Thursday, January 28, 2021
Home Middle Column Watch: Schwarzenegger again threatens climate skeptics: 'I would like to strap their...

Watch: Schwarzenegger again threatens climate skeptics: ‘I would like to strap their mouth to the exhaust pipe of a truck — turn on the engine’



In a new online video, actor and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once again threatened climate skeptics with death.

Schwarzenegger made the carbon monoxide threat to political leaders who want to stop the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide.

Schwarzenegger declared in the video: “Some politicians even want to shut down the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon. I would like to strap their mouth to the exhaust pipe of a truck, turn on the engine and let’s see how long it would take them to tap out.” (Full Video of Schwarzenegger here.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger on global warming ‘deniers’: ‘Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour and then they will agree it’s a pollutant!’

Schwarzenegger conflated carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide when discussing air pollution and climate change.  The video is entitled “7 million people die every year worldwide because of pollution-related illnesses.” (Schwarzenegger has been under fire for hypocrisy when it comes to climate change. See: 2008 Flashback: Schwarzenegger’s daily commute by private jet draws flak & Schwarzenegger touts ‘air-drying your clothes for 6 months to save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide’)
This is not the first time Schwarzenegger threatened to poison and kill climate skeptics. back in 2013, he declared he would like “to strap conservatives to a tailpipe for an hour.” See: Flashback 2013: Arnold Schwarzenegger on global warming ‘deniers’: ‘Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour and then they will agree it’s a pollutant!’
Schwarzenegger’s death wish is not the first time climate skeptics have been threatened with deadly carbon monoxide.
See: Climate Depot’s 2010 Presentation at Warmists’ Summit Met By Hostile Interrupting Moderator and Crowd; Call for Morano to Kill Himself! – Global Warming Summit’s Warm Welcome: Morano told to drive car into garage with engine running and then close the doors – “One participant confused carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide. She suggested I kill himself by driving my car into my garage and then close the doors with the engine running. I twice attempted to explain to the ARDAY conference participant that there was a difference between carbon dioxide — a harmless trace essential gas we exhale from our mouth– and toxic carbon monoxide, but to no avail.”
Schwarzenegger’s confusion over carbon dioxide or “carbon pollution” with carbon monoxide is a huge fallacy.
CO2 is not ‘pollution.’ The term ‘carbon pollution’ is unscientific and misleading. As James Agresti wrote: “The phrase conflates carbon dioxide with noxious chemicals like carbon monoxide and black carbon.” “The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is scientifically inaccurate because there are more than ten million different carbon compounds, and the word ‘carbon’ could refer to any of them. Some of the more notorious of these compounds are highly poisonous, such as carbon monoxide (a deadly gas) and black carbon (the primary ingredient of cancerous and mutagenic soot). Using a phrase that does not distinguish between such drastically different substances is a sure way to misinform people.” Carbon Dioxide – CO2 – is a harmless trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from their mouth (after inhaling oxygen). Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer has said: “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually
Schwarzenegger Claims of 7 million killed by pollution is very suspect 
Professor: EPA health claims ‘are groundless’ – ‘Carbon dioxide is not a factor in smog or lung issues’ 
McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’ – ‘Particulates and soot are at such low levels in the U.S. — levels well below what they were in the 1970s. The health claims at this point are groundless coming from this administration.
I noticed these numbers coming up for Ontario for how many deaths were caused by air pollution. What struck me — was knowing that air pollution levels were very low in Ontario — but they were extremely high in 1960s. So I took the same model and fed in the 1960s air pollution levels into it: How many deaths would you get? I did the calculations and you quickly get more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes.
In other words, the streets would have been littered with bodies from air pollution if it was actually that lethal. The problem with all of these models is they are not based on an actual examination of death certificates or looking at what people actually died of — these are just statistical models where people have a spreadsheet and they take in an air pollution level and it pops out a number of deaths. But there are no actual bodies there, it is all just extrapolation.’
# also rebutted pollution claims: FACT SHEET: Particulate Matter in Indoor/Outdoor Air Does NOT Cause Death
Related Links: 

Death Wish: NYT Writer Calls for A ‘Natural Disaster’ in GOP States to ‘Unify’ After Clinton WinDeath Wish: Warmist Greg Blanchette: ‘I kind of hope N. America gets its ass kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action’


  1. Arnold Schwarzenegger once again threatened climate skeptics with death

    Ridiculous assertion.

