Idiotic assertion(s) of the day courtesy of NPR:

…on Tuesday night’s All Things Considered, Harris was followed by NPR substitute anchor Guy Raz lamenting to Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern that “we are the only major country in the world that is still debating whether or not climate change is real.” That’s apparently a serious embarrassment compromising our “leadership” role:

RAZ: Todd Stern, let me ask you about what you experience when you go to these climate conferences. Among other things, we are the only major country in the world that is still debating whether or not climate change is real. Do people ask you when you go to these conferences, you know, where is U.S. leadership on this issue?

STERN: I don’t think they ask so much where U.S. leadership is because I think people have seen President Obama in action. But I think people are quite befuddled by what they see in the U.S., in terms of the level of skepticism and even denial of basic science. Global warming is happening, humans are clearly contributing factors, and we have to act to control it. I think most people understand that.

Maybe these guys think it’s so hot and oxygen depleted because their heads are rarely seen anywhere except up their asses. According to the latest Angus/Reid survey on climate change opinions in various countries, the US does not have all the climate change deniers:

Since 2009, Angus Reid Public Opinion has conducted five three-country surveys on global warming. The latest poll outlines one of the lowest proportions of believers in man-made climate change ever recorded in Canada (52%). Still, Canadians are more likely than Americans or Britons to both believe in emissions as the primary source of global warming and to choose environmental protection over economic growth.

In the United States, despite the economic crisis, belief in man-made global warming has reached the high level that was observed before the so-called “climate-gate” controversy. In addition, the proportion of Americans who brand climate change as an unproven theory fell by five points, the biggest fluctuation observed in the past three years.

Britain has become the main source of skepticism, with the lowest proportion of believers in man-made global warming, and with a third of Britons acknowledging that they would foster economic growth even at the risk of damaging the environment—the largest proportion observed in all three countries.

As for “deniers,” not everybody is a climatologist, but most people do know how to read emails. Being able to comprehend Al Gore’s pet scam doesn’t require a science degree — just a bullshit detector.


17 Responses to “NPR Tools Claim US is Only Major Country That Still Has Climate Deniers”

  1. SignPainterGuy on November 30th, 2011 7:49 pm

    With all the anecdotal and real scienterific evidence that global warming is not happening, has not for 13 years or so, that 12+ times as many scientists say global warming is a hoax as opposed to The Goricle`s measly 2,500 sciency folk, I find it incredulous that anyone would still push the idea, much less fall for it !

    My BS meter has been pegged since I first heard of Al "I invented the internet" Gore !

  2. SignPainterGuy on November 30th, 2011 7:51 pm

    What is NPR ? No Pertinent Reasoning ?

  3. Marshall_Will on November 30th, 2011 7:57 pm

    "RAZ:( Kneepads strapped tight! ) Todd Stern, let me ask you ( g@g/g*bble ) about what you experience ( looks up longingly ) when you go to these climate conferences. Among other things (well, other than getting to meet hunky Julian Assange in person! ) , we are the only major country in the world that is still…"

    Geez, get a cigarette w/ that? Gives new meaning to the word tool. Sorry guys, whatever that is, it isn't journalism.

  4. backwoodsconsr on November 30th, 2011 7:59 pm

    Actually, I have considerable understanding of the scientific method. That's why I knew right away that climatology is too young of a science to have the level of certainty the global bullshitters are claiming.

  5. Marshall_Will on November 30th, 2011 8:33 pm


    Thank you.

    No secret I'm a huge fan of guitar and it's just -now- at a little over 80 years old, there's enough data for builders to draw from.

    We're not talking 1,500 or 15,000 'scientists'. Millions and millions of players w/ axes stamped out and put into all kinds of environments.

    "Running the model" 100's of millions of times! This is a chunk of wood, 6-strings, 2 ( or 3 ) pickups and some fret wire. Variables are infinitely more confined. Yet AGW can tell us "with certainty!"…? And yes, we've had as long to play w/ compuers as they have.

    In fact, it wasn't until the advent of digital technology that we could move past the subjective and into the concrete? When a consensus forms, we'll let you know?

  6. SignPainterGuy on November 30th, 2011 8:36 pm

    They can`t predict weather accurately 5 days out; I`m supposed to believe they can predict it decades from now ?

  7. Marshall_Will on November 30th, 2011 9:22 pm

    Better yet! Why pull your hair out?

    Misposted anyway. The 'electric' guitar is approx. 80 y.o, non-electric versions date back to the 1300's. Unlike a cloud or storm front, you didn't have to worry about it moving off on you?

