Bill Clinton Slams GOP Climate Deniers During Global Initiative Conference

"We look like a joke, right?" Former President Bill Clinton wasted no time at his annual philanthropic conference with an attack on GOP climate deniers.

At the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual NYC meeting, Politico reports that the former president said, "If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial ... I mean, it makes us – we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that the scientists are right?"

Clinton went on to say that the U.S. needs to debate more over strategies to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

TreeHugger reports:

"If you listen to Rush Limbaugh," Clinton said, and "he tells you that climate change is a hoax ... If you don't know better, if you haven't seen better," then you'll likely continue to deny the science. "You have to change the experience of people."

Many GOP presidential candidates have questioned evolution and climate change, including Rick Perry, who told New Hampshire voters, "I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change."

Not all GOP candidates disagree with scientists. During a Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, Jon Huntsman said, "When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call to question evolution, all I'm saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science."

According to the Associated Press, Clinton also discussed at the conference which countries were most likely to suffer next from climate change, saying, "I think it's quite possible that the Maldives won't be here in 30 or 40 years."

Clinton's remarks come on the heels of Former Vice President Al Gore's climate change campaign, "24 Hours of Reality." In an interview with HuffPost's Tom Zeller, Gore said, "The greatest opportunity for change lies in the hearts of those who have rejected the science but who are right now asking themselves a question ... Have they been fooled by the oil companies and the coal companies? Have they been taken for a ride by the large polluters who have been putting out misinformation?"

Comments

[HP-reader]

01:23 PM on 09/25/2011

RE: ... 'Why isn't something being done to eliminate THIS threat?'
Because CO2 is very stable and difficult for artificial processing (it decomposes without a catalyst at 3000°C). Its cleaning ranges from ineffective to pointless. It is the Endgame (it was the Endgame on Mars, it was the Endgame on Venus, and as it goes it will be the Endgame here as well). Cleaning up the planet from the redundant CO2 and returning it to its flourishing state requires to switch over to another energy source (the most lucrative of which being the energy of our star - the solar energy in all its forms). Making such switch over requires to put effort and also to abandon the 'sliding down the water slide' (fast and easy profits and waste of resources), and to start 'climbing up to the top'. Although most of the people agree in principal that it is much better to put some effort into the better future rather then leaving an inheritance of a devastated planet, when it comes to implement this in practice they prefer sliding down without reasoning.
When and if they start thinking and see that within a radius of 1 000 AU around us there is nothing like our planet even at first approximation maybe it will be worth the effort.

[islandtelecom]

12:48 PM on 09/24/2011

Global warming or climate change (whatever you want to call it) is happenimg; whether you believe it's manmade or not is really immaterial. Global warming could, and appears now, to be leading to the end of the human speices (good riddance, humans are an obvious malignant and terminal cancer on this planet). It's interesting to note, however, that in spite of this obvious threat to this country (and all of mankind), very little is being done; at least here in the U.S. However, if there is a 1% chance of a "militatry" threat to this country it is mandatory to take decisive action to elliminate that threat immediately . Why isn't that rule in affect now? It's becoming painfully obvious that the devastation from these storms, droughts, fires & floods are more of a threat than some rag-tag middle eastern army. Is the distruction of this country and the death of its citizens somehow okay if it's by natural disaster? Why isn't something being done to elliminate THIS threat?

[enkrypt3d]

04:47 PM on 10/14/2011

well said!!

[Publicola]

11:22 AM on 09/23/2011

"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

-- Isaac Asimov, from "The Relativity of Wrong"

---------------------------------------

ABQ-Mike: "Scientists are not God, in spite of the fact that global warmers think they are."

Got science-denier straw men? Why yes, you do.

ABQ-Mike: "In fact, scientists are always wrong - about everything! If there is one thing scientists themselves have proven beyond any doubt it is that they, themselves, are always wrong. Every scientific theory ever invented has ultimately been proven wrong, or will be. In fact, Einstein's general theory of relativity, upon which a huge chunk of "modern" science is based, has just been proven WRONG!!!"

