Fox News: Global Warming Deniers Crazy Like Man Stuck in Toilet

Here's one for the record.

Fox News, anchor Shep Smith was reporting on the bizarre story of a man who was found “drunk, naked and wedged up to his waist in a toilet” when he made the comparison to “people who deny the whole global warming thing.” “They’re just a little crazy, you know?” said Smith. “What do you do?”

Here's the clip:


ASPEN, COLO. — Several spring storms that moved across the state last week dumped several inches of snow on top of leftover snowpack across higher elevations, allowing at least one ski resort to reopen for a weekend IN JUNE.

Aspen Mountain plans to reopen 45 acres, and possibly more, of intermediate, snow-covered terrain on the 11,212-foot mountain’s upper reaches where the average snow depth is about 3 feet.

With Arapahoe Basin having closed for the season Sunday, Aspen Mountain would be the only ski resort open in Colorado.

Climate = long term trend. And its “global” climate change - not “Aspen Climate Change.” Scientists have predicted a massive disruption in the world’s climate system. Its not as simple as the earth getting warmer.

At the moment, I’m wishing for some of that “evidence of a cooling trend” the deniers are all pointing at! The humidex has been in the high 30s for days here in Ottawa, well above the normal range. I’m melting. When is this La Nina supposed to kick in?

Fern Mackenzie

There you have it. Global Warming proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, because Fern Mackenzie feels hot.

If you wiggled your ears…would you fly?

Who are the “deniers”? Although the hypothesis of climate change does have merit, it is still unproven and therefore very worthy of being scrutinized from both sides of the argument, considering Western governments stand to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money on it and it is more wisely to be spent on local green technologies as opposed to being foolishly squandered on intangible “carbon credits” from major polluters like China.
As for the weather in Ottawa, We have had a very comfortable spring although 2 weeks late, after a winter which was at least 2 weeks early. The recent hot weather we had was the first of this season, long overdue, since I could remember back in the late 1970’s the temperature breaking 30 here as early as April, as well as in the 1990’s. Maybe Fern would prefer the cool climate of Iqaluit.

“considering Western governments stand to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money”

In other words, global warming is true if you don’t need to spend lots of money. If you need to spend lots of money, then it is false. Climate science has never been so easy!

(Well, the “stuck in a toilet” type of climate science, anyway…)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Hello Harold,
That is not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that global warming is a HYPOTHESIS WITH MERIT that has not been proven. It will be very expensive to address regardless of how the money is spent. The money should be SPENT WISELY. There are also other more serious issues from burning fossil fuels which seem to be ignored; i.e. actual pollution which kills (a couple of people I know recently died of cancer), as well as the fath the OPEC leaders have their grubby, greedy little fingers in all our pockets and bank accounts.

I wholeheartedly believed for 20 years that it is a FACT we ARE the sole cause of global warming, until 8 years ago when I began to research the other side of the argument, putting my personal biases aside. It is a hypothesis, and yes, I understand the logic
I suggest you shed your personal biases to better research both sides of the argument, starting with “Maurice Strong” and “Paul Desmarais” of Power Corp and the personal interests these 2 men have in Kyoto. Then you should take English 101 and brush up on your comprehension since you totally misunderstood what I wrote. mike

No thanks. The permafrost is melting too fast up there for me. I was thinking that the Outer Hebrides, with a nice breeze off of the Gulf Stream, would be nice … We ethnic Scots can’t handle the heat, you see.

We certainly got an early dump of snow, Mike, but overall I didn’t find winter in Ottawa to be all that cold, did you? In fact, the ground never froze properly (snow insulation) and my garden burst into life through the last bit of snow cover. And it’s fairly commonly understood that you get more snow when it isn’t super-frigid. I’ve lived in Calgary, too (you know, “it’s a dry cold”), and it was often too cold for snow.

In any case, I was being facetious about the heat – doesn’t prove anything at all about AGW, nor do my early tulips. Just poking a little fun at the guys in Burnaby complaining about the cold, wet spring, and droning on about “global cooling”.

Fern Mackenzie

Roger is spamming the same talking point on two threads; this one, and

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

I think “drunk, naked, and wedged up to his waist” is a perfect metaphor for global warming inactivists. They start off a little crazy, and before they know it, their craziness has caused them to get stuck in a position they can’t easily get out of.

What’ll Joseph Bast, Craig Idso, Tim Worstall, etc. do if they suddenly decide they can’t continue making a living by writing rubbish? Can they just say “we were wrong”, and walk away from the whole thing? Will they be able to find an honest job?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Are deniers in the toilet, the dumps or the “skeptic” tank? Anyway you look at it the think tank, oil industry attack on science stinks like sh*t.

