ABC's John Stossel's Embarrassing Global Warming Rhetoric

Read time: 1 min

No, Stossel shouldn't be embarrassed, he's well past that point. ABC News should be though, over Stossel's climate change denial piece set to air tonight. 

Stossel writes:

But is it a crisis? The globe is warming, but is it really all our fault? And is it true the debate is over? No. What you think you know may not be so.”

Seriously, I honestly thought we were moving on, but I guess there's still a few media left with their heads planted firmly in the sand. Even the “experts” Stossel uses for his piece are the same handful of deniers that anyone looking to shock and provoke are prone to air. 

Here's background information in Stossel's tired line-up:

Roy “Interfaith Science Advisor” Spencer

John “just use air conditioning” Christy

“Infectious” Paul Reiter

Tim “energy lobby” Ball 

Here's a challenge, Stossel, ask any of your “experts” to produce their peer-reviewed research disproving in any way the theory of human-induced climate change.  

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


Kevin Grandia writes:
“Even the “experts” Stossel uses for his piece are the same
handful of deniers that anyone looking to shock and
provoke are prone to air. ”

Anyone who uses the term “denier” is only trying to stifle debate. I would like to see Mr. Grandia try to discredit all the experts found at

Here’s a challenge, Mr. Grandia, ask any of your “experts” to produce their peer-reviewed research disproving in any way the theory that natural variables are not the main cause of climate change.

Kevin will, no doubt, claim that everyone in the list is on Exxon’s payroll (and so are you of course).

The alarmists’ desperation is now such that they neither are able to see facts clearly, nor can they listen to arguments in a rational manner.

I see in the list of experts at ICECAP a number of familiar names whose claims are routinely (and quite matter-of-factly) debunked by people who really know what they are talking about. People not on the receiving end of funding from Exxon-Mobil.

Interesting, too, that they seems to invent new “scientific” associations at the drop of a hat – first Friends of Science, then NRSP, now ICECAP. I guess all of those acronyms look impressive on a cv.

I looked at ICECAP a while ago; I guess it’s been around a while. It has the same old denialists.

If people really find the term “denier” offensive, maybe we should go with the old-fashioned but still accurate one: “liar”.

Considering the quality of the information presented by our latest Nobel Peace Price Winner, the His Holiness Reverend Al-Gore, perhaps he is the one you should call a liar?

…that the “experts” Stossel uses are not credible? Now you’re trying to change the focus (on the first post) to something else? Scared to respond directly?

I’d suggest you read the IPCC Fourth Assessment published by the UN in early 2007, which has >1000 scientific contributors and over 2500 expert (as in real climate scientists) reviewers. Because of politics (read: our US government) the reports have been consistently watered down and these estimates are very conservative… sort of a best case scenario. Regardless, if some 3500 legit scientists who study climate change were conspiring to trick you, there would be beter ammunition for counter arguements than the quacks and lobbiests that make up the “denier (sorry you don’t like the name, but if the shoe fits…) camp”. There might actually be some credible dissent. My friend, there is not longer a debate on if… but rather how much damage have we have done. So, since the pattern and its cause is now irrefutable, the appropriate discussion becomes: 1) what are the mechanisms and where are the tipping points that we’d like to avoid; and 2) how do we mitigate or correct the damage.

In response to your criticism, Mr. Grandia doesn’t have to demonstrate anything b/c its already at your finger tips. Go read the report and if you want more, look up the research of some of the primary authors. It is important to recognize that a PhD doesn’t make one an expert in everything… just their very specific field of study. This means that the conclusions of those signed onto the report are far more credible than an MD or an astrophysicist when it concerns climate change. I’m sure you’d agree that one would rather consult a doctor about a medical issue or a rocket scientist before being shot into orbit, instead of a glaciologist or climate modeler.

Mr. Stossel has a long history of being a contrarian at best and a stooge at worst. He seems to be employed, in my opinion, to accomodate the media’s misguided attempts to be “fair” in instances where the illusion of an alternate point of view needs to be manufactured.

Lastly, the signatories of the IPCC have presented the results of their peer-reviewed research, both in their own work and in the IPCC. The reason that you don’t see it in the media is primariliy because they are busy doing research, teaching and publishing, rather than doing PR. Add in the fact that every time the US media presents climate change they pick one scientist (out of 10,000) and one denier (out of 10 or 20) and present the issue as if both camps get equal weight, skewing preception right off the bat.

There are no six-figure speaking fees in real science and very little industry funding that doesn’t come with some strings attached. Research projects run on shoe-string budgets with little to no money for salaries (speaking from experience) and funding in most pure scientific fields (as opposed to applied fields) is now well below 10% of all proposals (in the US) due to the tightening of budgets at NSF. Needless to say, scientists are not “in it for the money”.

