Activists demand Catholic TV network ban ‘climate deniers’ from programming – Following Morano debate with Envrio lobbyist

Global warming activists are applying pressure to EWTN, the global Catholic Television network to stop broadcasting the views of climate skeptics. The left-leaning ‘social justice’ group, Faithful America, has started a petition to EWTN (Eternal World Television Network) to ban what they term ‘climate deniers’ from the network.

(Note: The movement to ban skeptics from television and media reporting on climate change has intensified in the past year. See: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ director pushing to ban Morano & other skeptics from TV.)

The activists are upset about a recent debate between Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano and the Environmental Defense Fund lobbyist Carol Andress.

The debate dealt with the Vatican and Pope Francis’ efforts to promote a United Nations global warming treaty.

See: Watch Now: Morano in lively TV climate debate with enviro lobbyist: ‘The points she just made are demonstrably not true’

The group sent out an appeal on May 27, urging EWTN to ‘Stop broadcasting climate denial

One of the world’s largest Catholic media outlets is accusing Pope Francis of confusing Catholics by preparing a ground-breaking encyclical urging world leaders to tackle climate change.

In a recent segment, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) even invited notorious climate denier Marc Morano to “debate” whether climate change is real. Worse yet, EWTN host Raymond Arroyo questioned man-made climate change and claimed that the pope was somehow supporting abortion by meeting with the United Nations about climate change.

It’s time for Catholic media outlets like EWTN to stop making common cause with right-wing political activists to undermine Pope Francis — and stop spreading misinformation about the climate crisis.

Pope Francis has issued a prophetic call to recognize the scientific reality of climate change and how the destruction of God’s creation is harming the world’s poorest people. Please stop offering a platform for climate deniers to spread misinformation and undermine the pope’s moral leadership.


112 Responses

  1. ‘Social justice workers’ (or ‘warriors’) are mostly know-nothing, ideologically-poisoned college students. God Help Us if they ever end up getting their way.

    1. The warmists are like the ancient Incas demanding human sacrifice to appease the climate Gods. They are perpetually terrified, desperately trying to silence all truth.

  2. CLIMATE DENYING GLOBAL WARMIST. Notice how cold it has been this year, Brrrrrr. still snowing in the USA in May. Notice that the Global Warming Alarmist are telling everyone to SHUT UP, when it is they who should stop speaking fake science.

  3. The term “global warming” morphed into “climate change” due to lack of evidence. Since the climate is always changing and has always been changing, at least they now have an accurate description.

    1. Your assertion is false. Both terms have appeared in the peer reviewed literature with “climate change” predating “global warming”.

      1. Actually global warming is passe with you Enviro-Fascists.

        Oh and this:

        Peer reviewed paper: It’s OK to lie about climate

        “You won’t find it shocking to learn that suppressing inconvenient facts, lying about climate science and exaggerating tales about natural weather are deliberate strategies for global warming campaigners.

        What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit
        it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the
        beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty
        in Paris next year!

        The title of their study?

        “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.”

        1. Interesting that you start your comment with name calling. Very mature.

          Your assertion that the paper by Hong and Zhao supports lying about climate change to promote action by governments is totally false (the paper make not such suggestion). In fact the paper does say that lying can provide a short term benefit by in the long run it will cause irreparable harm to the reputation and credibility of the lying entity.

          Don’t you find it embarrassing to cite a paper to support your claim when the paper actually contradicts your claim?

          1. No dumbass – Hong and Zhao rationalize lying but they never openly state it as lying. Hence the cause and effect of their rationalization.

            From the initial article about Hong and Zhao:

            According to Kevin Glass of, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don’t actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.”

            See more at:

            Are you even aware of your overt stupidity? Well of course not – you’re a dyed-in-the-wool Libtard Leftist.

            1. I suggest you read the article by the authors.

              Right after our paper was officially published, further more attacks from media that are skeptical of anthropogenic climate changes came in, but the main tones remained the same: They claimed that our paper advocated lying about climate change, and they used this claim to attack the low carbon movement. In order to prevent further mis-interpretation of the scientific result, we invite the media interested in research progresses to distinguish between positive statement (what is) and normative statement (what ought to be). … Our rational provides only a value-free explanation of the phenomenon (i.e., why certain media have incentives to engage in biased coverage), but does not mean justifying lying about climate change. … Thus, even from the normative point of view, we did not Prove It ís Okay To Lie About Climate Change …

