It’s no longer cool to be a warmist

If in the midst of the deep freeze in the US you can still hang on to your global warming beliefs without at least, maybe perhaps, thinking that, oh well, you never know, it might not really be true after all, then you are certainly a political moron. And thus, we give you Jon Stewart, moron extraordinaire.

THE Daily Show’s host Jon Stewart is back – and in his first taping for 2014 he dropped the F-bomb while attacking reporters for mocking global warming as the US faces a polar vortex.

Stewart was in his usual witty form after he began rolling a series of clips from news reports around the US, which describe the below-zero temperatures which have left some like Illinois in a state of emergency.

He then played a few excerpts from Fox News reports where they mocked the concept of global warming, saying it’s non-existent.

Stewart said that just because something is ‘your f*cking opinion’ doesn’t mean it’s just as valid as tested scientific fact.

What exactly are these valid as tested scientific facts? That average temperatures will rise by 3-4 degrees by the end of the century, that the oceans will rise and invade our shorelines over the next fifty years, that snow will almost completely disappear.

As I tell my students, there are no facts about the future. But we do have some facts about the present.

Global warming is just so 2013. Global warming is likely to turn out about as valid as just about everything else that has originated on the left.

From Tim Blair.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to It’s no longer cool to be a warmist

  1. Coolness is the epitome of life for teenagers. Looks like global warming will be getting the cold shoulder like it is in the US at the moment.

  2. Token

    Note how John Stewart is so afraid of the responses he does not have the courage to interview the guy, just start and stop the interview and make pre-scripted snarky remarks.

    Is there any clearer statement on how confident he is in the dogma of his religion?

  3. blogstrop

    The confusion in the minds of some:
    ABC reports simultaneously that it’s the “coldest weather in forty years” and that “records are tumbling”.
    Just which records would they be then?

  4. Ant

    But the freeze in the US is all due to…wait for it…the “Polar Vortex”.

    And that’s caused by Global Warming, which is caused by all those average schmoes driving around in their Cadillac Escalades.

    The Left gets all its “facts” by looking up the vortex of its collective arsehole.

  5. Mick In The Hills

    I enjoy Stewart’s show.

    But like all on-the-record warmists, he can’t now possibly back away from his previously stated beliefs, and retain any credibility.

    He should follow the usual warmist template for handling nature’s demonstrations of denialism – just stay schtum until the next heatwave (aka Summer).

  6. Rabz

    Stewart was in his usual witty form

    The guy is about as ‘witty’ as Perfessor Loondowsky.

  7. Paul

    Stewart is just another controlled-media gatekeeper.

  8. nic

    Stewart said that just because something is ‘your f*cking opinion’ doesn’t mean it’s just as valid as tested scientific fact.

    He and other warmies need to remember this very sentiment.

  9. JohnA

    It’s getting to the stage where these should be regarded as attempted murder of the English language.

    It’s a bit off topic, but the same problem shows up in the “spat” between Warren Entsch and Cory Bernardi:
    “intolerance” and “obsession” apply to defenders of the present Marriage Act (including me), but not to “progressives” who are single-minded, hell-bent on changing the laws, who monster anyone opposing their views, and who set up traders and take them to court to get rulings favourable to the “gay-marriage” cause.

  10. H B Bear

    Jon Stewart – America’s Hughesy, Teh Project‘s resident retard.

  11. egg_

    Yet another ‘comedian’ advocating sceptics being tattooed and incarcerated at Camp Tolerance?

  12. jupes

    Stewart said that just because something is ‘your f*cking opinion’ doesn’t mean it’s just as valid as tested scientific fact.

    And there is Stewart’s problem. For a theory to be accepted it must make predictions. If only one of these predictions fails, then the theory is wrong.

    AGW has failed every single test (prediction) that its adherants have set. Not least being that the more man-made CO2 in the atmosphere then the hotter the global temperature.