    There are no climate skeptics. There are only denialists – the scientific evidence is too overwhelming to be skeptical in 2016.



      • Two centuries of physics and chemistry that CO2 keeps them thar earf from bein an ice ball:

        Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

        Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

        Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

        Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

        Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

        Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

        Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

        Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

        Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

        Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

        Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

        Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

        Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

        Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

        Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

        Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:

        The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:

        Experiments confirming all this:

        Feldman, D.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519 pp. 339–343.

        Press release explaining results:

        Philipona et al 2004. Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
        increasing greenhouse effect. Geophys Res Lett 31: L03202, 4 pp. doi:10.1029/2003GL018765

        Griggs and Harries 2004. Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. Proc. SPIE 5543, Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII. doi: 10.1117/12.556803

        Skeptics Science deniers have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.



        • Lotsa words amounting to zero.

          First 15 nothing after 1961 and all reinterpreted/modified/invalidated by newer testing.
          Next 3 all financially biased sources with a dog in the fight
          Next 1 a compendium of previously invalidated sources
          Last 4 financially biased and a press release.

          Isn’t that why you say data from Exxon can’t be trusted?

          So, without biased sources – whatcha got?

          Good for the goose, good for the gander as the wise folk say.

    • It’s true – there are no climate skeptics. We all agree there is one.

      if you mean CAGW skeptic then we might be skeptical as to whether or not it’s warming, global or local, anthro or naturo, and catastrophic or beneficial. True blue – there’s a bunch of us.

      But instead, people with no debate in em like to generalize it to climate skeptics. No surprise where Dano falls on that cut.

  2. Science moves forward by hypothesis and testing, not consensus (shared opinion). Science’s reason for existence is to expand our knowledge via rigorous debate and critique, not by shared opinions (consensus). As author Michael Crichton put it, “If it’s science, it’s not consensus. And if it’s consensus, it’s not science.” Scientific consensus is worse than any religion in that its dogma is much more inflexible. The church had the inquisition; scientific consensus uses the denial of peer review to maintain its dogma.

    The current manmade global warming scientific consensus is about funding for climate models. Do you know what a climate model is? It is a simplification of the real world. You feed your model your assumptions and then it regurgitates a solution that seems credible to the model developer. Note the word credible. Credible means believable. Credible does not mean the truth. Climate models don’t create truth or even valid climate predictions; they just deliver credible (believable to the climatologist) results. Many climatologists are well-educated welfare recipients who are on the public research teat. Follow the money, if you can stand the stench.

  3. Scientific Consensus (or the Bandwagon Appeal) is a logical fallacy.

    The phrase Bandwagon Appeal comes from the phrase “jump on the bandwagon.” In long past political campaigns, candidates would ride a large bandwagon through town. People would show support of the candidate by boarding the wagon. The phrase now refers to joining a cause because of its popularity. Bandwagon appeal is a logical fallacy: popularity does not equal truth or validity.

    Bandwagon Appeal Form: Idea X is popular. Therefore, X is correct.

    Bandwagon Appeal Alias: Appeal to Popularity, Argument by Consensus (Scientific Consensus), Argumentum ad Populum, and Authority of the Many.
    Consensus does not equal truth or fact.

    • Nonetheless, denialists have absolutely nothing in the scientific literature that can explain the observed changes, no ideologically pure, free merkit science. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis. Diddly.




      • ” nothing in the scientific literature”

        John Tyndall is often cited as ‘an early discoverer of the GH effect’. It is said he discovered CO2 ’caused GH warming’.
        Just where did he write this?
        He certainly claimed ‘aqueous vapour’ stopped Earth’s surface destroying plants by freezing them (even so frost can destroy the apple crop).
        But he never claimed that CO2 did this (by warming the surface). He was only concened with nighttime temperatures; he said nothing about daytime surface temperatures which BTW are cooled by CO2.
        Read what John Tyndall actually wrote, Dano2 and stop swallowing UN propaganda, it makes you spout rubbish!

