) Did both reporters own a pet animal?
          (e) I forgot my question. Can I email it to you when I remember it?

          Take your time, Ted. No hurry. Sleep on it if you must. lol. No pressure. If you flunk we’ll give you a mulligan. LOL!

          Reply this comment
          • Ted Steele, CEO
            Ted Steele, CEO 22 January, 2014, 06:58

            OMG Collapso— you honestly do not understand this do you? God Bless ya!

            The article from the 29th is commenting on the critiques of the study and there were several.

            The article from the 30th is an example (the prime one) of the critiques.

            It’s ok– I know your trying— hurry— post now!

          • LetitCollapse
            LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 07:27

            Your referenced blog did not respond to the arguments set forth in Forbes, genius. You opined based upon the premise that it did. Forbes offered fresh basic arguments that were completely sidestepped and ignored by the competition. But herd animals tend to ignore the obvious. They just run along with the others not knowing why with no particular destination in mind. lol. Grade: F. Contact the teacher’s aide to schedule a retest.

          • The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
            The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 22 January, 2014, 09:19

            LOL wow—- I guess your reasoning does not allow for analogues! Poor simple chap! God Bless Ya!

  10. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:19

    See Ted shining Arnold’s alligator skin boots with carbonless shoe shine!!! lol.

    Reply this comment
  11. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:39

    See Ted dish it out but unable to take it!!! lol

    Reply this comment
  12. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 18:49

    See Ted hide.

    Reply this comment
  13. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 21 January, 2014, 18:56

    Collapso….stay on topic……bashing Teddy is futile….he is too smart…the sage of CWD…..

    Reply this comment
  14. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 21 January, 2014, 21:23

    It’s really difficult for those of us who have no education or training in climatology.

    Should I believe PRI, or should I believe The National Academy of Sciences?

    Reply this comment
  15. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 23:21

    With the perpetual freezeovers from the midwest to the east coast anybody who still believes in global warming has a screw or 2 loose.

    Euro is getting hit hard too. So it’s not just the US.

    Yet they still run in circle wringing their hands together and whining “OMG, OMG, the ice is melting. We’re all going to die!!!!”

    This is even after the russian ship full of greenies got stuck in the ice in anartica and the chinese icebreaker got stuck trying to rescue them!!! LOL!!!

    Watching these morons wail about global warming as most of America and Euro is covered in a sheet of ice is about as funny as watching an old Pryor/Wilder movie. LOL!

    Reply this comment
  16. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 21 January, 2014, 23:41

    I remember when the hand wringers were breaking out in hives over the holes in the ozone! LOL! That turned out to be a big hoax. They finally figured out that holes in the ozone were around long before dinosaurs!!! LOL! That it’s a natural atmospheric phenomenon! lol.

    These same morons who are having nervous breakdowns over the melting glaciers don’t even have any water stored at home in case of emergency!! LOL. If we had a 9 point EQ tommorrow and their water supply got cut off they’d all be dead within 4 days!!!

    They are scared to death of global warming but still stand in line for 4 hours to join the stampede at WalMart on Black Friday and risk getting trampled by a bunch of other lummoxes for a cheap $125 big screen made in Shanghai!!! lol.

    For being a nation with a high literacy rate we’ve got to be the stupidest people on the planet!!! LOL!

    Reply this comment
  17. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 00:16

    Hey, did anybody read about the BART cops up in the Bay area? One BART cop shot another BART cop while on a probation search of a home that was empty. Killed him. How could that possibly happen? 1st BART cop killed in action in BART’s 42 year history. Not too long ago a BART cop killed Oscar Grant, a black youngster, who the cop proned out on the cement next to the train tracks and shot him square in the back, killing him. Oscar wasn’t even resisting. It was all caught on video. Looked like a public execution. Cop said he thought he had a taser gun in his hand when it was actually his semi-automatic. Boom.

    I wonder if any of this is related to global warming?

    Reply this comment
  18. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 22 January, 2014, 06:54

    LOL poor Collapso reasons like a child–

    1. Because there is cold in the winter, there can be no yearly average temp increase.
    2. The Toms sat and the cfc reductions had little to do with the ozone issues because Rush said so.
    3. Race and the President must have something to do with this.

    I agree with Douglas– I’ll just go with PRI– they are the world’s preeminent climate scientists!

    Collapso just makes this too easy! ™

    Reply this comment
    • John Seiler
      John Seiler Author 22 January, 2014, 07:43

      I’m still waiting for Arnold to give up his Mercedes and Bentley.

      Reply this comment
      • LetitCollapse
        LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 08:05

        And his learjet. Don’t forget about his learjet. The one he used to fly back and forth in from LA to Sacramento. lol. When’s the last time do you think Arnold flew commercial? When he smoked weed during ‘Pumping Iron’? lol.

        All the hollywood pigs fly in learjets. And then they scold you if you don’t drive a hybrid!!! LOL!!!

        Reply this comment
  19. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 07:42

    1. Global warming scientists have already conceded that a ‘global cooling’ phase has begun. lol.

    2. The ‘holes in the ozone’ scare was proven faulty so the hand wringers had to come up with another ploy to feel important and to generate revenue. I recall the day when so-called scientists called Vitamin E the miracle vitamin. It cured cancers and heart disease and senility. lol. People were gulping it down by the handfuls. Then we found out that megadoses were clogging arteries and brain vessels! lol. But the vitamin makers made out like bandits for as long as the scam lasted!!! LOL! Global warming is no different.

    3. Indirectly, yes. The POTUS tried to fool us by claiming his approval ratings fell due to the color of his skin. The greenies tried to fool us by claiming the temperatures rose due to man polluting the atmosphere. Either way, it’s caled the ‘art of deception’. If they can keep you focused on the left hand you don’t know what the right hand is doing. Some have the neurons to figure it out. Others don’t. Unfortunately it seems that the latter outnumber the former in America’s dumb-down society. lol.