    Over the last few years warmists have been increasingly hysterical as their scam has been exposed by reality. This cannot last and soon we’ll be seeing people jumping off the bandwagon before it hurtles over the cliff. It will be all over when governments acknowledge reality. We are not there yet but it has been an encouraging start to 2014 with Nuemann’s article, the SS Stupid and now the icy clue bat hitting the US.

  13. I have pointed this out to you lot few days ago, but December was not a particularly cold global month, despite it already being a cold one for the US.

    Nor was 2013 a cold year overall. (In fact, it was unusually warm in Australia.)

    And there have been global warming papers around for years acknowledging that AGW was not going to instantly mean no new winter records set in parts of the world over the next few decades.

    These points, and more, are well made in this post at Washington Post.

    The problem is with Steve Kates’, and his readers, knowledge of the science (and their ideological commitment to not believing scientists on this issue, except for a handful of contrarians); not with what is happening in the US.

  14. Token

    Stewart said that just because something is ‘your f*cking opinion’ doesn’t mean it’s just as valid as tested scientific fact.

    Some would say the same with the obsession with removing the guns from law abiding citizens, but that’s different isn’t it?

  15. stackja

    The polar vortex is “a hoax” perpetuated by the liberal media to further its agenda of climate change and global warming, Rush Limbaugh told listeners Monday.
    According to the radio show’s transcript, Limbaugh said that “the left, the media, everybody” is using the Arctic cold front in the Midwest and Northeast as a ploy to lie to the public, Politico first reported.
    “[We] are having a record-breaking cold snap in many parts of the country, and right on schedule, the media have to come up with a way to make it sound like it’s completely unprecedented,” the conservative talker said, “because they’ve got to find a way to attach this to the global-warming agenda, and they have. It’s called the polar vortex. The dreaded polar vortex.
    “If you’ve been watching television, they’ve created a graphic, all the networks have, and it basically consists of a view of the planet if you are right above the North Pole,” Limbaugh said.
    “They put this big purple blob, or blue blob or red blob, depending on the network you’re looking at, over the entire North Pole, and they call that the polar vortex. It actually sounds like a crappy science-fiction movie to me, but anyway, that’s what they’re calling it.”

  16. jack

    just as the abc switched from ‘gillard to the bitter end’ overnight into ‘rudd before abbott’ cheerleaders,the left can blame tories for the next ice age,as happily as the left can blame tories for global warming.

    it is about the purity of the emotional experience of truth. this is not fact based,but comes from ‘the heart’. my families university indoctrinated human rights lawyer informs me that facts and figures are just things that men use to make women feel belittled. that is why a certain sort of woman has hysterical blackouts at the thought of abbott. they see him as someone that expects them to be reasonable instead of hysterical,and they feel that is mysogny.

  17. the left can blame tories for the next ice age

    It is only right wing twits who are fretting about a new ice age.

  18. Bruce of Newcastle

    We’re not fretting about a new ice age Steve. If you look at the Vostok ice core data the fastest cool down rate to an ice age is about 0.05 C/decade. Your children and grandchildren, if you fail to do your green duty to have a vasectomy, will not even notice there’s been a change.

    Not only that but not even The Greens will find a way to justify a new tax to save us from global cooling. What a disaster for them!

  19. egg_

    And there have been global warming papers around for years acknowledging that AGW was not going to instantly mean no new winter records set in parts of the world over the next few decades.

    Crap.
    From the outset the IPCC has claimed that most warming has occurred at higher latitudes in colder climates.
    Stop moving the goalposts.

  20. banz

    Steve, you might be better served blogging at the washington post, most of
    us in here stopped worrying about this garbage years ago, we just mock the
    warmists now.

    And its getting soo much easier to mock the warmists :)

  21. egg_

    It is only right wing twits who are fretting about a new ice age.

    A ‘Little Ice Age’ looks very likely – wanna bet?

