2011-05-04 16:21:09Epic fail


Have you already seen this:

"The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's Getting Cooler"

Synder argues that the world is cooling down instead of warming:

"The climate is changing alright, but it's getting cooler - not warmer.  At this point, the only way to have missed that fact is to have bought into the liberal progressive lie that global warming is destroying the planet so completely that you refuse to even consider evidence calling it into question. "

Now check his sources. Priceless ;-)


h/t  Peter Hartmann

2011-05-04 17:12:37
Mark Richardson

America's in trouble if that's their style of 'thinker'.

2011-05-04 18:11:46
Paul D


Google translation of the German link:


2011-05-04 18:13:38


When Snyder says that the climate has been changing "since day one" he means it literally.  He's a young earth creationist!  Check his cv at the bottom of the article, then check his cv here:



I'm pulling some research together which shows that some of the people funded by the fossil fuels lobby are in bed with key young earthers and actually get their 'science' from that source.

The bottom line for young earthers is that since coal and oil aren't fossil fuels - they formed during the Noachian flood - the rate at which we are using them isn't a problem.  This means that these people - many of whom, such as Sarah Palin and Gary Goodyear, are politicians - are completely blind and deaf to the scientific argument that we are putting into the atmosphere over a couple of centuries the carbon which nature took out over millions of years.


Key memes from young earthers:

plants love CO2.

humans can't change the climate.

climate has always changed.

climate science is a religion.


They really believe that last part.  From their blinkered perspective, anyone who doesn't accept their cherry-picks from the Bible - usually the KJV version - is some sort of pagan.


The really devious part of all this is that if you try to say that their personal beliefs affect their views of science, they play the religious freedom trump card.


btw - I am religious.  However, I don't let anyone else tell me how to think about what the Bible says.  I own a Bible and I can read.  I follow no prescribed creed, but if I have a creed it can be found in Micah 6:8.

2011-05-04 19:20:26


The reference to SkS was cute:

2011-05-05 01:53:02letter to the editor
Dana Nuccitelli

Thanks for posting this, Martin.  I wrote the following letter to the American Thinker editor.


In his article posted on American Thinker on April 22nd, The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's Getting Cooler, Neil Snyder attempted to make the case that the planet is cooling.  

In his supposed supporting evidence, his second link was to an article I wrote for the climate science blog Skeptical Science entitled "Are we heading into global cooling?".  The answer in the article was "obviously not," and it discusses the fact that no climate scientists are predicting global cooling.

It boggles my mind that Mr. Snyder took this article as evidence that the planet is cooling.  It also distrurbs me that the American Thinker editors apparently did not bother to fact check this article before publishing it, and that every single piece of "evidence" in the article comes from blogs.

Regardless, I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of my article, and request that you remove the reference to it from Snyder's.

2011-05-05 02:27:15SkS reference removed
Dana Nuccitelli

Wow, quick response.


Dear sir or madam.

I have removed the hyperlink to your article. I would note that the author was discussing the refusal “to even consider evidence calling it into question.”

You did in fact consider calling it into question, and came to your own conclusion, so strictly speaking, the author was accurate. Nonetheless, as you object, I have removed the link.


Thomas Lifson, PhD


2011-05-05 03:44:38
Alex C


I don't understand what the editor is saying.  The writer most certainly did use those sources as supporting "evidence" that global cooling is happening - did Lifson even look into your complaint, or just comply?  What part, exactly, was the author correct about?  He asserted that the only way to conclude the Earth was warming was to ignore all evidence against it - if you (Dana) did consider the evidence though and concluded warming was happening, then how in the world can the editor say that the author's assertion was correct?  "Strictly speaking," the author has no clue what he's talking about.  Apparently, neither does the editor.


No comment.

2011-05-05 03:47:27
Alex C


Perhaps I am too harsh, he did cooperate politely.  Maybe my perception of him is biased due to the article and the website's reputation of being, well, wrong and unsupported.

2011-05-05 04:38:56
Dana Nuccitelli

Well, they claim the premise of the article is that "liberal progressives" don't consider the evidence.  Then they say "consider this information" (the blog links) without discussing what "this information" is.

It's really a very confusing (and confused) piece.  On the one hand the premise is that the atmosphere is cooling.  On the other hand, it seems to argue that we "liberals" are ignoring the evidence (where evidence = denialist blogs).  I'm not sure they even know what they're trying to argue.

I got a follow-up email from Snyder which focused on the Oregon Petition, so I gather his main point is that there's a "debate" that's being ignored.  But as I pointed out in my reply, the Oregon Petition, aside from being worthless, doesn't claim the atmosphere is cooling.

"American Thinker" is clearly a misnomer.  But at least they complied with my request.