30 thoughts on “Bill Mckibben Crushes Denier on Bill Maher”
I watched the entire program – finally got to see this Frank Luntz guy who’s responsible for so much of the reframing language of the Teapublicans, e.g. “job creators”.
I have to say that, having read some of McKibben’s work, i expected him to be more articulate and informative and it was Maher himself that pointed out the main issue with ice loss.
I suspect a WUWTian counter that storms and extremes aren’t getting worse – they’ve been beating that drum for some time, focusing mostly on US records.
And crushing Mark Foley isn’t much of an achievement – he’s barely a court jester for the right wing.
McKibben did a really great job there. The ‘how do you replace Iowa?’ response was excellent, though I wish it had also been pointed out that uncertainty means we can’t rule out the worst scenarios (the lady sort of made that risk management point), and that taking action can benefit the economy.
That’s really the biggest point at this juncture. All climate denial is based on the premise that pricing carbon will hurt the economy, when in reality the opposite is true. Republicans are coming at this from a backwards economic perspective – that myth needs to be refuted. http://skepticalscience.com/johnson-hope-2012.html
Unfortunately the dim bulbs that ignored reality and decided AGW denial would be good strategy, misinformed and corrupted so many people, and roped in so many Republicans that the whole party now finds itself in a hole so deep that they can’t dig their way out of it without having to eat more crow than the planet can supply.
I do feel optimistic that we are reaching a turning point in public opinion – getting CNN to give some climate change coverage was a big step forward.
stay tuned. I talked to a well connected pollster in DC the other day who says there will be new numbers on climate awareness coming soon, that reflect the effects of this year’s extremes….
I’m wary and leery of people who board the bandwagon because of a few extremes – they’re just as likely to jump off if we get a couple “normal” or cold years.
Most of them forget about the “global” aspect of climate change; if they’re only forming an opinion based on local experience, that’s not much help.
I think there is more than that going on. there is evidence that people are putting together extremes of all kinds with climate change.
the current sea ice situation, and impending el nino, would raise the likelihood of more extremes in the coming year.
Loading...
I enjoy seeing deniers invent new arguments to prevent action and Will Cain’s carefully rehearsed argument was certainly original:
“[conservatism means] whatever action you take through collectivism and force, that you just be prudent about it…. The problem with environmental activism is you always.. extrapolate from the present… I have humility, I don’t know [what will happen 100 years from now], and I would suggest you [McKibben] don’t know what’s going to happen either. I have some conservatism about that massive collective action, that force.”
First of all, one might wonder where that ‘conservatism’ about massive collective action and force disappeared to when the subject was WMD in Iraq. Even now, the military is gearing up for climate change to be a national security threat in coming decades. Does Cain imagine their military planning doesn’t include ‘massive collective action and force’ [say, against climate refugees] ?
But, fundamentally, Cain is imagining that the human response to the challenges posed by global warming can arise organically via crustily independent innovators replacing Iowa farmland with, maybe, GMO hydroponics, or something. And he’s claiming that this makes him more ‘humble’ than McKibben, since he acknowledges human progress. To this I would respond that its not humility to so blissfully discount the lives of any living thing on the planet not capable of human-like innovation: sounds like arrogance. But, even within our limited scope, Cain is claiming that certain innovations, like adaptation techniques, are inherently conservative and thus, humble, while other innovations, like solar PV, windmills, and biofuels, are NOT conservative or humble. As for his fear of ‘collective action’, government support of fossil energy, nuclear, and fracking is well documented, and substantial.
I really wish Maher had called him out on the “humility” but he’s been a bit soft on the rightwingnuts and has allowed a few, such as Rehan Salam, SE Cupp, Ross Douthat and Ron Christie to spew at length.
Still, I do enjoy his show and that New Rules segment with a closing rant is probably the most entertaining thing on any talk show that I’ve ever seen.
I would like to have some “conservative” ideas about the reduction of CO2 (or any pollutant for that matter), if they don’t like the “collective” ideas they should come up with a real alternative or shut up.
I expect they do not have an alternative idea to reduce CO2 and thus they deny the problem.
