Daily Gut: Thank the Media for Climate Change Hysteria

So last Monday’s Gregalogue on the Climate Change conference caused a flurry of emails.

Well, not really a flurry.

More like twelve. But if climate change apostles can exaggerate facts, why can’t I?

Anyway, I got one missive, which I condensed, from a guy named Jonathan. It goes:

…the Gallup poll Mr. Gutfeld mentioned … on climate change took place in 1991…Climatology is still a relatively new science and progress in the last 18 years has been substantial. There has … been a good deal of skepticism among scientists…and more recent polls show that this research has changed most of their minds. It is irresponsible to cite a poll almost 20 years old without noting it.

Jonathan then cited a poll where a large majority of respondents accept human activity as a global warming cause.

Fair enough – but Johnny, my Gregalogue was about how critical viewpoints regarding global warming hysteria aresuppressed in favor of opinions kowtowing to pre-ordained, biased assumptions. That’s why I asked if any one had heard of this Gallup Poll revealing heavy skepticism. It didn’t matter when that poll was published, only that it was dismissed by people like you.

But you’re right, there has been more research since then. Take that infamous “Hockey stick” chart – you know, the graph that showed flat temperatures for centuries, then suddenly in the last century, rises sharply like the end of a hockey stick. Global warming apostles once called it proof of recent, devastating human-caused global warming.

On closer examination though, experts found that real, very old instances of global warming had been erased in order to make it look like the planet was heating up now.

Oddly, we all heard about this amazing, conclusive evidence when it first came out. But when it was later revealed to be a piece of crap?

Nothing.

Look, there are more examples of bias that I can give you – but you’re right – this is a new science, which is exactly why this hysteria is so criminal. The fact is, if a scientific conclusion is embraced well before the science is thoroughly examined – and then infected with a sense of overzealous activism by folks with a thirst for recognition and power – it’s no wonder that critical viewpoints are ultimately “smoothed out,” like discrepancies on a hockey stick chart.

Anyway, Jonathan, thanks for the letter and the photos.

I hope we’re still on for lunch.

Tonight we have Anthony Cumia from Opie and Anthony, the lovely Remi Spencer and the always awesome Jonathan Hoenig!