  22. Andrew

    Before anyone is allowed to comment on the climate science, there should be a test to ensure they are aware of the basic tenets.
    - The world has warmed an amount (since CO2s were invented) that is measured in fractions of a degree, not degrees (about a dozen temp sets)
    - CO2 is a GHG which has both predicted and measured properties that are consistent with logarithmic warming (i.e. the Hockey Stick curves down – research dating back to the 1850s)
    - Plants are growing faster and the world is greening, despite deforestation activity (CSIRO); this is an indisputable biological fact – the major inputs for plants are CO2 and water. That’s actually WHY they’re called greenhouse gases.
    - Tornado frequency is declining, and in fact made a record low this year
    - Hurricane frequency is declining, and the North Atlantic had NONE this summer (2 weak ones in fall); time since Cat 3 landfall in the US is an all-time record by a mile
    - Rainfall shows zero sensitivity to CO2. Out of the hundreds of regions, by definition a handful will be showing “statistically significant” levels by change. Perth is one of those. South England is well above trend rainfall. It’s a fluke. Globally, no trend.
    - Sea ice is higher now than in 1981 (which was itself a relative high after the 1970′s cool period).
    - There is no prima facie reason FOR there to be trends in any of those weather events – if the poles warm faster, that’s a smaller temp gradient. Venus has winds of 2 knots; Saturn has 300.
    - Temps have declined over the 21st century to date in HadCRUT4, and longer in other datasets.

    They need to be aware of the ill repute of climate “scientists” – when did 31,000 scientists sign a petition against scientific fraud and abuses in any other field?

    Then anyone with an opinion should predict the warming for THIS century. If this deviates from the fitted (logarithmic) trendline fitted to CO2 concentration, they must justify the difference. It’s not good enough to claim that the sensitivity per doubling was 1C in the 20th century, but will be 6C in the 21st – physics doesn’t work like that. My statistical work suggests unchanged rate of CO2 emissions would imply 0.8C of warming between now and 2100AD. That’s consistent with the known properties of CO2. If someone wants to refute the basic science, they need a reason better than “I read it in the Guardian.”

    If people want to align themselves with warmist “scientists” they need to explain why they know better than Lindzen (Harvard, MIT – one of the founders of the “profession”) and the other sceptical scientists as well as the 31,000 who signed the petition against alGoreism. If they’re going to sneer at JoNova, with 6 science degrees in the household and years of climate science practice, why do they have superior information than David Evans?

    Finally, science-denying extremists must explain why their views are different to the IPCC, who refute wild claims about drought, flood, wind, rain, ice, snow, heat, CO2 sensitivity and pretty much anything else ever said by Flannery.

    Then if they are going to take their views on the science and start speculating on public policy, they must pass similar tests on knowledge of economics, the practical performance of cap-and-trade mechanisms globally (see “CER, fraud, shut down” for example). They need to know actual statistics about Chinese emissions, and their stated policy for CO2-intensity of their GDP in the 5 year plan (not just parrot Con-bet’s claims about their “green energy” credentials). They need to understand what % of rated production is typical of solar and wind, and their cost structure per kWh and therefore the implications of non-fossil generation for an economy. The carbon prices applying elsewhere in the world (including where zero).

    Any warmie anywhere stacked up against these tests? The ones who might claim to be informed about “science” and data would be hopelessly unqualified in economics or public policy – on their own arguments from authority, we should accept the views of experts like Monckton on public policy and accommodation in place of mitigation.

  23. eb

    Good stuff Andrew.

    We’ll see if any of our local warmies/trolls steps up to the plate.

  24. james

    Every computer model from the last two decades has turned out to be wrong.

    Even if man made CO2 IS warming the planet it clearly isn’t doing so in the fashion so many predicted it would.

    JS is clearly an intelligent man, but often intelligence just means one is equipped with many more ways to rationalize the wrongness.

  25. blogstrop

    Our unflushable wrongologists seem immune to the entreaties of the real world to take note of what it’s actually doing, or not doing. They’re happier in Modelworld.