In addition to agreeing with all the positive comments above, I particularly liked Maher’s point that it is only in the USA that Conservatives deny the reality of what is happening (it’s just a shame that this is not true)… I also thought McKibben could have made more of his point that “…climate change is not about politics; it is just physics.”
This is not a new thing for him – he’s been criticizing right-wing denialism and oil company meddling since 2002, as far as I can tell from his show.
He also had a closing rant on his show in Apr 2005 saying that we don’t pay enough for gas and should stop bitching and stop buying gas guzzlers ( I think his preferred term is F-you mobiles.)
Right — ice extent is really a “best case” indicator, and it is just now refrozen to a level similar to the 2007 minimum. By definition, since there is less time to freeze, the thickness and the volume and the “quality” of the ice will be lower.
The part that I find really weird about the two idiots on the desk is that they are having their arses handed to them in their hats and they sit there smiling and don’t even have the decency to feel shame. Are they so disonnected from reality that they can’t even recognise basic nuances in human communication exchanges? Or are they so arrogant that they think all the scientists, the other guests, Bill Maher and ALL of his audience are wrong?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Mr Magic Underpants gets to be president and his possibly loonier senators get a say in environmental and energy policy, your country will be a laughing stock. It will also have global ramifications given The USA’s position in world politics and also its contibution to environmental degradation thus far. Hopefully sanity will prevail.
This aspect of their behaviour impressed me too. They seem to be completely shameless. It is highly suggestive of, at best, a complete lack of self awareness and, at worst, insanity.
“Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”
Senator Inhofe;
“Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming because God won’t allow it to happen.
Rep Joe Barton:
“We Shouldn’t Regulate CO2 Because ‘It’s In Your Coca-Cola’ And ‘You Can’t Regulate God’”
{read at Climate Progress}
Rick Perry likens himself and other deniers to Galileo.
Perry and the rest are more like the religious authorities who persecued Galileo.
Barton operates a “philanthropic” foundation that actually serves as a front group to funnel energy company funds
Barton and Inhofe get more oil money than any other legislators, in the House and Senate, respectively.
GOP congressman Rohrbacher suggests trees cause global warming
This is a man, who by his own words, doesn’t know the difference between carbohydrates, hydrocarbons or CO2.
Speaker of the House Boehner says CO2 emissions nothing to worry about because humans breathe CO2 in and out.
Excuse me speaker, ever hear of the greenhouse effect?
Michelle Bachman says there have been no scientific studies showing CO2 is harmful.
—Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO
“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”
I guess they missed the 10,000 research papers (up to 2006)used in the 2007 IPCC report. There have been thousands more since then.
Sen Inhofe says its all a big hoax.
Sure Senator, the entire world scientific community is just trying to get more grant money.
And of course, Sen Inhofe (R Oklahoma) liked to invite science fiction writer Michael Crichton as an “expert witness” on climate change.
Apparently all you have to do is a write nonsense novel to be invited as an expert.
Speaker of the House – John Boehner
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”
No Mr Speaker. What is comical and pathetic is that you believe than any scientist would ever say such an absurd thing. Either that or you are playing to the low information voter.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
“CO2 Is A Natural Gas. Does This Mean That All Of Us Need To Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?”
Ever hear of the greenhouse effect? Apparently not.
Republican Joe Barton introduced Monckton to a U.S. House committee hearing as an expert witness on climate change
Barton (R-TX) describes Christopher Monckton
“as being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.”
Thanks for this list, sailrick. I have just watched a BBC journalist interviewing Donald Trump, in which it was hard to miss (in a cutaway) the word “Christ” on a banner behind him at a speaking engagement. I think I understand scepticism in the UK quite well and am fairly sure that, apart from one or two individuals within the Church itself, Christian fundamentalism is not a significant driver of scepticism here. Indeed, I suspect that people like James Delingpole would be horrified at the thought of being associated with such irrationality. However, it is clear that the same cannot be said for the USA…
I always like being lectured on arrogance by people who think the all-powerful creator of the universe loves THEM personally, and loves them more than other people on the planet.
