Acton Institute Powerblog

Global Warming Consensus Watch, Volume I

Share this article:
Join the Discussion:

Welcome to the first edition of the PowerBlog’s new GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS WATCH, where we keep you up-to-date on the latest news about the ever-strengthening, nearly invincible consensus that climate change is 1) unnatural and 2) a massive catastrophe waiting to happen.

  • Another scientist off the reservation: Somebody has to start doing something about all these “scientists” who openly question the unshakable, indisputable consensus on global warming. Like this guy, for instance. What in the world could he be talking about here?

    Spencer contends there is not yet enough known about the Earth’s atmosphere to understand exactly what occurs naturally to stabilize the earth’s climate.

    “I don’t think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don’t know for sure how it happens…”

    Nonsense. Didn’t he see Al Gore’s movie?

  • Thank you sir, may I have another? Why certainly. Here’s Dr. Timothy Ball, a retired Canadian climatologist, on those climate models we hear so much about:

    As I have said for years, climate models are a useful but severely limited tool in the laboratory that must meet scientific responsibilities. Unfortunately, they are clearly not doing this, which is why we need an independent audit.

    When you go public and allow the output of the models to become the basis of global, national and regional policy there is a different set of responsibilities and these are definitely not being met.

    Worse, they are deliberately being manipulated and misused.

  • Balance = Bias: The potential catastrophe of global warming is too important to allow dissent on the issue in the media, according to Al Gore. And the major media seems to agree:

    Al Gore has complained that the media are biased against the inconvenient truth of global warming. “I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,” Gore told a “Media Ethics Summit” at Middle Tennessee State University back in February. Gore lectured journalists that any coverage of views opposed to his own was irresponsible, calling it “balance as bias.”

    It’s impossible to imagine the big TV networks actually accepting an edict from a conservative politician to report only their side of a major public policy issue, but a new Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS and NBC’s global warming coverage finds the networks are giving Gore practically everything he demanded. Not only does nearly every global warming story exclude any contrary voices, but the coverage of Al Gore personally has been exceptionally positive as well.

    It’s amusing to think that Gore could claim that his position on global warming hasn’t gotten a fair shake in the big media without being laughed out of the room. I think it’s much more in line with reality to say that the reason Al Gore even has a career these days is because the media has long ignored his calls to rid the world of the internal combustion engine or the fact that one can barely tell the difference between Gore’s environmentalism and the Unabomber’s (I scored a 25% on that quiz, by the way – you’re invited to drop your score into the comments).

  • The First Cut Is the Deepest: Noted environmental expert Sheryl Crow (who has a career as a recording artist on the side) used to like to soak up the sun. But she’s changed her ways, and what she sees now is not a pretty picture. The consensus on global warming is strong enough that she’s ready to advise us all to make some cuts – and it’s true when they say that the first cut is the deepest:

    Singer Sheryl Crow has said a ban on using too much toilet paper should be introduced to help the environment.

    Crow has suggested using “only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required”…

    …”I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming,” Crow wrote.

    “Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

    “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.”

    Now come on – this has to be a joke, right? No serious person would propose restrictions on how much toilet paper a person can use, right? It would be an understatement to say that this idea is “in the earliest stage of development.” For one thing, has she come up with a workable enforcement mechanism? The mind boggles. But this is a BBC article, not The Onion, so it at least has the faint odor of plausibility (no pun intended).

    On the other hand, the article also includes this tidbit:

    Crow has also commented on her website about how she thinks paper napkins “represent the height of wastefulness”.

    She has designed a clothing line with what she calls a “dining sleeve”.

    The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve” after the diner has used it to wipe his or her mouth.

    OK, there’s no way this is real. Unless somebody can point out to me evidence that Crow (or any other Hollywood celebrity) is actually using the “dining sleeve,” I’m just going to write this whole article off as a parody. After all, even climate change is trumped by vanity and hypocrisy in Tinseltown.

Marc Vander Maas


  • Dan VandeBunte

    I would limit my use of toilet paper to 3 or fewer squares if the companies that make the toilet paper would start making rolls that are 10 inches wide.

  • DennisA

    Re Cheryl Crowe:


  • Tom Hughes

    No one seems to listen to the folks who apply any common sense when it comes to all of the professional spokespeople who allow themselves to be used as the cannons for paradigm change without being responsible for the economic damagage they have so far wrought.Climate change today is just temporary and will abate.The climate modelers and theoretical boys have done egregious damage to the economy and the proper science of our earth.When this anomaly (which is a long term one ) gets done with our earth in a few short years,we will have been beat severely and so will our economy by using up all of the funds we should be setting aside to see us through the problems we are seeing now and the near future. This earth works actually completely different than the theory boys think.We get our oxygen influshed in constantly along with the other gases we need for a habitable planet.We are not running out of oxygen,although we are taxing it to some extent and need to reduce the processes that effect our ability for plants and humans/animals to breathe particulate free air as much as possible.But we could continue on and just insist on good emission controls everywhere and completely phasing out of our coal fired plants and survive completely intact for centurys. This old earth scientist says that the so called earth science majors who have been spoon/force fed the garbage of their theory of how our earth really works along with our processes in space that were specificially engineered for planet habitation by just men,let me repeat that for you,just men.Want to know how this place works,query me.

  • Marc Vander Maas

    Dan – you’re getting awfully close to a Too Much Information violation. Consider yourself warned.

  • Dan VandeBunte

    I was only kidding. I’ve been watching a lot of [Scrubs] lately and can’t seem to control the urge to have strange thoughts like that and then imagine them. Hooch is crazy…

  • Pingback: GWCW Master Climategate post « Acton Institute PowerBlog()