              Thanks to the articles in Townhall and other follow-up media. The articles themselves are vivid examples of the prevalence and variety of media bias in reporting scientific results. While our analysis investigates the media tendency of accentuating or even exaggerating scientific findings of climate damage, the articles misinterpret our results, accentuate and exaggerate one side of our research and completely omit the other side. Neglecting the fact that our analysis focuses on media bias, a few articles (e.g. [5]) even fabricate that we support scientific frauds. For another example, Motl [4] quotes the words ìthe information manipulation has an instrumental value in our paper. However, in his quote, the sentence becomes manipulation of information has a great instrumental value with quotation marks! If they think that we advocate lying about climate change, and they hate it so much, why do they themselves engage in lying?

              Name calling seems to be considered a mature behavior on this forum.

              1. I did read the article – it’s crap. And yes – it does indeed rationalize lying by manipulation and exaggeration.

                And you’re a clown who needs to get a life and stop pushing your commie socialist crap onto the rest of society. Oh and, you need to get a real religion as opposed to this political activism that helps your miserable life seem “relevant”. Here’s a hint – your generation is crap. You burnt-out children of the 60’s are the worst. And your ilk began the great descent of this entire nation. You’ve done enough damage – it’s time for you to do your penance.

                1. More name calling. Very mature.

                  The authors of the original article assert (in the quoted paper) that the author of the Townhall article lied about their research. They note that the Townhall article is a good example of bias and distortion (lies) promoted by biased media outlets. Rant all you want, but the original research and the response of the authors of that research to the Townhall article are clear. They did note that there might be some short term benefit in exaggeration but they did not suggest that anyone exaggerate or lie. Their paper was not about scientists but about media being biased and exaggerating. An example is the nonsense that there was a scientific consensus in the 70’s that global cooling was likely. A couple of media outlets sensationalized the findings of a minority of research papers (most projected a warming of the climate), warning of a coming ice age (purpose ? – to attract more readers?).

                  Signed “Burnt-out child of science and the 40’s”

                    1. Despite arguments by contrarians that global warming was
                      caused by the sun, scientists have predicted and verified that solar irradiance
                      has decreased a small amount over the last thirty five years at the same time
                      that temperatures have continued to increase.


                      Without the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the
                      average global temperature would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current
                      60 degrees Fahrenheit. CO2 has continued to increase over this period,
                      increasing the greenhouse effect as the science of physics predicts and
                      verified by the satellite irradiance measurements which show a net gain in
                      energy (more energy impinges on the planet than is reflected and emitted back
                      into space). Because the planet (surface, atmosphere, and oceans) continues to
                      receive more energy than it loses into space, it will continue to warm.

                      In the planetary system, energy sloshes back and forth
                      between the atmosphere and oceans (e.g., PDO, Nino/Nina, AMO, NMO) causing
                      surface temperature variability. However, the continuous gain in energy will
                      cause the planet to continue warming, continuing the surface temperature
                      warming trend.

                    2. No actually, temperatures have not increased. In fact, they’ve been stagnant to decreasing for the last 19 years or so, and they’re are continuing to decrease.

                      From October 2012: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

                      Read more:–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz3bpZx02TF

                      20 Years of Winter Cooling Defy Global Warming Claims


                    3. The Forbes article referred to winter temperature in the United States, not globally. Just more nonsense.

                      The dailycaller article promotes lies. Temperature trends continue to be positive regardless of you personal opinion.


                      Can you not find any valid facts? The contrarian web sites you cut and paste from promote misleading statements and outright lies. The fact that you repeat these lies indicates that you care only about ideology, not science or facts.

                    4. Oh look – you just copied and pasted some junk-scientism from some contrarian libtard commie sites. LOL!

                    5. Most people (other than conspiracy theorists) accept that the sources I posted are reliable sites that do not mislead or publish lies. However, I have exposed a number of lies posted on the dailycaller and townhall sites.

                    6. Actually no. Most people don’t accept it. In fact the majority of polling has revealed that the majority of people reject the man-man global warming lunacy. But then – you and your ilk actually believe that man somehow affects the weather itself. Which is the grandaddy of all tinfoil conspiracy theories. And all you’ve exposed is the continuing flawed data and ongoing erroneous predictions by you and your ilk. The earth is actually cooling. More and more credible scientists are understanding that reality. But then – they’re not pushing a political agenda pathetically disguised as “science”. Seriously, get a real religion. Because this secular progressive cult you’re invested in is pure insanity. And there is no fool like an old fool.