Slightly off-topic but worth the deviation, I think… Conspiracy Road Trip is a series of BBC TV programmes presented by Irish comedian, Andrew Maxwell. This week (having tackled 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombing in the previous two programmes), he takes 5 die-hard creationists to the Grand Canyon etc., to see if he can make them re-consider their position (on Gen.1-2, Noah’s flood, humans coexisting with dinosuars, human evolution, and biogenesis). Not particularly surprisingly, he is confronted by an almost impenetrable “God Did It” brick wall: When told that no wooden boat the size of Noah’s Ark could possibly float they got very angry… Asked how Noah fitted whales into his Ark they just said they didn’t know (err, why would he have needed to?)… When confronted by a Christian geologist (and theistic evolutionist) they just questioned whether he was a real Christian… However, I thought their encounter with an Hominid specialist was the most interesting when he politely asked who bore Cain and Abel’s children… By the end of the programme, one of five admits that Creationism is silly and unnecessary (i.e. my opinion too)… If you decide to watch the whole thing, see if you can guess which one is persuaded to embrace reality… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
Next week’s programme is all about people who believe in UFOs (should be good too)…
One thing McKibbon might have mentioned is the comparison between the peak of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, and today. He did mention that scientists think the warming might reach 4C to 5C in this century.
To put that in perspective, there’s only about 5C difference between 20,000 years ago and today.
So how do the two deniers suppose we will adapt to a world as different from today, as was the height of the last ice age, only hotter. Or that much different from 100 years ago.
The loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up melting of land ice, and the melting of permafrost . Greatly increased wave action in the Arctic Ocean will eat away the land ice where it meets the sea.
And the consequences of this will be more climate disruption at lower latitudes.
I watched the entire program – finally got to see this Frank Luntz guy who’s responsible for so much of the reframing language of the Teapublicans, e.g. “job creators”.
I have to say that, having read some of McKibben’s work, i expected him to be more articulate and informative and it was Maher himself that pointed out the main issue with ice loss.
I suspect a WUWTian counter that storms and extremes aren’t getting worse – they’ve been beating that drum for some time, focusing mostly on US records.
And crushing Mark Foley isn’t much of an achievement – he’s barely a court jester for the right wing.
granted. still amusing, tho.
McKibben did a really great job there. The ‘how do you replace Iowa?’ response was excellent, though I wish it had also been pointed out that uncertainty means we can’t rule out the worst scenarios (the lady sort of made that risk management point), and that taking action can benefit the economy.
That’s really the biggest point at this juncture. All climate denial is based on the premise that pricing carbon will hurt the economy, when in reality the opposite is true. Republicans are coming at this from a backwards economic perspective – that myth needs to be refuted.
http://skepticalscience.com/johnson-hope-2012.html
Unfortunately the dim bulbs that ignored reality and decided AGW denial would be good strategy, misinformed and corrupted so many people, and roped in so many Republicans that the whole party now finds itself in a hole so deep that they can’t dig their way out of it without having to eat more crow than the planet can supply.
I do feel optimistic that we are reaching a turning point in public opinion – getting CNN to give some climate change coverage was a big step forward.
stay tuned. I talked to a well connected pollster in DC the other day who says there will be new numbers on climate awareness coming soon, that reflect the effects of this year’s extremes….
Looking forward to that and hoping it’ll make the climate card worth playing before the election.
I’m wary and leery of people who board the bandwagon because of a few extremes – they’re just as likely to jump off if we get a couple “normal” or cold years.
Most of them forget about the “global” aspect of climate change; if they’re only forming an opinion based on local experience, that’s not much help.
I think there is more than that going on. there is evidence that people are putting together extremes of all kinds with climate change.
the current sea ice situation, and impending el nino, would raise the likelihood of more extremes in the coming year.
I enjoy seeing deniers invent new arguments to prevent action and Will Cain’s carefully rehearsed argument was certainly original:
“[conservatism means] whatever action you take through collectivism and force, that you just be prudent about it…. The problem with environmental activism is you always.. extrapolate from the present… I have humility, I don’t know [what will happen 100 years from now], and I would suggest you [McKibben] don’t know what’s going to happen either. I have some conservatism about that massive collective action, that force.”