    Smoke that. lol.

    Reply this comment
  20. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 07:55

    This morning’s news reports that the entire mid-Atlantic/Northeast is shut down due to the likes of record ice storms that haven’t been seen in recorded history. lol. 3000 flights cancelled. lol. Temps below zero. lol. Russian greenie ships getting stuck in the Anartic ice. lol. Chinese icebreakers rush to their rescue and get stuck too! lol. Can’t make this stuff up. But OMG, OMG, run for your lives!!! The glaciers are melting!!! Save the children!!! OMG!!!! LOL!!!!

    Reply this comment
    • The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
      The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 22 January, 2014, 09:23

      It’s winter little buddy!

      Reply this comment
      • LetitCollapse
        LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 09:44

        Not in Anartica where the russian greenie ship got stuck in the ice, genius! LOL!

        Summer in Anartica is during the months of December, January and February! LOL!!!

        You flunk again.

        See the teacher’s aide ASAP to schedule a retest.

        Reply this comment
        • The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
          The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 22 January, 2014, 11:14

          LOL– So a ship got stuck in the ice–hence there is no more global warming? LMAO!

          OK little buddy!—I guess the ship got unstuck due to the ice melting….in summer– so there must be global cooling?

          Are you a PRI employee?


          This is too easy!

          Reply this comment
          • LetitCollapse
            LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 12:23

            The ship got unstuck because a US Coast Guard icebreaker finally cleared it. lol.

            Try to keep up. I feel like I’m playing one on one with a midget again. lol.

          • The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
            The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 22 January, 2014, 13:08

            Oh yeah— and the ice either did or did not help of hinder the process and your story changes every 15 minutes! LOL

  21. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 08:20

    Ted, keep your room temp at home @ about 75. Too big a variance one way or another can play tricks on the mind. Get your heat ducts checked. Over time global warming can cause toxins to build up. Oh, and test your tap water for global warming micro contamination. Did you buy solar panels for your place yet? Get the ones that will take you 20 years to reach the break even point. lol. Smart investment. lol. By that time we should be well into global cooling and you will have enough in reserves to buy a couple nice overcoats and a goose down comforter so you won’t freeze at night. lol.

    Reply this comment
  22. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 22 January, 2014, 08:51

    Solar is just plain dumb using current buggy whip technology. End of subject.

    Reply this comment
  23. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 22 January, 2014, 09:22

    It’s okay, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t know the difference between “weather” and “climate” either.

    Reply this comment
  24. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 09:23

    In his fascinating read “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” Sigmund Freud, the renowed father of ‘psychoanalysis’, once said:

    “The impulses which a group obeys may according to circumstances be generous or cruel, heroic or cowardly, but they are always so imperious that no personal interest, not even that of self-preservation, can make itself felt.”

    It all goes back to “herd instinct”. Lose yourself in the ‘herd’. Follow the ‘herd’. Let the ‘herd’ think for you.

    And anyone who falls outside the ‘herd’ must be silenced and eliminated. LOL!

    Reply this comment
  25. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 22 January, 2014, 11:11

    “IF” you were Ultra Right ™ ???

    Oh man
    Let me catch my breath


    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 22 January, 2014, 11:56

      Fascist bootlickers come in all shapes, sizes and political affiliations.

      And most hide behind labels. lol.

      Reply this comment
  26. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 22 January, 2014, 12:44

    Collapso…..Teddy rules…….a tome now please.

    Reply this comment
  27. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 22 January, 2014, 20:50

    Teddy…….You school him right… answer….the Donkey is sleeping too…..Poodle gets off evening shift soon….maybe he will discourse a bit….

    Reply this comment
  28. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 23 January, 2014, 06:50

    Mr. U, I think the girls are resting from the whopping they took………again.

    oh my.

    Reply this comment
  29. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 23 January, 2014, 06:54

    cold back east this am— but 46 degrees in Anchorage…hmmmmmmmm—– probably nothing– Our PRI masters ™ will tell us what to do.

    Reply this comment
  30. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 23 January, 2014, 08:42

    Oh! Maybe Moat Man will enlighten us?

    Reply this comment
  31. Donkey
    Donkey 23 January, 2014, 09:53

    It’s a waste of all things good trying to convince a RAGWUS feeder like Chaz Steals that a government scheme to place more controls upon individuals is a state lie designed to hold humans in bondage under the guise of changing the weather. When you have a brain as primitive as Steals critical thinking is of no use. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  32. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 23 January, 2014, 10:29

    Poor Duncey the internet tough guy—— Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr tiger!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  33. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 23 January, 2014, 13:19

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Tiger—- Karate chop ya! LOL hurry– post NOW!!

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 23 January, 2014, 13:26

      Chaz Steals has nothing to add, so sad a feeders life is to steal from others in any fashion they imagine, miscreant. 🙂

      Reply this comment
  34. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 24 January, 2014, 08:11

    Duncey Internet Tough guy–

    You’re a misogynist?

    I never knew…figures though.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Tags assigned to this article:
Arnold Schwarzeneggerglobal warmingJohn Seiler

Related Articles

State forces Uber to stop testing self-driving vehicles

Uber’s defiance of a California Department of Motor Vehicles’ demand that the pioneering transit company stop testing its self-driving Volvo

17 years later, O.C. desalination plant inches toward finish line

The massive $1 billion Carlsbad desalination plant — the largest in North America — begins normal operations this month after

Brown Declines Press Club Invite

Katy Grimes: Gov. Jerry Brown has declined an invitation to speak to the Sacramento Press Club – and what a