                    7. Nothing but personal opinions. No facts, no references, nothing of value.

                    8. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity.

                      That’s a 53 percent majority against the president’s position.

                      Of the 35 percent who cite lacking evidence for their
                      disbelief, half say it’s because man-made global warming is “just not
                      happening”. The other half say that we “don’t know enough yet” about the
                      issue to tell. Pew says that “business conservatives” and “steadfast
                      conservatives” have the largest majorities that don’t believe in
                      man-made global warming, with 75 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

                      Forty percent of Americans believe that mankind is causing
                      the planet to warm. So-called “solid liberals” are the most likely to
                      say human activity is warming the Earth — 78 percent of this group
                      believes this to be true.


                    9. You’re obfuscating the totals. From Pews article:

                      “Views of Global Warming

                      Overall, 61% of the public say there is solid evidence that the
                      average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, while 35% say there is not solid evidence that the Earth is

                    10. Actually, all of the “evidence” of man made climate change is merely the opinion “consensus” of a bunch of well compensated junk-scientists whose entire funding is based upon the fallacy of data manipulation for the sake of a political agenda. This entire insane movement is a joke.

                    11. Still nothing factual. Simply a personal opinion that is totally wrong based on statements by scientists and science organizations around the world. You cannot find a single international science organization that supports your opinion.

                    12. You keep retreating to the selective opinions by certain “scientists” and you insist on citing “scientific organizations” as if they are somehow beyond reproach, when in fact, all of these scientists and their organizations undoubtedly benefit significantly from pro-global-warming-hysteria funding. So back to you – still nothing factual. Only well-funded echos of the hive-mind groups-speak. PS you need to get a life and get a real religion. Your obsessive trolling on this is bordering on neurotic. Make peace with your Maker while there’s still time.

                    13. Numbers from the page you reference:

                      10% – caused entirely by human activity
                      30% – caused mainly by human activity
                      43% – caused partly by nature and partly by human activity
                      14% – caused mainly or entirely by natural causes
                      3% – no climate change


                      This year, 45% of Australian adults now say that ‘global
                      warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now
                      even if this involves significant costs’. … this year’s Poll shows that the trend-line has
                      turned, and that Australians’ concern about climate change is now on the rise’,

                      63% of Australians say the government should be taking a
                      leadership role on reducing carbon emissions. Only 28% say it should wait for
                      an international consensus, and a fraction (7%) say the government should do

                      54% – caused by human activity

                      54% – caused by human activity

                      You have already lost the public relations war.

                    14. You intentionally left out the biased context of the cited polling, which was a critical part of the article’s premise:

                      “The IPCC has told us in letters of fire for twenty years that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. But despite the unending propaganda 60% of Australians are not convinced. This fits with other better designed and much larger surveys by CSIRO showing that 53% of the population are skeptical, and a UK study which showed that 63% of British people were skeptical that storms and floods are probably man-made.

                      The IPSOS polls have been running for years, and are unashamedly pro-IPCC in leaning, but despite that obvious bias, and loaded, ambiguous questions, most Australians don’t agree that it is mainly our fault. The climate is changing but it is mainly or partly natural. IPSOS gloss over that, but if humans are responsible for less than half of “climate change” that makes Direct Action twice as useless. If natural forces caused more of the recent warming, that also reduces the scary projections.”

                      I’m sorry you have to resort to such dishonest tactics. And your own cited polling only continues the bias.

                    15. Paper: Global Warming? More Like Global Cooling

                      A new paper claims that declining solar activity since 1998 could mean falling global temperatures in the years ahead — contrary to predictions of rapid warming made by virtually all climate models.

                      “The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998,” wrote Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

                      “From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but
                      since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values ​​similar to those
                      of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next
                      few years is predicted,” Heine wrote.

                      Heine argues that warming during the 20th Century was not caused by increasing carbon dioxide emissions, but instead by increasing solar activity, changes in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays and huge amounts of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere from the nuclear weapons tests conducted from 1945 to 1963.


                    16. The dailycaller publishes a lot of nonsense. Listen to a real scientist that is also a conservative.

                      Kerry Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes
                      marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost
                      always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.

                      Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric
                      science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his
                      peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link
                      between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

                      “There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual
                      realization based on the evidence,” Emanuel said. “I became convinced
                      by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate
                      that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered.”