That statement is so fundamentally misleading and utterly misguided on so many levels that it is impressive, for lack of a better word.

First off, the report that some particles have been observed traveling faster than the speed of light needs to be independently confirmed before it is regarded as scientifically established as correct.

Second, even if it is independently confirmed that the speed of light has been "broken" that wouldn't "prove" that the Theory of Relativity is "wrong" -- that is, "wrong" in the sense that the theory is completely and "always" wrong -- in any event. 

continued...

[Publicola]

11:35 AM on 09/23/2011

...continued

That Relativity exists is scientific fact. Relativity has been independently confirmed in innumerable scientific experiments; moreover devices such as your GPS would not work if Relativity did not exist.  Which is to say we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Theory of Relativity is in large measure correct, even if some aspects of it are now or at some later date demonstrated to be incorrect.  If it is confirmed that, for example, some particles do travel faster than the speed of light then the Theory of Relativity will be not be overturned or rejected but instead modified to incorporate the new information. 

That is what science does, and is one of the fundamental differences between science and religious dogma: scientific theories are modified to accommodate scientific evidence as it comes in.

ABQ-Mike: "This is going to come as a crushing blow to those who put their "faith" in the religion of science."

Those who understand that science is not a religion also understand that science -- far from being "always wrong" -- continually progresses and its findings get more refined and "complete" as time moves forward.

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it in his excellent essay "The Relativity of Wrong":

"Naturally, the [scientific] theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete."

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

[Publicola]

11:51 AM on 09/23/2011

More from Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I RECEIVED a letter the other day... In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science...

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight...

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong...

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong...

When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

continued...

[Publicola]

11:52 AM on 09/23/2011

...Asimov, continued

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile...

continued...

[ILoveFiction]

11:11 AM on 09/23/2011

We all know that all heat is stored in the thin layer of the atmosphere where we put all the thermometers.

That's just about all the misinformation you need to understand Dr. O NO!

[FrankLuchan]

11:42 PM on 09/22/2011

Fortunately for all of us Dr. Trenberth has confirmed that there was no warming from 1998 to 2010 in his recent paper at NCAR.

Well, according to him, the warming is deep in the oceans and is unverifiable, but at least he thinks he knows why there was no warming for a decade.

Wow, Dr. Trenberth just admitted to the entire world, ahead of the 5th assement report that there is no global warming? Wow!

So my question is this, if there was NO warming for a decade and we really can't verify that there was any warming, then what is billy saying that we are denying again?

If there is one thing Dr. Trenberth's paper proves, it proves THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED.

[ChartreuseMuse]

02:20 AM on 09/23/2011

Did you actually READ the article? Not just the abstract or the FN cliff notes?

[FrankLuchan]

09:58 AM on 09/23/2011

Sure. Read both.

The basis for the research is to explain the satellite record which recorded NO WARMING.

Kaufmann and Trenberth have both come up with great theories as to why there was NO WARMING.

But the fact of both papers is, they are attempting to explain why there is NO WARMING.

Folks with little ability to see beyond their pagan religion 'GAIA' can not understand this so I'd suggest they bury their heads back in that box of sand they keep close by that helps them all get through the day.

[Publicola]

12:39 PM on 09/23/2011

FrankLuchan: "Read both."

In which case, you FrankLuchan know this statement of yours is a lie:

FrankLuchan: "Wow, Dr. Trenberth just admitted to the entire world, ahead of the 5th assement report that there is no global warming? Wow!"

Try reading the Meehl 2011 paper (what you call "Dr. Trenberth's paper") again, Frank, and for comprehension this time.

[ILoveFiction]

06:16 AM on 09/23/2011

Thank you for misleading us.

[FrankLuchan]

10:00 AM on 09/23/2011

I know, anyone who rejects the dogma of 'GAIA' is misleading and should be branded a heretic.

Sorry. Simply don't accept your pagan religion. Particularly when it is actually proven WRONG by science.

[Publicola]

12:41 PM on 09/23/2011

FrankLuchan: "Particularly when it is actually proven WRONG by science."