First of all, one might wonder where that ‘conservatism’ about massive collective action and force disappeared to when the subject was WMD in Iraq. Even now, the military is gearing up for climate change to be a national security threat in coming decades. Does Cain imagine their military planning doesn’t include ‘massive collective action and force’ [say, against climate refugees] ?
But, fundamentally, Cain is imagining that the human response to the challenges posed by global warming can arise organically via crustily independent innovators replacing Iowa farmland with, maybe, GMO hydroponics, or something. And he’s claiming that this makes him more ‘humble’ than McKibben, since he acknowledges human progress. To this I would respond that its not humility to so blissfully discount the lives of any living thing on the planet not capable of human-like innovation: sounds like arrogance. But, even within our limited scope, Cain is claiming that certain innovations, like adaptation techniques, are inherently conservative and thus, humble, while other innovations, like solar PV, windmills, and biofuels, are NOT conservative or humble. As for his fear of ‘collective action’, government support of fossil energy, nuclear, and fracking is well documented, and substantial.
I really wish Maher had called him out on the “humility” but he’s been a bit soft on the rightwingnuts and has allowed a few, such as Rehan Salam, SE Cupp, Ross Douthat and Ron Christie to spew at length.
Still, I do enjoy his show and that New Rules segment with a closing rant is probably the most entertaining thing on any talk show that I’ve ever seen.
I would like to have some “conservative” ideas about the reduction of CO2 (or any pollutant for that matter), if they don’t like the “collective” ideas they should come up with a real alternative or shut up.
I expect they do not have an alternative idea to reduce CO2 and thus they deny the problem.
Easy ostrich tactics 101….
In addition to agreeing with all the positive comments above, I particularly liked Maher’s point that it is only in the USA that Conservatives deny the reality of what is happening (it’s just a shame that this is not true)… I also thought McKibben could have made more of his point that “…climate change is not about politics; it is just physics.”
Bill Maher seems to actually care about climate change, unlike many other “liberal” voices in the media.
This is not a new thing for him – he’s been criticizing right-wing denialism and oil company meddling since 2002, as far as I can tell from his show.
He also had a closing rant on his show in Apr 2005 saying that we don’t pay enough for gas and should stop bitching and stop buying gas guzzlers ( I think his preferred term is F-you mobiles.)
It looks like the Arctic ice is just now refrozen up to the 2007 minimum? Or it will be there in a day or two.
Neil
That’s still only the extent, currently the least significant of the measures of ice quantity.
Even if there were some miraculous reversal, it would still be years before the volume recovered to the levels seen prior to 2005.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=10&sd=05&sy=2012
Right — ice extent is really a “best case” indicator, and it is just now refrozen to a level similar to the 2007 minimum. By definition, since there is less time to freeze, the thickness and the volume and the “quality” of the ice will be lower.
Neil
The part that I find really weird about the two idiots on the desk is that they are having their arses handed to them in their hats and they sit there smiling and don’t even have the decency to feel shame. Are they so disonnected from reality that they can’t even recognise basic nuances in human communication exchanges? Or are they so arrogant that they think all the scientists, the other guests, Bill Maher and ALL of his audience are wrong?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Mr Magic Underpants gets to be president and his possibly loonier senators get a say in environmental and energy policy, your country will be a laughing stock. It will also have global ramifications given The USA’s position in world politics and also its contibution to environmental degradation thus far. Hopefully sanity will prevail.
This aspect of their behaviour impressed me too. They seem to be completely shameless. It is highly suggestive of, at best, a complete lack of self awareness and, at worst, insanity.
GOP Rep. Shimkus:
“Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”
Senator Inhofe;
“Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming because God won’t allow it to happen.
Rep Joe Barton:
“We Shouldn’t Regulate CO2 Because ‘It’s In Your Coca-Cola’ And ‘You Can’t Regulate God’”
{read at Climate Progress}
Rick Perry likens himself and other deniers to Galileo.