                    17. You’re liberal drone. Gender is not transferable nor is it synonymous. So Emanuel is simply recognizing observable reality whereas you obviously think reality is relative – which is evident by your citation of the junk-scientism of global war … er uhm Climate Change.

                    18. No citation of which journal published the paper. Was it peer reviewed or just an opinion piece?

                    19. Peer review is unsubstantiated nonsense. It’s nothing more than the mind-hive recognizing hive-thought. And you seriously need to get a real religion instead of this Climate Change cultism that you’re so deeply invested in.

          2. “To capture the public imagination,

            we have to offer up some scary scenarios,

            make simplified dramatic statements

            and little mention of any doubts one might have.

            Each of us has to decide the right balance

            between being effective,

            and being honest”

            Words from Stefan Schneider he had a stellar career with the the IPCC no harm for him or his reputation.

            1. The only references that I could find to this quote was on denier sites on which if find misleading claims and outright lies. For instance,
              is a good example of the Townhall web site publishing not only a lie but a hypocritical lie.

              Regardless, of whether the quote is true or not is inconsequential. The only thing that matters is the facts which the National Academies world wide, international science organizations and executives of international corporations have accepted. You believe you are more knowledgeable than the scientists and executives I have listed in other posts on this forum? Do you think that Nobel Laureates in science are dumb just because they accept the IPCC conclusions?

              Or do you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy of nearly all the scientists worldwide, science organizations, corporations and governments worldwide?

              1. “Do you think that Nobel Laureates in science are dumb just because they accept the IPCC conclusions?” Short answer YES.

                Any scientist who for example wrights in his introduction to his paper.”Heat ranks among the top weather-related killers in the United States, responsible for more deaths than hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes and floods combined.”

                One only has to search the CDC database for cause of death and cold turns out to cause almost double the death than heat does. Both are listed right next to each other.

                A lobotomized amoeba can do better.

                1. In the United States, the members of the National Academy are most knowledgeable and capable scientists. From the NA web site: “Members are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Membership is a widely accepted mark of excellence in science and is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.” Members of the National Academy of other nations are as knowledgeable as those of the US National Academy.

                  It appears from your answer that you will reject the conclusions of experts when the conclusions conflict with your personal opinion even considering that the conclusions are supported by nearly every science organization in the world along with 80 percent of scientist worldwide.

                  If you are not willing to accept conclusions of those who are vastly more knowledgeable than you with regard to climate science, one would guess that your views are based on ideology, not facts.

                  1. “If you are not willing to accept conclusions of those who are vastly more knowledgeable than you with regard to climate science, one would guess that your views are based on ideology, not facts.”

                    I know enough that 725 is a bigger number than 375, that are the CDC numbers for 2013 cold verses heat related death and more than 97% of average joe non scientist would agree with me on that one.

                    Members of the National Academy are operating in an echo chamber in which views of a few people perceived as authority get repeated over and over again reinforced by pall review. Any opposition to the current paradigm will be met with rejection of your work trough pier review and little hope that you get future funding to continue your work. Objecting scientists lives are made miserable by falls allegation, like been in the pocket of big Oil, until they quit as in Pat Michaels case where Pennstate University happily handed all Pat’s correspondents to Greenpeace for the purpose of personal attacks on him but as FOIA requests for Michael Mann’s correspondents in connection to Climategate got made Pennstate refused to honer those FOIA request.

                    So in conclusion you got it exactly backwoods as to who is influenced by ideology and who understands at least most basic math.

                    1. If you are not willing to accept conclusions of those who are vastly more knowledgeable than you with regard to climate science, one would guess that your views are based on ideology, not facts.

  4. When you are ill, you accept the advice of your physician. When you make a will, you accept the advice of a lawyer. Why? Because most people lack the depth of knowledge necessary to make decisions in these areas without incurring great risk. Yet when climate change is the subject, every denialist is eager to dismiss the statements by National Academies of the US and 79 other nations), the leadership of almost every international science organization and the executives of a many of the largest corporations in the world. Climate research is often produced by interdisciplinary teams that include climate scientists, geophysical scientists, oceanographers, mathematicians, physicists, and experts in other fields.;

    Because the opinions of the denialist are totally contradicted by the most capable and knowledgeable interdisciplinary teams of scientists worldwide, those opinions lack even a fragment of credibility. So why should any news source provide space or time for such nonsense?

    1. Climate change is by no means “settled science”. The Heartland Institute boasts its own share of credentialed scientists. Instead of asking “why should any news source provide time or space for such nonsense?”, ask why they should be pressured to stifle any honest discussion of the topic. To use your analogies, when seriously ill, does not one often seek additional medical opinions? Why? Because sometimes doctors are wrong.