  26. Major Elvis Newton

    “…Global warming is just so 2013…”

    And Jon Stewart is so 1995.

    The illiterati’s favorite goto comedy laxative and philosophic hors d’oeuvre

  27. manalive

    In fact, it was unusually warm in Australia …

    Not if you look at reliable uncontaminated data.

  28. manalive

    Further to that, the ’80s and 90s had the mostly warm phase of the PDO cycle
    .

  29. Paul

    And there have been global warming papers around for years acknowledging that AGW was not going to instantly mean no new winter records set in parts of the world over the next few decades.

    Yep. you still can’t see it but trust us, its there…

  30. cohenite

    Nor was 2013 a cold year overall. (In fact, it was unusually warm in Australia.)

    Says steve.

    BOM has released its 2013 report in which it concluded 2013 was the hottest year on record in Australia. Warwick Hughes compares the BOM ACORN temperature record with RSS, UAH and GHCN one of the major surface networks; and guess what NONE of the other indices agreed with the BOM.

    All Hughes has done is graphed the data from each of these sources; nothing fancy yet BOM, the premier Australian climate information source, publically funded, is the outlier.

    The fact that the other indices all disagree with the BOM should have been the news yet it was the BOM conclusion which ran in the press with interviews with Steffen and other climate alarmists and activists.

    It is the media and gutless pollies which are keeping the corpse of AGW alive, along with a parasitical set of recipients of government money. AGW as a theory is dead.

  31. From Samuel’s Blog, “Bureau overheated figures by 4 degrees! (2013 was not Australia’s hottest year on record)”:

    During the year I had also checked some of the average temperatures in different places against the long-term average and quite often found that while daytime maximums were up (although not usually by anywhere near as much as 1.2 degrees), overnight minimums were generally quite in-line with the long-term average and had occasionally been up, but had also been down on a regular basis.
    With this in mind, I decided to check the numbers myself and I’ve gone in to some detail about how I did this below.
    But first, what I found was that the average temperature in Australia in 2013 was not 23.0 degrees as the Bureau claimed, but 19.01762629 degrees. The Bureau’s numbers are nearly a full four degrees too hot! This also worked out to be 0.707512656 degrees above the long-term average, not 1.2 degrees as claimed by the Bureau. […]
    It occurs to me that 21.8C, the average temperature in the Bureau’s press release but not in their weather data, might be the real average and they might be using that in their press releases to avoid anyone running the raw historical numbers and quickly proving it wrong…if so, then 2013 with its average around 19C was actually a below-average year.

  32. Andrew

    In fact, it was unusually warm in Australia …

    Not if you look at reliable uncontaminated data.

    Hmmm, quite so. Recall last year’s “hot, angry summer” (and the usual self-clownoscopy from Tom Foolery). Turns out that was a figment too – the satellites didn’t notice it. (Maybe the satellites aren’t in a box next to what is now an international airport.)

    Jo Nova’s article on it.

    Getting pretty hard to trust anything these people say. (But no doubt the science-denialist trolls have some hypothesis on why UAH was wrong and the BoM right.)

    Funny how we can’t beat the temp records of the 19th century though.

  33. I’m at the stage that I can safely assume bullshit whenever a lefty opens their mouth. Either they’re making it up or they’re repeating someone else’s bullshit. I don’t even need to disprove. I only need wait 24 hours and someone else will have thoroughly discredited it.

    The left is now utterly devoid of credibility and can be safely ignored on all matters.

  34. Andrew

    Further to that, the ’80s and 90s had the mostly warm phase of the PDO cycle

    Otherwise known to warmies as the tippingpointhockeystickpointofnoreturnrunawayclimatechange.

  35. AGW as a theory is dead.

    When I realized that they were outright lying in replacing temp stations in the Andes with stations at lower altitudes and not accounting for it, I switched all scientific arguments. They are mere obfuscation and arguments twisted to fit an agenda, not the science. Justify that, Shitfer et al before providing any scientific argument as such arguments are moot in the face of blatant dishonesty.