Ironic that you caught this on FOX.

Thank God Shep Smith from Fox News is not running the country. His highly bigoted and myopic view concerning the controversy of global warming demonstrates he is totally intolerant of anybody who holds viewpoints different than his own. His childish antics of taking these kinds of potshots at people whose opinions differ from his own will only tend to antagonize his argument.

A better solution would be to have a global warming supporter who is in the public eye, like David Suzuki, have a televised open debate against those who question the hypothesis, such as Dr. Timothy Ball, Tom Harris, or Dr. John Christy ,chief NASA climatologist who sat on the I.P.C.C. Several open debates have been attempted with David Suzuki and he walks out of the room in a huff. If his arguments were sound, He should have NO apprehension debating the issue. I have heard pot shots taken against these men as well, but no open debate to their faces. Elizabeth May has had and acknowledged an open invitation to debate her support of the Global Warming hypothesis for well over a year now on “Late Night Counsell” 580 CFRA A.M. radio in Ottawa, and she has made no appearance. If “deniers” are crazy, then people like Shep Smith are total cowards and I would be very interested to see a televised debate between Shep Smith and Dr. John Christy from NASA on this issue.

Voltaire once said “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”; which is part of the basis upon which our democratic system is founded. Shep Smith should be a little more diplomatic before he tries to shove his belief system down other people’s throats. He has a right to believe what he wants, but I do not wish to live in a theocratic country where the laws I must abide by are based upon other people’s beliefs.

And what are you going to do if Tim Ball etc. lose the debate?

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

No Sir!!!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Hello Harold,
Tim Ball, John Christy, Tom Harris or any others will NOT lose the debate because there will NEVER be one. David Suzuki, Elizabeth May and others have clearly demonstrated they are adamant about avoiding debate.
However, hypothetically speaking, if somebody comes along and PROVES the hypothesis, I will admit I was wrong. I was wrong in the past. For example, when I first started to research conspiracy theories, I gradually believed that Freemasonry was truly an evil organization. I could go down to chapters and pull out ten books, all lambasting Freemasonry, largely based on “quotes” by famous Freemason Albert Pike and a book he wrote, plus his famous Lucifer “quote”. I believed this about the Freemasons for almost 3 years. Albert Pike’s book finally came back into print after 35 years, I ordered and read it, and found he was severely quoted out of context. I was wrong to heed all those books about Freemasonry which basically said the same thing. I am not saying all Freemasons are angels. Some are very good men, others are not so good. but I WAS WRONG to believe the Freemasons are behind some global conspiracy towards a New World Order.
I had discussed my original belief about Freemasonry with many and even e-mailed some. When I was enlightened, I went and told those people (or e-mailed them) that I WAS WRONG.

You seem to have an issue with being wrong. Are you afraid to admit when you are? Mike

Mike Goguen said: “Tim Ball, John Christy, Tom Harris or any others will NOT lose the debate because there will NEVER be one”.

Seems to me that the last debate that Tim Ball accepted he chickened out at the last minute. He was due to debate Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University.

It was a pod cast debate and Ball didn’t show up online until the host said that there were only a couple of minutes left, when he made an appearance, made much about mixing up time zones (note: he is supposed to be a “professor” of Geography, who are supposed to know about these things) and left. They are a bunch of chickens, hiding behind their “think” tanks, keeping away from the peer reviewed scientific literature, just making a lot of noise. Unfortunately, politicians are tuned in to the wavelength of this noise.

The AGW deniers do not base their arguments on sound science at all.

In any case, public debates are not the place that science should be discussed since the audiences are usually handpicked and are easily persuaded by the lies and misinformation the deniers present. It becomes a “I’m right, you are wrong” shouting match with the deniers countering with lies which the uninformed audience cannot decipher correctly.

For a discussion on Ball’s non-appearance see here:

Ian Forrester

So we all get this right.. Al Gore will not debate. David S will not debate. M Mann will not debate.
Gavin S will not debate.
WM Connelly will not debate.
J Hansen will not debate.
But Tim Ball Chickened out?

“keeping away from the peer reviewed scientific literature”

MBH98 was not Peer reviewed till 2002..years after it was use by The IPCC to push Kyoto were is the indignation?

“I decided I just had to call because you’ve printed a picture of the Earth upside down” - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998

Wilbert Robichaud said: “MBH98 was not Peer reviewed till 2002”.