      1. There are only a handful of climatologists that disagree with the IPCC conclusions while the number that support those conclusions is well over 90% (97% as found in three different peer reviewed studies). The skeptics could easily show those number are wrong, if they really were, by repeating the study with independent information. However, you will not see such a study because the skeptics know that the results will be the same.

        Remember when Richard Muller criticized the hockey stick graph? He got funding from the Kock’s to do an independent study. Richard Muller had previously criticized research by Mann and others researching climate change. After completing his project, he wrote the following in an opinion column. “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

        Say your doctor tells you that you have cancer and must start chemotherapy immediately. To verify this, you visit 10 oncologists. Nine leading oncologists agree with your doctor and one with lesser credentials disagrees. Whose advice do you accept? Even the arch conservative Richard Tol agrees that the consensus is well over 90%.

        Should members of the flat earth society be given equal time with the leading astronomers of the world?
        Should members of the “Moon Landing Faked” group be given equal time with NASA administrators and astronauts?
        Should creationist scientists be given equal time with the most renowned evolutionary biologists in the world?
        Why should climate change deniers be given air time when they have as much credibility as a flat earth member?

        1. Why are you so opposed to “climate change deniers” being given air time? Of what are you afraid? If their ideas are as ludicrous as you claim, won’t that be evident in the free exchange of ideas?

          1. The well funded (by fossil fuel interests) to confuse the public will delay action and result in a more expensive solution. The longer we wait, the more damage will occur and the more difficult it will be to limit the damage. I am not afraid of what deniers say except that they occupy equal time on media outlets promoting the illusion that there is significant disagreement about the cause and risk of climate change. See the John Oliver skit

            You did not answer my question: Are you more knowledgeable than the people represented by the lists I posted above?

              1. Mr Thomas wrote >> Even the CSIRO’s annual survey last year showed that 53% of Australians reject the official story.

                The actual numbers were shown in the graph.
                There is a plethora of other sites that also contradict the statements of Mr. Thomas.

                It appears that Mr. Thomas wishes to join the other references you cite in publishing misleading information (lies).

                Given that nearly every source you have posted contains a lie, I will ignore your posts in the future because I get tired of noting the lies that your sources promote.

              1. A truly statistical poll was done by Pew Research in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. The result of that poll follows:

                84% of scientists believe that warming is caused by human activity
                10% of scientists believe that the cause of warming is natural processes
                04% of scientists believe that the earth is not warming.
                The 95% confidence level for the possible statistical error was 2.5%.

                Let’s see — The membership of the AAAS and affiliated organizations is about 10 million members. That indicates that 8.4 million scientists world wide agree with the IPCC conclusions.

                Why should anyone believe a claim that is contradicted by the positions of nearly every scientific organization, both in the US and the rest of the world? Can you answer this question?

                1. True scientific observation and provable reality are not dependent on mere consensus. The only thing your worthless polling indicates is a well funded political movement bordering on the fanaticism of a state religion. And I would better good money that you’re also an atheistic stooge. Hence your personal blind fanaticism. So there’s that.

                  1. The only well funded groups addressing climate science are the denier groups funded by the millions of dollars from the fossil fuel companies.

                    The results of research (observation, analysis, publication and replication) are published in peer reviewed journals. The published research on climate science overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the earth is warming (no only surface temperatures), the warming is mostly caused by the emissions of GHG’s associated with the burning of fossil fuels by humans and the risks of continued emissions is serious.

                    Human activities—especially the burning of fossil
                    fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution—have increased atmospheric
                    CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring
                    since 1970. Since 1900, the global average surface temperature has increased by
                    about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). This has been accompanied by warming of the ocean, a
                    rise in sea level, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and many other associated
                    climate effects. Much of this warming has occurred in the last four decades.
                    Detailed analyses have shown that the warming during this period is mainly a
                    result of the increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

                    The Royal Society and US National Academy of Science are two of the most respected science organizations in the world.

                    My posts contain none of my “personal fanaticism”. They do contain statements and research from the most respected scientists and organizations in the world. It appears you prefer to dismiss these sources. Why? Do you believe they are part of a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists, corporations, science organizations, and governments?