  36. jupes

    Will Stephan was just on Sky News saying that both Australia’s ‘record’ heat and the US’ current cold snap are evidence of climate change.

    No one questioned this bit of obvious bullshit. Soon, soon the MSM will get hit by the cluebat and ask the bleeding obvious. Surely.

  37. jupes

    Actually the dickhead said the evidence for climate change was now ‘irrefutable’.

    The gullible airheads at Sky obviously believed him.

  38. cohenite

    Soon, soon the MSM will get hit by the cluebat and ask the bleeding obvious. Surely.

    Nope. The media, apart from a few exceptions, are vanity driven fuckwits. And AGW is all about vanity.

  39. Bruce

    Climate change is pretty irrefutable I suppose. CAGW on the other hand is quite refutable, which is why Steffen never talks about it since he still wants to rule the world.

    “…humanity must work towards global stewardship around the planet’s intrinsic boundaries, a scientifically defined space within which we can continue to develop”, claimed Professor Will Steffen

    I wonder which scientist he has in mind to do the defining?

  40. caveman

    I’m wearing “Polar Vortex” now as I type.

  41. egg_

    Then anyone with an opinion should predict the warming for THIS century. If this deviates from the fitted (logarithmic) trendline fitted to CO2 concentration, they must justify the difference. It’s not good enough to claim that the sensitivity per doubling was 1C in the 20th century, but will be 6C in the 21st – physics doesn’t work like that. My statistical work suggests unchanged rate of CO2 emissions would imply 0.8C of warming between now and 2100AD. That’s consistent with the known properties of CO2. If someone wants to refute the basic science, they need a reason better than “I read it in the Guardian.”

    Where to start?
    The instrumental record is a blunt instrument and make of it what you will with points of a degree trends.
    A direct correlation between CO2 and temperature? Unlikely.
    +0.8C delta in 90 years?
    The beauty of predictions is vetting their outcomes.
    I’ll plump for cooling thanks, let’s we see what the next few decades deliver?

  42. Poa

    So funny Stewart bitching about tested scientific fact when it’s neither tested , scientific, nor fact.
    Wonder if he has the tested scientific facts for Saturday’s Tattslotto numbers.?
    Guess if your beliefs are proved total BS the first response is anger at those totally laughing at you.

  43. Jazza

    Talking of climate matters…..gotta love the “Predictions”……

    The newest elder at an aboriginal settlement in the NT was a little unsure of himself,so when one of the tribe asked him if the winter would be cold next year, he answered in the affirmative and said that all the men should gather firewood.
    When alone, he found a phone booth and rang the Bureau of Meteorology to ask:”Can you tell me if next winter is going to be cold?”
    “Yes, every indication is that the coming winter could be extremely cold” was the reply.
    Mulling this over, our man decided to order the braves to gather more firewood for the store.

    A short time later, he wondered if matters might have changed,so he again sought the phone booth and again rang the experts.
    He asked the chap at the Bureau”: “I rang some time ago and asked if the coming winter will be very cold, and I just wanted to check your predictions”
    Again the answer was in the affirmative,so he checked that all his men were busy gathering and storing firewood.
    When one of them asked him if there was enough stored, he urged them to work harder,but again doubting himself, he again checked with the Bureau:
    ” I have rung before and you have told me the coming winter will be very cold. But I want to know how you can be so sure of that, please?”
    The reply came:” We have done our research and the winter coming will be one of the coldest in years–our people on the ground tell us the Aborigines in the NT are furiously gathering firewood, and that is a sure sign of a bad winter coming !”

  44. Rabz

    It is only right wing twits who are fretting about a new ice age.

    Yet it was fat, lobotomised, barking mad hippies (BIRM) like Semenblogger Shitferbrains who were “fretting about a new ice age” in the seventies.

    You loathsome twat.

Comments are closed.