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."

-- John Lennon

[ABQ-Mike]

08:06 PM on 09/22/2011

Global warmers give far too much credence to scientists. Scientists are not God, in spite of the fact that global warmers think they are. In fact, scientists are always wrong - about everything! If there is one thing scientists themselves have proven beyond any doubt it is that they, themselves, are always wrong. Every scientific theory ever invented has ultimately been proven wrong, or will be. In fact, Einstein's general theory of relativity, upon which a huge chunk of "modern" science is based, has just been proven WRONG!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-by-scientists.html

This is going to come as a crushing blow to those who put their "faith" in the religion of science.

Tough!

[ILoveFiction]

08:18 PM on 09/22/2011

That sure will crush them.

I don't know why they ever thought scientists would understand science in the first place.

[ABQ-Mike]

09:08 PM on 09/22/2011

The nature of science is supposed to be to question everything and never accept anything as absolute and yet, many, so called, scientists and many who imagine that scientists know everything are so willing to believe the issue of human induced global warming has been settled when, in fact, there is tremendous room for doubt as well as substantial evidence that climate data has been manipulated to reflect the desires of scientists receiving huge sums of grant monies.

That is my point. To encourage more open mindedness is my desire.

[Publicola]

12:46 PM on 09/23/2011

ABQ-Mike: "there is... substantial evidence that climate data has been manipulated to reflect the desires of scientists receiving huge sums of grant monies."

Lie.

That is, unless you are referring to prominent global warming "skeptics" including Bob Carter and Don Easterbrook.

[Dardedar]

10:00 PM on 09/22/2011

"scientists are always wrong - about everything­!">>

Said the man tapping away on his scientific computer.

Faster than light claims come out about every six months and have for decades. Then they go away. Kind of like denier claims. This instance may be different, but precedent doesn't make it very likely.

[chrisd3]

11:38 PM on 09/21/2011

Folks, I have rarely seen such perfect examples of the classic Internet troll as the two individuals who are currently polluting this page (or maybe it's just one guy with two accounts).

He/they have no interest whatsoever in an adult discussion. He/they are just here to stir the pot, and for no other reason. He/they will disagree vehemently with ANYTHING you say, just for the reaction. He/they think it's funny or clever or amusing or something. Sadly, it's just infantile and boring.

Any further responses are a total waste of time and only indulge the children in their imaginary victories.

[MikeWebster]

12:19 AM on 09/22/2011

By the way - I never debate deniers in order to convince them. I only do so to make sure their cretinous drivel doesn't go unchallenged with any poor innocents who may just happen to be reading what they say.

[Impulse725]

01:20 AM on 09/22/2011

Yep. They're lost causes, it's for people who may actually be curious. Plus, it's fun!

[gallon]

02:02 AM on 09/22/2011

Mark Andre exhibits classic denier robot behavior. Never actually discusses anything. Cannot hold a technical thought. Freely spreads gibberish and confusion about.

Conclusion: Mark Andre is somehow connected to the professional denier campaign run by Heartland and others. The professional denier campaign is funded by Big Energy, who really really want to keep things just as they are so that Big Energy can extract a few more trillion in profits. We'll worry about any consequences later on. Need a new category for tornadoes and hurricanes, category 6? We'll worry about that when we come to it. Such an event has never happened therefore there is no need to be concerned.

98% of the scientists agree that this is very serious? Naah, what do they know. Right, deniers? It is only a scam, right deniers?

[storeysound]

02:16 AM on 09/22/2011

Of course at one point 99.9% of scientists denied evolution. The difference is when science PROGRESSES toward near-universal acceptance of a theory through continuing research and observation, as with climate change. Deniers are willfully ignorant and are just engaging in wishful thinking. They hope that climate change will progress slowly enough that they will be able to extract every possible dollar from the environmental resources and die of old age before it really becomes problematic.

[jimboy71]

10:22 PM on 09/21/2011

No matter how many we slay, they come back, worse than before.