              • “First scientist to publish on greenhouse effects in the earth’s atmosphere.”

                I’ve got most of Tyndall’s published works and he does’nt describe any ‘greenhouse’ effect with CO2 or even H2O.

                Sure Tyndall explains how water vapour (not CO2) prevents the nigt time surface getting to absolute zero (!) but only the UN and ‘climate panic’ can reinterperate this as ‘a greenhouse effect’ ‘heat trapping’ or even ‘climate change’.

                Have you read any of Tyndall’s works? He was a meticulous experimenter!

                • Greenhouse effects is what I typed. And correction, it was Fourier in 1827.

                  Two centuries of empirical study into the matter. If it gives you good feels, you can push it back to 1861 and Tyndall’s paper. Or if you really take all of this to heart and make it part of your self-identity we can make you have good feels and use Arrhenius in the 1890s. There! We still have well over a century of study and tens of thousands of papers! Yay!

                  Anyhoo, denialists have absolutely nothing in the scientific literature that can explain the observed changes, no ideologically pure, free merkit science. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis. Diddly.




                  • ” it was Fourier in 1827.”

                    Of course I have a copy of Fourier’s 1827 paper – no mention of anything like a ‘greenhouse effect(s) there either.

                    By citing Tyndall and Fourier and even Arrhenius you do not seem to realise the weaknesses in their papers, that is why I ask what their actual position is i.e. what did the actually write.

                    You seem to have nothing to say about the works of Maxwell, Boltzmann, Kelvin and Ehrenfest (20th C !) all of whom made important contributions to make on atmospheric temperature, mainly by including gravitational energy (gravitational energy is what keeps the atmosphere attached to the planet).
                    Gravitational energy, in combination with radiation from the sun defines the temperature, not just at the surface but throughout the troposhere and the stratosphere.

                    Just to illustrate how the matter developed in the 19th century. At the beginning heat was thought to be phlogiston, then caloric. At the end of the 19th C even atomic theory was questioned at its roots.

                    It is very foolish to rely on any paper written at any time. The IPCC founder Bert Bolin based his position on a single paper by S Arrhenius (1896). Bolin never mentioned much more extensive writngs on the ‘climate question’ Arrhenius produced in1901, 1902 and 1905.

                    To me you appear to live in a world inhabited by ‘denialists’ which seems to allow you to avoid any discussion on either the evidence and the physics that explains the evidence.

                    Why bother to discus when you claim; –
                    ” nothing in the scientific literature that can explain the observed changes, no ideologically pure, free merkit science. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis. Diddly.”

                    So you have’t read Kelvin, Maxwell Boltzmann or Ehrenfest? So you exclude these? I suppose they were all ‘denialists’?

                    • By citing Tyndall and Fourier and even Arrhenius you do not seem to realise the weaknesses in their papers,


                      Thou dost protest too much, methinks.

                      But you amused me, and that counts for something! Good job amusing me, lad!



                    • “methinks” ?

                      I’d like to here your argument(s) for the GHG (or ‘carbon dioxide) warming effect.

                      What might help you is Einstein’s 1917 paper ‘ZurQuanten theorie derStrahlung’ (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation) In which he explains further the interaction of photons and atoms.
                      It is fairly straight forward. It helps a lot with the absorption and emission of photons but it doesn’t go so far as Feynman in his book on quantum electrodynamics ( )

                    • Basic, fundamental physics is my argument for greenhouse gases warming planets. You can’t show the science shows anything else, thanks!



                    • “Basic, fundamental physics is my argument for greenhouse gases warming planets.”

                      Is your physics based on one of the conservation laws?

                    • Oh, I hope I can score points off of you, that would be grrrrreat.

                      Let me repeat: you cannot show that something else other than the GHE keeps the earf from being an ice ball. That is: You can’t show the science shows anything else, thanks!



                    • On the Moon the sub solar point (Sun overhead) is about 140C. The Moon has absolutely no atmosphere.
                      The poles of the Moon are close to absolute zero.
                      Venus is closer to the Sun and, where the atmospheric pressure = 1 bar(i.e.the same as Earth) the temperature is about 50C over the whole planet, dark side included. A day

                    • That’s not showing.