If the paper was published in 1998 (that is why it is referred to as MBH98) in a peer reviewed Journal it had to be peer reviewed prior to publication.

You do understand the meaning of “peer review” don’t you?

Ian Forrester

Show when it was? Being publish in Nature was being peer Reviewed?

“I decided I just had to call because you’ve printed a picture of the Earth upside down” - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998

Wilbert Robichaud said: “Show when it was? Being publish in Nature was being peer Reviewed?”

I do not understand what you mean by this, please write it in English which I can understand.

PS - why do AGW deniers have such a hard time writing in intelligible English?

Ian Forrester

Peu être que ça va mieux aller si j’écrivais en français?

“I decided I just had to call because you’ve printed a picture of the Earth upside down” - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998

You just show how stupid you are.

IPCC does not review papers prior to publication (peer review) they reviewed quality papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature, something completely different.

The peer review process is usually an anonymous process so no one (except the Nature editors) know who actually reviews any paper.

Why do you keep making a fool of your self with your inane comments?

Ian Forrester

Then how did the Wegman Report id 43 scientist, who peer reviwed the MBH98, had direct ties with DR Mann?

“I decided I just had to call because you’ve printed a picture of the Earth upside down” - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998

More farcical nonsense form Wilbert Robichaud: “Then how did the Wegman Report id (sic) 43 scientist, who peer reviwed (sic) the MBH98, had direct ties with DR Mann??

Just where in the Wegman Report is it claimed that there were 43 reviewers of the Nature paper.

Go and read the report then tell us what you actually find about the so-called “43 reviewers”.

You are just a joke in your efforts to smear the names of well respected climate scientists. Have you graduated from Kindergarten yet? Why not complete your schooling before you make a further fool of yourself. Education broadens the mind.

Ian Forrester

Robichaud, you are so stupid and ignorant. For a start, the section in the Wegman Report you refer to starts on page 38 not 37. I assume you are referring to Chapter 5 “SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIPS IN TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS.”

Do you know the difference between “Reviewers” and “Authors in the reference list”? Obviously not.

Go and get an education then you can come and comment here, otherwise stay in the sand box in your kindergarten class.

You are so stupid.

Ian Forrester

What possible point would there be to a debate between a scientist and a newsreader? Scientist vs scientist, or newsreader vs newsreader, maybe – but an “open debate” is not the way to resolve matters of science. That’s done by the publication of research results & the critical review of one’s peers.

Fern Mackenzie

Hello Fern,
I did mention Dr. David Suzuki against Dr. Timothy Ball. Dr. Ball did attempt such a debate in the past. I’m glad you acknowledge the newsreader may be ill prepared to debate a scientist. It is not a newsreader’s place to make derogatory pot shots against certain individuals based in differences in beliefs. It is a newsreader’s place to DELIVER THE NEWS UNBIASED AND UNADULTERATED, and all too often, many fail to do this, in exchange for shaping public opinion according to their own opinions, which are not always in the best interests of the public. This is the point I was driving home.

Open debate IS AN INTEGRAL PART of the way to resolve problems. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was debated for over 50 years. Many classical scientists who debated the theory retained the classical belief that all of space was filled with a luminiferous ether upon which light vibrates. Isaac Asimov, the famous sci-fi writer and physicist, mentioned in his novel, “The Stars, Like Dust” the luminiferous ether at least 40 years after Einstein’s relativity was made public in 1905. It was not until after Sputnik, when scientists sent up satellites with transducers to measure the properties of the luminiferous ether that Isaac Asimov changed his stand, since the transducers detected nothing there to measure. This proved Einstein’s hypothesis trhat Space is a vacuum but not the rest of his theory. People need to communicate and brainstorm. The fact that there is insufficient communication and debate plays a significant role in why there are so many wars. Therefore, you are wrong in the assertion that open debate is not a solution. If it is not, it is only because it is nonexistent on this issue since David Suzuki, Elizabeth May, et. al. have demonstrated cowardice on this front.

If you wish to do a bit more research, look up Maurice Strong and Paul Desmarais of Power Corp and check out their role and personal interests in Kyoto. You should also google “The Manhattan Declaration”. Research results get published supporting both sides of the argument but there are many who simply stick to one side and ignore the other, causing a polarized crowd of “believers” and “deniers”. Fossil fuels also release a lot of pollution, which kills, which tends to get ignored (CO2 is not a toxic pollution. It is a greenhouse gas). I feel it is very important we seek alternative energy sources.