Perry and the rest are more like the religious authorities who persecued Galileo.
Barton operates a “philanthropic” foundation that actually serves as a front group to funnel energy company funds
Barton and Inhofe get more oil money than any other legislators, in the House and Senate, respectively.
GOP congressman Rohrbacher suggests trees cause global warming
This is a man, who by his own words, doesn’t know the difference between carbohydrates, hydrocarbons or CO2.
Speaker of the House Boehner says CO2 emissions nothing to worry about because humans breathe CO2 in and out.
Excuse me speaker, ever hear of the greenhouse effect?
Michelle Bachman says there have been no scientific studies showing CO2 is harmful.
—Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO
“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”
I guess they missed the 10,000 research papers (up to 2006)used in the 2007 IPCC report. There have been thousands more since then.
Sen Inhofe says its all a big hoax.
Sure Senator, the entire world scientific community is just trying to get more grant money.
And of course, Sen Inhofe (R Oklahoma) liked to invite science fiction writer Michael Crichton as an “expert witness” on climate change.
Apparently all you have to do is a write nonsense novel to be invited as an expert.
Speaker of the House – John Boehner
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”
No Mr Speaker. What is comical and pathetic is that you believe than any scientist would ever say such an absurd thing. Either that or you are playing to the low information voter.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
“CO2 Is A Natural Gas. Does This Mean That All Of Us Need To Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?”
Ever hear of the greenhouse effect? Apparently not.
Republican Joe Barton introduced Monckton to a U.S. House committee hearing as an expert witness on climate change
Barton (R-TX) describes Christopher Monckton
“as being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.”
Monckton is NOT A SCIENTIST
In fact he’s a complete charlatan.
Thanks for this list, sailrick. I have just watched a BBC journalist interviewing Donald Trump, in which it was hard to miss (in a cutaway) the word “Christ” on a banner behind him at a speaking engagement. I think I understand scepticism in the UK quite well and am fairly sure that, apart from one or two individuals within the Church itself, Christian fundamentalism is not a significant driver of scepticism here. Indeed, I suspect that people like James Delingpole would be horrified at the thought of being associated with such irrationality. However, it is clear that the same cannot be said for the USA…
I always like being lectured on arrogance by people who think the all-powerful creator of the universe loves THEM personally, and loves them more than other people on the planet.
Slightly off-topic but worth the deviation, I think…
Conspiracy Road Trip is a series of BBC TV programmes presented by Irish comedian, Andrew Maxwell. This week (having tackled 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombing in the previous two programmes), he takes 5 die-hard creationists to the Grand Canyon etc., to see if he can make them re-consider their position (on Gen.1-2, Noah’s flood, humans coexisting with dinosuars, human evolution, and biogenesis). Not particularly surprisingly, he is confronted by an almost impenetrable “God Did It” brick wall: When told that no wooden boat the size of Noah’s Ark could possibly float they got very angry… Asked how Noah fitted whales into his Ark they just said they didn’t know (err, why would he have needed to?)… When confronted by a Christian geologist (and theistic evolutionist) they just questioned whether he was a real Christian… However, I thought their encounter with an Hominid specialist was the most interesting when he politely asked who bore Cain and Abel’s children… By the end of the programme, one of five admits that Creationism is silly and unnecessary (i.e. my opinion too)… If you decide to watch the whole thing, see if you can guess which one is persuaded to embrace reality…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
Next week’s programme is all about people who believe in UFOs (should be good too)…
One thing McKibbon might have mentioned is the comparison between the peak of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, and today. He did mention that scientists think the warming might reach 4C to 5C in this century.
To put that in perspective, there’s only about 5C difference between 20,000 years ago and today.
So how do the two deniers suppose we will adapt to a world as different from today, as was the height of the last ice age, only hotter. Or that much different from 100 years ago.
The loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up melting of land ice, and the melting of permafrost . Greatly increased wave action in the Arctic Ocean will eat away the land ice where it meets the sea.
And the consequences of this will be more climate disruption at lower latitudes.
Haha, everybody loves McKibben’s line at the end.