Excerpt from AR4WG1,
“There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings
between climate and biogeochemical cycles.”

My friend, the above statement proves that the 31 (Not thousands) lead authors are nowhere near proving any of their theories. The IPCC lacks scientific integrity when they publish a Statement for Policymakers months before the technical summary. What does the IPCC say about the NAS discredited MBH98 reconstruction they used to influence public opinion ?

The IPCC peer review process is also a failure as the following link from a peer reviewer documents - Another document can be found at

What a joke calling nonsense from climatefraudit a reference. I’m assuming the other one is nonsense as well but I won’t waste my time checking on it since you obviously belong to the AGW denier gang of fraudsters and jokers.

Ian Forrester

There is an incomplete understanding of how shapes, sizes, and materials used in steering wheels contribute to traffic fatalities, but those uncertainties don’t negate the relationship between speed and mortality. Levko, the IPCC statement you quote doesn’t ‘prove’ that the findings and projections are ‘nowhere near’ accurate. Your use of the word ‘prove’ suggests that you don’t understand science very well. You don’t seem to understand what the NAS review showed. For these and other reasons I’m not enthused about going to the weblinks you provide.

Dear Levko,
1) Contributors are not equivalent to primary authorship. While many contribute, too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the soup…
2) Theories are not fact. But they are the result of hypotheses that have be rigorously tested and have been demonstrated to be correct. Do we know everything? Nope. Never will either. But we know enough. We don’t completely understand the mechanics of gravity either, but I’m sure you’d agree that it exists. Well tested theories are as close to scientific fact as we have. While there are no absolutes, human induced warming is certainly close to one.
3) The MBH98 reonctruction you mention was, in fact, not discredited. The author of is none other than the Steve McIntyre of McIntyre and McKitrick (one works in the mining industry, the other is an economist). Their critique of the model was rejected by Nature (see why you don’t like peer reveiw… keeps the crazies out). Had the model indeed been wrong, that would have been big news and a necessary publication. Put another way, Nature likes to make a splash. Nothing would be splashier than publishing a legit problem with a major climate model supporting the IPCC reports. Rejection means that scientists, unrelated to the MBH98 model, found major problems with the work that could not be corrected or the authors simply refused to revise their document.
4) how in the world can anything from be remotely credible…? just asking…
5) Questioning scientific integrity because policy makers demanded a copy in advance indicates you don’t understand scientists or policy makers. Only a handful of governments (or just the US) require advanced copies of things they don’t like (particularly those with veto power) so they can find a way to spin it. The scientists inherentlty resist interference and, unless one works for the US government, editing directly by politicians is rare.

Here is my disclaimer: I don’t expect to convince you or any of the other deniers of anything in the above post or the one before. However, in the event that some open minds happen to stumble across these posts, your falsificatins and misrepresentations should not go unanswered.

The latest retread claim - “It’s all natural variation, part of the spin cycle!”

I recognize about 5 names I’m not familiar with. And congratulations to Tony Lupo who has moved up in the batting order. But it’s such a weak hitting lineup.
Reid Bryson, 90+ years old and retired for decades, can they hide him in right field?

IPCC WG1 report - Scientific basis -
“Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

where ‘very likely’ is > 90% .

Andrew Sullivan, a supposedly libertarian pro-aggressive war commentator (as if you can be both), and Patrick McManamin, a co-author with Stossel about the folly of foreign aid [], are contributors to this article. These guys complain:
‘Reiter claims that some of these scientists are “essentially activists” and there are some members with affiliations to groups like Greenpeace.’
Okay, what are those affiliations? Is Greenpeace paying their salaries? No documentation? Huh. They print the mud thrown by one of their experts. They disclose none of their own affiliations nor the benefactors of their ‘experts’. Interesting. And weak.

Andrew G Sullivan (contributor) is probably not Andrew Michael Sullivan, to whom I referred above. My bad. Can’t find much about Andrew G except that he wrote with Stossel about ethanol: Sacrificing Our Children to the ‘Corn God’.
This article actually seems pretty good.

I note that Johnny S. assured us all that there’s no doubt that the world is warming, and Timmy Ball didn’t take exception. I wonder why not. Timmy keeps telling us the world is cooling down, but he can’t remember when it started, 1940? 1998? (Maybe this is another symptom of his inability to remember how long he was a professor.)

Stossel’s last comment in the article posted on

and other similar-minded blogs like

“Global-Warming Debate Isn’t Over Until It’s Over, By John
Stossel, Oct 24, 2007


Some get threatened. Ball received an e-mail that said: “You will not
live long enough to see global warming!”

My goodness gracious. Who would say such a thing!? To find out, google “Prepare for Cooling, not Warming”.

There’s the culprit! Try it.