[Mark Andre]

10:27 PM on 09/21/2011

You slayed someone? No wait, when you called me honey, oooh thats what that was, other than that your just a drive-by poster! Gee just like the one above, whats the odds of that!?!

[jimboy71]

10:32 PM on 09/21/2011

Look.

You don't even read the links you post, nor do you understand them. Most of what you write is unintelligible gibberish, and you have been told so by multiple posters.

You're not worth more than a drive by.

[MikeWebster]

10:38 PM on 09/21/2011

I think the word is slew. And by the way, your post - more gibberish.

[Dardedar]

09:46 PM on 09/21/2011

Let's review, with 4 examples, how deep the scientific consensus is:

1) "All scientific bodies of national or international standing agree with the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2) "At the 2008 Future in Review Conference, Harvard professor James McCarth, former co-chair of the IPCC, was asked how many of the world's top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in green house gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures.
He replied, "Five."
http://www.davidbrin.com/climate2.htm

3) "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers... show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the IPCC..."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

4) "A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. She... analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Those who deny climate change are in a position where all of the science is against them. Not a good place to be.

[Mark Andre]

09:56 PM on 09/21/2011

I ahd a choice of allot of diff Graphs for you, but picked this one!

Dans Wild Wild Sceince Journal
http://wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/2010/07/ice-core-at-neem-approaching-greenland-bedrock/

It has all the data lines and you can click on it to expand it, so if even this site proves your hailed list wrong, whats the problem? ROLOL!

[ubrew12]

10:05 PM on 09/21/2011

Here's a quote from the wildwildweather.com site you linked to: "In spite of what you may have heard, scientists are no longer debating whether the Earth is warming, or if humans are causing it. The definitive answer to both questions is settled. It’s yes."

[jimboy71]

10:09 PM on 09/21/2011

"We are without doubt fiddling with the Earth’s thermostat".

How again do you get your conclusion from this site? Are you illiterate?

[battlerooster14]

04:13 AM on 09/22/2011

Unggh! Dullard Alert....Dullard Alert !!!

[jimboy71]

03:22 PM on 09/22/2011

It crows like one too.

[v650]

09:17 PM on 09/21/2011

Since the weather forecasters can not even predict what the temp will be within about 3 degrees for tomorrow how can they possible predict the temp in 10 years?

[ILoveFiction]

09:22 PM on 09/21/2011

That's a great question.

Tell us what you learn when you get the answer.

[v650]

09:26 PM on 09/21/2011

I already know the answer 42 that and global warming is bS

[Dardedar]

09:28 PM on 09/21/2011

"can not even predict what the temp">>

This is denier canard #59.

"Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail."

Learn about this difference here: http://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

[v650]

09:45 PM on 09/21/2011

Yeah who needs details? Just make it up, its called global warming right, or is it climate change. Do you believe in dinosaurs?

[Mark Andre]

09:44 PM on 09/21/2011

Well I see I do not even have to float a post for you StephenBP!

So tell me, since you seem to be evolved past say a toad, why did they change the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”

Enlighten us with your infinite wisdom?

[Mark Andre]

10:05 PM on 09/21/2011

Well still waiting to see if they let me post to you, when I try the toss it in the pending! ROLOL!

Then again it pretty much the norm here to protect the 10 year olds!!

[jimboy71]

10:12 PM on 09/21/2011

Inane.

[MikeWebster]

10:21 PM on 09/21/2011

Gibberish again - except I do agree that 10 year olds should be protected from the kind of misinformation and ignorance you are peddling.

[ClimateHawk]

08:55 PM on 09/21/2011

Our use of fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels by 40%, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Is it so difficult to understand that we are heating up the planet?

[MikeWebster]

10:22 PM on 09/21/2011

Not if you are unencumbered by a dark ages anti rationality ideology, no. Any objective view of the issue, makes it clear what the truth is.

[battlerooster14]

08:24 PM on 09/21/2011

The absurd Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis is of course exactly eugenics in disguise. It serves the dual purpose of supplementing traditional religion.
We must also work to expose the other linchpin of the neo-Malthusian psychosis - Neo-Darwinism.