I am a working man. I am not wealthy and I am trying to raise 4 children. I spent $1000 on solar panels and all it got me was 205 watts maximum capacity. I want to buy more and eventually get off the grid, but carbon taxes and high fuel prices will NOT put more money in my pocket to do that.

Also, when I found out I was having twins, I knew I would need a minivan. That was 5 years ago. I kept my little Honda Civic and forfeit the trade in value on it as well as started paying insurance and licensing on 2 vehicles so that I can use less fossil fuel and pollute less. I drive the little Honda to work and everywhere I am not bringing the whole family, while the van stays in the driveway often for more than a week at a time. Mike

that “open debate” is not the way to resolve matters of science.

Call me old-fashioned but when I want to know about science I consult scientific sources, not a campaigning environmentalist like Maurice Strong, Paul Desmarais – not even Al Gore. And I will take the Joint Science Academies’ Statement: Climate Change Adaptation and the Transition to a Low Carbon Society (issued this month and available at
over the Manhattan Declaration any day. The signatories of this Statement have far more credibility than the motley crew that attended the Manhattan conference, and they are not sullied, as you suggest of Strong & Desmarais, by power-mad aspirations through the UN & the Kyoto Accord.

Fern Mackenzie

Hello Fern,
Einstein’s theory of relativity, the example I used, is a matter of SCIENCE. You’re a little old fashioned? I hope you’re not more old fashioned than those who debated Einstein’s Theory of Relativity when it first came out.

Motley crew? How can you judge several hundred people you never met as a motley crew? Is it because their opinion differs from yours? Please note that simple namecalling and unsubstantiated derogatory labelling of those who are in disagreement with you dilutes your credibility as well as demonstrating your apparent disdain for the democratic principle I originally outlined by citing Voltaire.

Maurice Strong is former C.E.O. of Alberta based Power Corp, father of the Kyoto Accord, and now lives in China.

Paul Desmarais is the CEO of Power Corp energy company who has a contract to set up dirty coal fired power plants in China. He is NOT a campaigning environmentalist by any means. If you were willing to do the research, you would know this,plus all the details but alas, the eyes only see what the spirit is willing to acknowledge.

Anyway, I greatly admire your fortitude of character in debating this issue. You seem very intelligent, and you have far more strength of character than the leading personalities such as David S. and Elizabeth May, et al. If they showed your courage, and debated, they would be far more likely to sway my belief over towards your side and away from my agnosticism concerning this new religion.I was originally a firm believer in this religion for over 20 years, and if the right person can produce sufficient proof, I will be swayed back. But nonetheless, Kyoto is severely flawed and not the solution.
However, we both strongly agree on one thing. Our dependence on fossil fuels is the greatest threat to our civilization and our planet today.

I will now attempt to contact Fox news and go after Shep Smith (i.e. take him to task on his biased commentary)

Yours Truly, Mike

I admit I did not look into Desmarais’ background, mea culpa. However Strong is not someone I would bother to cite on anything. The Kyoto Accord is irrelevant to me, as our government has dismissed it out of hand and Canadians must now pursue other means to take action.

The people who drafted the Manhattan Declaration are well-known to me through their activities and position papers/op-ed pieces on AGW over several years. I followed the press releases & news coverage of the conference in New York, and have a fair idea of the breakdown of scientists, PR people, journalists and Upper Class Dilettantes who attended. My use of the term “motley crew” was not simple namecalling and unsubstantiated derogatory labelling, but rather an accurate assessment of the range and expertise of the attendees. I am not generally given to name-calling & ad hominems.

Fern Mackenzie

if weather was a zebra, and this new global weather pattern is a spotted ‘zebra’:

if u c a zebra u think ‘oh look a zebra!’
if u c a spotted ‘zebra’ u don’t think ‘its an unusual zebra!’
u think ‘must b a new animal’ or ‘must b a new species’
y do people c global warming as an unusual zebra? it should b a new animal! its COMPLeTELY different from weather. just bcause it effects weather doesn’t mean it IS weather. weather must have a source of energy different from b4 2 b so unusual. the only source there is is the sun. how do we get more sun? either the sun comes closer, grows or something preventing it from getting SUPER HOT. o-zone layer? yes!!!!! ITS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how much proof do we need? people bleive that the world will end 2012, that if u ‘dont FWD this message 2 10 people in the next 1/2 hr, ur crush will despise u’, but they dont bleive something that, yes, is unheard of, but it has proof!!!!! lots of it, actually…

its not weather, its global warming.