    700 hundred years of hands on application and we can't agree on what headstock angle provides max. tune-ability and at the same time, min. strain on the neck! I'm talking knock-down drag-out fights. At least we are free to disagree without fear of being blackballed or have your funding cut off?

    What's the new series, The History of Everyday Things? I'll bet you can't get kool-aid guzzlers to sit down for 30 sec's w/ you before they make their biases altogether too obvious.

  8. backwoodsconsr on November 30th, 2011 9:31 pm

    Thanks for the correction. My first thought at seeing the earlier post was that surely it's older than that.

    I can't claim a real depth of knowledge, but my favorite instrument is piano, with great fondness for harpsichord.

  9. Hyperfobea on December 1st, 2011 9:06 am

    When science becomes a tool of propaganda—or worse, itself dogma—it deserves skepticism because it ceases to be true science. Just look at where macroevolution has taken the 85% so-called Christian United States … to an almost complete loss of faith. You have truth on one hand, theory masquerading as science on another and what the spiritually bemused call a happy meeting somewhere in the middle—-right in the midst of truth and fiction. It's all quite lamentable to see just how gullible and ignorant people can be. I've had enough of snake oil hawkers. Hey America, macroevolution is no more a scientific fact than uniformitarian geology or anthropogenic gloabl warming. The facts are in, and the data to draw the conclusion purported as fact is decidedly ABSENT.

  10. LB1901 on December 1st, 2011 12:33 pm

    "All Things Considered?"

    All things??

    Except debunking bad science, of course.

  11. Marshall_Will on December 1st, 2011 1:11 pm


    Take heart. This past June at our SIL's commencement ceremony the Dean of OSU blathered on about Green Jobs and the future of sustainable/alternative/junk science 'energy'. All to thunderous yawns ( and a handful of well deserved boo's! )

    We were in the cheap seats and you could tell he was embarrassed, annoyed and humiliated in one fell swoop. The parents got the memo evidently he didn't? So the tide is turning, even in deep blue, ultra lib Oregon.

    I read the Catholic church is updating the interpretation of Latin during the mass in order to be more biblically correct and more in keeping w/ the original intent. After years of straying from the basic theological message and embracing every Lib-genda in the book, it appears the Vatican has gotten the memo too.

    Has anyone attended the new mass? I hear they have cheat sheets so you needn't worry!

  12. Dexter_Alarius on December 1st, 2011 1:48 pm

    Or anything remotely Conservative.
    I'm pretty sure the 'P' in NPR stands for Propaganda.

  13. SignPainterGuy on December 1st, 2011 3:11 pm

    "Propaganda" delivered in large part by the BBC ! At taxpayers` expense !

  14. Hyperfobea on December 1st, 2011 3:52 pm

    Ha ha, fluffy stuff, MW. All that marshmallowy goodness makes me feel like confessing that I'm a proponent of teleportation as a method of clean transportation.

    As for the Catholic Church as represented in the MSM through Rome, the Curia, the papacy, and others holding its sacred orifices (yup, including the pederasts), it ceased to be catholic in the middle of the last century (aside: sorta like America ceased to be the Land of the Free even before then).

    Alas and alack. But all this is providential, God's permissive will working to open eyes and hearts and, failing that, turning a deaf ear to weeping and bruxism.

  15. backwoodsconsr on December 1st, 2011 7:28 pm

    The global warming hoax is driven by politics. Opposition to evolution tends to come from religious beliefs. Religious belief is one of the stongest sources of bias there is. There are many religious people who accept the evidence for evolution, but I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who stood against evolution for anything other than religious reasons.

    There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Your refusal to accept it doesn't change that.

  16. SignPainterGuy on December 1st, 2011 8:14 pm

    I am one of those who cannot believe in evolution on religious grounds, but Darwin placed his research under suspicion w/ his first letter to Cambridge when he wrote, "I did not use Regular and Accepted Methods of Scientific Research, I did it my way. If one does use R&AMSR, he will likely reach different conclusions." (paraphrased) He was at least up-front about that !

  17. backwoodsconsr on December 1st, 2011 8:47 pm

    Anyone who prefers to go the religious route is free to do so. I have no quarrel with that so long as they acknowledge that is what they are doing, as you just did. But I have seen a lot people argue against evolution on the basis of pseudoscientific nonsense that only serves to tell some people what they want to hear. That I disagree with.

    One of the things any good scientist will do when he comes up with a hypothesis of how something works is to try to knock it down, to prove it wrong. He'd better try hard because he can rest assured other people will be trying hard too. People have been trying to knock evolution down for 150 years. It's still standing. That says something. And just in case anyone believes that scientists aren't trying, there would be a Nobel prize and great fame awaiting anyone who could conclusively prove evolution wrong.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.