            1. So therefore, those pesky “climate deniers” must be censored! Thank you for admitting that. And no, I do not to justify my right to my opinion by submitting to your queries about my knowledge. Get over yourself. Neither of us is an arbiter of who should have access to forums for their ideas and conclusions. Thank God for the First Amendment, protecting us against would-be censors (who think their “common-good” schtick justifies censorship)!

              1. I am not suggesting anyone be censored. I am not suggesting that the first amendment rights of anyone be curtailed. I am suggesting the following.

                a) An informed electorate is crucial to maintaining a effective democracy.
                b) The news media have the privilege and responsibility (based on the first amendment) to inform the public.
                c) Definition of inform: to give or impart knowledge of a fact

                d) The news media should not provide a platform for the dissemination of information that is false or misleading (e.g., providing air time for a creationist to attack the theory of evolution without challenging every false statement).
                e) Morano and the other shills of the fossil fuel industry mislead the public and spread false claims, so why should the news media give them any exposure?

        2. More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

          Now – you’ll claim that they are not all climatologists – to whci I will counter with this:

          ‘Consensus’ claims challenged: Only 77 scientists
          were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement — ‘It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are’

          “Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the “consensus” view. But the survey does not hold up to scrutiny. See: ‘Consensus’ claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement — ‘It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are’ & Climate Con: 97% ‘Consensus’ Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-Selected Climatologists”

          1. There have been three different studies that came to similar conclusions.
            Oreskes (2004)
            Doran and Zimmerman (2009)
            Anderegg et al. (2010).

            The number of scientist and the number of peer reviewed peer reviewed papers are overwhelming supportive of the conclusions of the IPCC.

            Can you identify a single international science organization that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC?
            Can you explain why nearly every international science organization (e.g., AMS, AGU, AAAS) have published statements agreeing with the IPCC conclusions?
            Can you explain why you dismiss the statements of the National Academies of 80 countries?
            Do you believe the executives of the international companies I listed above that have accepted the IPCC conclusions are less knowledgeable than you?
            Are you more knowledgeable than the members and executives of all these entities?
            How can you compare the opinions of 1000 nondescript signers with the overwhelming support of nearly all international science organizations and large numbers of the executives of international corporations?

            1. Peer review is meaningless masturbatory hype in this age of overtly political activism disguised as scientism. And the IPCC is clearly in dispute:



              Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

              These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

              David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]

              Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]

              Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]

              Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]

              Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]

              Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

              Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]

              Garth Paltridge,
              retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric
              Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic
              Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]

              Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]

              Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]

              Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]

              Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]

              Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]

              Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]

              1. The list of scientists you provide is paltry compared to those I have cited. Individual contrarian scientists have little credibility when the science topic has a 150 year history. Many of those you list do not deny AGW, only that it is not as great a risk as most scientists believe. If these scientists have convincing evidence of their claims, why do the National Academies around the world take a different position? The most knowledgeable scientists in the world (members of more than 80 national academies) support the IPCC conclusions and take the position that the risk is imminent and significant.

                1. You and your rationalizations are a joke. The reality of observable factual evidence is not based upon a consensus of numbers. And the scientist I listed have impeccable credentials. And they are not a mere handful. Your only counter is that their numbers do not match the herd of political shills who are well funded by the political entities of activist groups and governments who promote this bilge.

            2. Golly Gee your vaunted IPCC experts are certainly powerhouses of scientific credibility! Behold their “expertise”:

              UN IPCC author: Antarctica’s abrupt glacial melting ‘greatly overestimated’

              Dr. Andrew Shepherd, an IPCC author who works at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, said the UOB study used calculations that appeared to have overlooked shifts in snowfall, noting that the “new estimates of ice loss computed (from the thinning of the ice) are far too high, because the glaciers in this sector just haven’t speeded up that much.”


              1. Dr. Shepard did not say that the ice sheet was growing. He did not say that the ice sheet was not shrinking. In fact he has co-authored number of papers that indicate that between 1992 and 2011 the melting of the ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland contributed about 11 mm to sea level. He may disagree with the rate that the paper in Science estimated, but he agrees that the ice sheets are shrinking.

              1. Rumors started by a known skeptic. When the majority of scientists in the work group resign, come tell me. Until then, cheery picking a few contrarian scientists here and there while ignoring the statements of international corporations, national academies, international science organizations, and the large majority (80% – Pew Poll) of scientists world wide is irrational.

                1. When their bloated funding stops – tell me. And provable scientific analysis (empirical evidence) does not rely on “consensus” and polling.

            3. You don’t seem to know much about peer review. You appear to not know the limitations of like-minded people, who have jobs to retain, in the less than honest academia of 2015.