[Dardedar]

08:29 PM on 09/21/2011

How could have guessed you would be a creationist?

“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”
--Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903

[Mark Andre]

08:35 PM on 09/21/2011

Dardedar

Considering you have not used one true fact yet, it would not even amaze me to find out you spend way too much time watching MSNBC!!

[battlerooster14]

08:38 PM on 09/21/2011

Umm..... I've never said I was a creationist as you've blindly stated.

[ubrew12]

08:47 PM on 09/21/2011

I believe the anti-AGW crowd are the eugenicists. They know the planet will undergo wrenching climate disruptions in the next several decades. They intend to survive those disruptions, and let the rest of humanity fall by the wayside. Nice pals ya got there, battlerooster14.

[battlerooster14]

08:59 PM on 09/21/2011

No Truth in that

[battlerooster14]

08:09 PM on 09/21/2011

Crichton titled the appendix to his novel, State of Fear, “Why Political Science is Dangerous.” The appendix begins with the discredited theory of eugenics, which reached its evil culmination in Nazi Germany’s extermination of Jews and other people it deemed inferior. One wonders where Crichton is heading—why bring up the Nazis in a book about global warming?

From eugenics Crichton turns to Soviet agriculture under Stalin and Lysenko, and his intent becomes clear. In both Nazi eugenics and Stalinist agriculture, governments subverted science to politics, costing many lives. Crichton writes disingenuously, “I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial.” No matter how he tries to disguise the fact, Crichton is comparing global warming to two of the great evils of the 20th century.

[gallon]

08:34 PM on 09/21/2011

Chrichton writes fiction. Has no bearing upon the real world situation. Enjoy your recreational reading.

[Impulse725]

11:02 PM on 09/21/2011

I wonder if the philosopher, Mickey Mouse has any thoughts on the issue rooster would be interested in.

[MikeWebster]

11:06 PM on 09/21/2011

Oh. my god - that wasn't Michael Crichton was it?

I don't believe what some people post as somehow relevant in an argument on science.

[ubrew12]

08:41 PM on 09/21/2011

"wh­y bring up the Nazis in a book about global warming?" I have it on high authority [yours] that its not a book about global warming, its a novel. Fiction. A made up entertainment for a summers afternoon.

Even if Crichton were to write such a book, could I ask you to wonder if an MD is the best qualified person to get your climate science from, before you go all mystical on us about the meaning of equations, theories, laws, and the 'slow growth of knowledge'?

[storeysound]

03:02 AM on 09/22/2011

Well, I go to a plumber to get my car fixed, so why not? :-p

[battlerooster14]

08:08 PM on 09/21/2011

To support his condemnation of consensus, Crichton said, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2…. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” But Einstein’s equation is not a theory; scientists have shown it to be a fundamental law of physics. Such complex processes as global warming do not lend themselves to experiment and to simple but profound equations. Such processes are difficult to understand, to model, and to test. Knowledge grows slowly.

[ClimateHawk]

08:14 PM on 09/21/2011

Nice cut and paste. Directly from http://inquisitionofclimatescience.org/Excerpt/Excerpt.html

[Dardedar]

08:22 PM on 09/21/2011

Good bust.

Crichton, fiction writer, doctor. Expertise in climatology? Zero.

So of course Bush made him his go to expert on the subject. Told him what he wanted to here. Several of the whoppers regularly peddled by deniers can be attributed to the fictions he published.

[battlerooster14]

08:30 PM on 09/21/2011

Wow..I'm busted..ouchie...Bloody Hell Help I've been exposed by one of the "Green' riff raff !!

[chrisd3]

08:25 PM on 09/21/2011

"Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2…. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way"

Well, maybe that's because there's no concerted campaign by industry, right-wing politicians, and conservative yakkers claiming that e=mc^2 is a hoax.

[Dardedar]

08:32 PM on 09/21/2011

HA. You under estimate the foolishness and scientific illiteracy of devoted conservatives. Read it and weep. From Conservapedia:

***
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1] Here is a list of 28 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22053#p22053

28 lines of evidence!