                      Try a physics text.

                      Oh, wait: if you do that, you’ll cease this embarrassing display.

                      Never mind. Continue to amuse me.



                    • “That’s not showing.”

                      If you ‘showed what you know’, you’d be arrested for having ‘nothing on’!

                    • The IPCC (UN) bases its arguments on 19th C physics of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius; is that OK for you?

                    • “It is clear you can’t back your claim.”

                      I am indeed stuck because you do not join the discussion. To do this it would help if you said what convinces you of the ‘warming’ effect of CO2 (GHGs).

                    • This here prancing isn’t backing your claim either.

                      You are spending more energy prancing and flouncing than backing. Why?



                    • Erm, what is prancing and how do you do it?

                      The fault in ALL of your references are major and fatal.
                      #1 As does the IPCC the write about ‘average’ temperature. When considering any celestial body (material isolated in space) the concept of an ‘average’ temperature does not exist. Temperature is a function of particle energy (see works of Clausius, Boltzmann and Maxwell.
                      Further in 1876 Loschmidt described the effects of gravity on the temperature distribution in planet’s atmosphere (Über den Zustand des VVärnegleichgewichtes eines Systems von Körpern mit Rücksicht auf die Schwerkraft. (Schwerkraft is ‘gravitational force’ in German).
                      This paper was not accepted as valid by Maxwell or Boltzmann but, as often happens, its validity was later acknowledged by Lord Kelvin, a practical man if ever there was one Kelvin wrote a paper on this in 1892 *.
                      Even later, in 1930 Paul Ehrenfest & Richard Tolman wrote in the Physical Review **

                      * On a Decisive Test-case disproving the Maxwell-Boltzmann
                      Doctrine regarding Distribution of Kinetic Energy. (page 466)

                      **DECEMBER I5. 1930 PHYSICAL REVIEW VOLUME16
                      Temperature Equilibrium in a Static Gravitational Field
                      By Richard C. Tolman and Paul Ehrenfest

                      Also, since there is no such thing as an ‘average temperature’ in a gravitational field, there is no such thing as the ‘average global temperature’ which is claimed in all the refeences you gave previously and all proponents of AGW, including the IPCC.

                      Your references are well known, it is even claimed they represent a ‘consensus’. There is absolutely nothing ‘scientific’ about a consensus. Perhaps the most notorius consensus was the one against Copernicus and his argument that the Earth revolved round the Sun, the 1500 year old consensus was, according to Ptolemy, that the Sun revolved round the Earth. Galileo hard a hard time supporting Copernicus’ argument. Few disagree with him now, do you?

                      Your references are all about the ‘consensus’ on AGW, none of them account for gravitational energy; even you are not sure, something very apparent when you resort to personal abuse.

                  • “Greenhouse effects is what I typed.”
                    There is absolutely no connection between the GH effect (as described by the IPCC, the workings of a real GH and the radiative properties of CO2. A GH keeps the air warmed by the Sun is confined in a closed space. In a real atmosphere the air, warmed by the Sun, is free to circulate to the dark side, equally the Earth rotates and, from both effects, the free air is cooled by radiating to deep space. This ‘cooling’ is restricted in GHs (not completely) becaus the interior air cannot escape. GHs do cool at night (you should close the windows before the interior gets too cold!)

  4. I wish humans weren’t making the Earth so warm. Look what they did to Venus and Mars. Venus is an oven and Mars is a freezer, all from unrestrained humans driving SUVs and taking too many hot showers. We need to keep humans away from the moon before they destroy it. Write Congress now!

  5. We have a meteorology record back to about 1850, give or take. Individuals, such as Franklin and Jefferson, gathered isolated weather data during their era. The National Weather Service was
    organized in 1870. The data collected is so inaccurate it is not always usable (for example, by placing air conditioner exhaust ducts near the temperature probe).

    We have accurate satellite climatology records from 2000, the previous satellites focused on inaccurate
    weather data gathering and weather photos. We have about 10 years of real global climatology data. Call if 40 years if you want to count the early satellites. For the earth’s 4,000,000,000-year history, we have reliable climate data for 100 years.