              1. You make statements containing innuendo and slander with no credible evidence. Can you cite some climate scientists that claim their papers was rejected unfairly? Do you believe in other conspiracy theories (e.g., faked moon landing)?

                1. You are using and have been victimized by the “mocking conspiracy theory” ruse. When one has no evidence for their position they mock the other side hoping to make the other side appear unworthy of consideration. There is no proof that a changing climate is either bad or good. None. It is changing, has always been changing, and will always change. You have cut and pasted many documents without knowing their worth, and have come to the conclusion that they must be worth something because there as so many of them. The shotgun approach is not the some thing as the scientific method, is it? Aren’t you a bit curious about how these well-filtered by corrupt peer review, lost jobs for those who question research data methodology, power seeking scientists have been corrupted by the system. Believe me friend, I know much more about the system than you do. You merely pick the bones of the Establishment and spit it out.

                  1. Your opinion, just as mine, is worth nothing. What is worth something are statements by scientific organizations and the overwhelming number of climate scientists which you seem to dismiss. Why? Are you more knowledgeable than them? I just wasted my time because you don’t answer question, just spout useless personal opinions. Bye

      2. You claim that climate science is not settled. Personal opinion? Why should I consider your personal opinion when the National Academies (members are the most knowledgeable and capable scientists in the world) of 80 countries contradict it?
        Why should I consider it when there is not a single international science organization that disputes that the science is understood well enough to take action and nearly all agree that action needs to be taken immediately?
        Are you more knowledgeable than the people represented by the lists I posted above?

          1. First, it is a single study that has not yet been replicated, but has received some criticism which we will have to wait to see whether it is valid or not.
            Second, the study states that it may provide a “brief respite” to the continuing surface temperature rise because of the overturning of the Atlantic waters.
            Third, it does not state that the planet will be cooling, only the surface temperature (possibly – no guarantee).
            Because of the continued increasing concentration of GHG’s in the atmosphere and the diminishing Arctic sea ice coverage, the planet will continue to absorb more energy than it radiates into space (measurement verified by satellites). That means that the planet as a whole will continue to warm (with most of the heat being absorbed by the oceans).

            Name calling is not considered a mature behavior.

            1. First all the studies you cite are based upon the same faulty premise and flawed data.

              Second, that “brief respite” is ongoing and oh yeah – it was NOT predicted by your vaunted “experts”.

              Third, the fact that you have to parse the surface temperature as opposed to the collective temperature of the planet demonstrates how vacuous your scientism actually is. BTW did I mention that this “brief respite” was completely unforeseen by your libtard political activists disguised as “scientists”? Did I happen to mention that? Well yes. Yes I did.

              Forth, the arctic sea ice is not diminishing:

              Twenty Years Of ‘Unprecedented Melting’ Has Left Arctic Sea Ice Unchanged


              So once again – you’re a hyper-political moron posing as some sort of “science” novice, you’re a general idiot, you’re an overt libtard (but I repeat myself) and you’re using the picture of somebody’s long dead grandpa as your avatar profile pic. All of which makes you an overall @ssclown and a grand waste of time in here.

  5. How about this list of warmists?

    ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.
    Shell Oil: At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2,
    BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action
    General Electric: But global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise, putting the world on track for overshooting the 2ºC “safe” target and ending up in a 4ºC world. –
    IBM recognizes climate change is a serious concern that warrants meaningful action on a global basis to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    Other corporations accepting the IPCC findings:
    AES, Alcoa, Alstom, Boston Scientific Corporation, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Chrysler, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon Corporation, General Electric, Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, NextEra Energy, NRG Energy, PepsiCo, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, Weyerhaeuser, ABB; Air Products; Alcoa Inc.; American Electric Power; Bank of America; BASF; Baxter International Inc.; The Boeing Company; BP; California Portland Cement; CH2M HILL; Citi; Cummins Inc.; Deere & Company; Deutsche Telekom; DTE Energy; Duke Energy; DuPont; Entergy; Exelon; GE; Hewlett-Packard Company; Holcim (US) Inc.; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; Lockheed Martin; Marsh, Inc.; Novartis; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E Corporation; PNM Resources; Rio Tinto; Rohm and Haas; Royal Dutch/Shell; SC Johnson; Toyota; TransAlta; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool Corporation; and Wisconsin Energy Corporation.

    1. You missed Chicken Little. Might does not make right, and listing those who support an intrusion into our lives using very flawed computer modelling is in no way convincing. I’m not sure whether you are a co-conspirator or merely a hapless drone.

      1. Do you know of any international corporations that dismiss the IPCC conclusions?
        Do you have anything factual to contribute to the discussion?
        There are so many lines of analysis that prove that CO2 is warming the planet and that the risks of continued warming are serious that dismissing the results of models (which produce resonable results for the past, present and future) is of no consequence. The Arctic sea ice is shrinking, reflecting less energy back to space and allowing more to be absorbed by the dark ocean water. Glaciers around the world are melting and most are shrinking. Growing seasons are changing and species are migrating sooner and to higher latitudes.

        1. Do you remember the good ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy that went looking for evidence of melting ice caps and how the chagrined scientists had to be rescued when they became icebound because the Antarctic ice was thicker than usual? They were certain that that would not happen because their computer modeling data told them so. This is not science, this is alchemy. Do you recall the falsified data and shredded papers climatologists resorted to in order to make their case?

          1. Any reliable reference for your story or is it constructed by some denier web site?
            Regardless, the story has no significance give that there is no scientific basis for the claim. Winds in the Antarctic are variable and the movement of sea ice is often driven by the wind as happened to the Skokalskiy.
            Are you smarter than the members of the National Academies around the world?
            Have you been awarded a Nobel prize in science as many of the scientists in the National Academies have?
            Have you published any peer reviewed research result as every member of the National Academies have?
            If your answer is no to these questions, there is no reason for me to consider that your opinion has a fragment of credibility (my opinion is also unimportant). The opinion of a single or a few scientists are not important either. However the statements of nearly every scientific organization in the world are and they all assert that the climate is warming, that the primary cause is human caused emissions of GHG’s, that the risks of rising temperatures are very serious, and something needs to be done immediately.

            1. You can easily discover whether the story is true if you were so minded. Edward, you write like a robot who has been programmed. Is the baking earth Chicken Little disaster as serious as the population bomb and our starving during the 1970s? Oh. i’m sorry, it never did happen did it?

              1. You failed to answer my questions. Are you more knowledgeable about the science of climate change than the people and organizations I listed?

          2. WRONG………… again.

            XOF makes false accusations and their faithful blind followers spread the lies around for them.

            4. The ice surrounding the ship doesn’t mean that Antarctica’s not melting.

   reported that global warming skeptics have poked fun at the scientists, highlighting the irony of climate change scientists being trapped in ice.

            But expedition leader Chris Turney said that the team’s situation may have been in part due to warming oceans, which broke an iceberg into smaller pieces that the wind then swept against the ship, according to

            Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added by email that “any comments about overall ice shrinking or increasing are absurd in this situation.

            “In the Antarctic, the ice is not limited by land and it is well established that winds blow the ice around. Winds from the south, especially off the continent, carry ice away from the continent and create more ice behind, filling in any gaps.

        2. Mr Allan Daniel is noted for being wrong more times than not.

          Here is proof he’s a faithful FOX faux news adherent.

          4. The ice surrounding the ship doesn’t mean that Antarctica’s not melting.

 reported that global warming skeptics have poked fun at the scientists, highlighting the irony of climate change scientists being trapped in ice.

          But expedition leader Chris Turney said that the team’s situation may have been in part due to warming oceans, which broke an iceberg into smaller pieces that the wind then swept against the ship, according to

          Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added by email that “any comments about overall ice shrinking or increasing are absurd in this situation.

          “In the Antarctic, the ice is not limited by land and it is well established that winds blow the ice around. Winds from the south, especially off the continent, carry ice away from the continent and create more ice behind, filling in any gaps.

  6. “Climate denying” is such an asinine term, as if anyone is denying that climates exist. It is man-made climate change that we deny, based on scientific data.

  7. Well done, Mark. Your opponent unfortunately seemed quite weak on the facts and the science and, instead of addressing your arguments, relied on appeals to authority. I strongly hope that Pope Francis does not join hands with the United Nations and international politicians to attempt to regulate the weather and the world economy. As you said, all Catholics are (or should be) concerned about justice for the poor and for stewardship of God’s creation, but the science simply does not support their proposals.

  8. Kerry Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.
    Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
    “There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence,” Emanuel said. “I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered.”

    Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large.
    As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are
    increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other
    global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial
    economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and
    infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food
    costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing
    additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.
    These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty,
    environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable
    terrorist activity and other forms of violence.

Leave a Reply