    Anything else involves guesswork, interpolation, or manufactured data. That is, tree rings, ice cores, mud balls, etc all are proxies of past temperatures. These data must be interpolated. Manmade global warming is junk science.

  6. There is scientific consensus about manmade global warming? Scientific consensus is politics, not science. Want some examples of previous scientific consensus screw-ups?

    George Washington died in 1799. His doctors used the current scientific consensus of bleeding to cure him. That is, Washington’s doctors used leeches to bleed the pneumonia out of him. The learned doctors took so much blood that they killed Washington. Scientific consensus can hurt you.

    Remember this scientific consensus laugher? Pluto was a planet, and then it was arbitrarily changed in 2006 to a dwarf world. Poor Pluto. Amazing how scientific consensus works, huh? You just vote on it. No facts needed, since consensus is merely opinion.

    How about this scientific consensus gaffe? Meteorologist Alfred Wegener presented his continental drift hypothesis in 1912. His theory was rejected because he lacked a continental movement mechanism and he wasn’t a geologist. As late as 1953, the theory of continental drift was rejected by geologists, despite mounting evidence, because it went against the prevailing scientific consensus. Jack Oliver provided
    seismologic evidence supporting plate tectonics in 1968 ending the old dogma. Why so long in the uptake? Geologists had careers to protect. Thirty years of research and a big paycheck make compelling reasons to stick with outdated theories. Now, continental drift and plate technics are
    the new scientific consensus.

    How about this scientific consensus faux pas? In the 1920s, geologist J Harlen Bretz argued that the Washington Channeled Scablands were caused by massive floods. Bretz’ theories met with vehement opposition from liberal, east coast geologists, who tried to explain the features with uniformitarian theories, the scientific consensus of the day. To the liberals, Bretz’ idea sounded too much like Biblical flooding! For the next 50 years, Bretz and other geologists collected evidence that eventually identified Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Floods and creator of the Channeled Scablands. In 1979, at the age of 96, Bretz received the Penrose Medal — the Geological Society of America’s highest award. After this award, Bretz told his son: “All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over.”

    Want another scientific consensus blunder? In 1982, Doctors Marshall and Warren theorized that the Helicobacter pyloris bacterium caused stomach ulcers. This theory was rejected by the medical profession because the current scientific consensus dogma said that no bacterium could survive in the acidic stomach. Marshall drank a H. pyloris mixture and developed stomach ulcers. He then cured himself with antibiotics. Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.

    Scientific consensus and its dogma are hard to kill because scientists build their careers around it, then they defend it as though their paychecks depended upon it.

  7. Water’s not a pollutant, but I’m pretty sure if I ran a water hose down Arnold’s throat he may tap out as well.

    Also, the car’s exhaust is moving CO, nitrous oxides and sulfer oxides as well, and they are, in fact pollutants. It wouldn’t be the CO2 getting ya, Arnold.

    Actors are people who excel at make-believe. Don’t get why we consult with them on other matters or lend them credibility where there is none.

  8. Hey I for one want global warming. Look at the bright side I like gardening so I’ll have a longer growing season, my heating oil bill will go down, less snow to shovel. What it’s not global warming anymore it’s climate change? Ok what’s it going to change to? I liked global warming.

  9. An over simplistic response from a simpleton who almost single handed ruined the state of California . I suggest he stick to lifting weights as that is something he understands. I still notice the weather people can not predict the weather a week out much less 20 years, and the last 18 years and a few moths have proven them wrong again and again . I would like to stuff his butt in a paper bag and let him figure out how to get out LOL .

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Biden Climate Executive Order: Government Vehicles to be Electric

Libertarians rejoice! Thanks to President Biden's latest climate brainstorm, in the future the US Federal Government will only function within 200 miles of the...

“You Can’t Fix Stupid”… Biden Pauses New Oil & Gas Leasing on Federal Lands and Waters

Guest “you can’t fix stupid” by David Middleton We knew this was coming… Biden Hits ‘Pause’ On Oil And Gas Leasing On Public Lands...

UN: Angry Birds Survey Proves the World Demands Climate Action

Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to the United Nations, “the people’s voice is clear”. The UN believes the results of a survey distributed...