A Democrat dares question the Church of Global Warming

by Dan Curry

About a month ago, an extraordinary global warming essay was posted on the internet. Extraordinary because of its author (a self-proclaimed Democrat, environmentalist), its length (9,100 words) and its conclusion (the so-called consensus on global warming is wrong).

David Siegel is the essayist. He is a business innovator and author who likes to challenge conventional wisdom and get to the truth of matters. I was not aware of Mr. Siegel prior to reading his essay. I tweeted my approval of his persuasive piece and have started a dialogue with him below that I am sharing today .

Siegel’s essay drew 50,000 visits and 10,000 reads but he’s having trouble getting the mainstream press or mainline liberal websites to pay any attention to it, despite its provocative conclusion and well-organized and logical presentation.

You can read the essay here. Almost immediately, a group of warmists posted a similarly lengthy (7,000 words) and hollow rebuttal. You can read that here. Then, Siegel, with the help of others who rallied to his side, demolished the rebuttal here. (If you want to see a fun exchange with a MSM reporter who I urged to read Siegel’s piece, see this tweet thread).

Slowly, behind the Iron Curtain of the mainstream media blackout of dissenting opinion on global warming, the facts are turning against the warmist hypesters. One of the most damaging blows has been an 18-year flatlining of global satellite temperatures, a real problem for advocates who predicted considerable warming. But voila! the Obama administration’s weather agency (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) produced a “study” recently that said the global satellite data is all wrong and there has been no leveling of global temperature. Republicans on the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology smell a rat and have asked for underlying documentation of what looks like a politically induced work of defensive propaganda. The Obama administration is refusing to release the documentation and Republicans have issued subpoenas. Stay tuned for developments on that front.

Meanwhile, here is my email Q and A with Siegel:

You are a self-proclaimed Democrat and an initial believer in global warming yet you decided to look more deeply at the issue, which in most liberal circles is an article of faith. Tell us a little about your background and explain what motivated you to study the issue. How did you go about your quest for the truth about global warming?

I have been studying rationality and decision science for four years now, spending a lot of time at sites like www.lesswrong.com. I have an amazing mentor who answers my questions. What I've discovered is that what most people (including me) believe tends to be a very distorted version of the facts, and that in general our mental models of the world are not very reliable. Reading "Thinking Fast and Slow," by Danny Khaneman was also a turning point for me. What we usually call thinking is usually just reacting. At some point, I emailed my mentor and said "So, I suppose you're going to tell me that global warming is also a load of BS," and he replied "Do you want to take the red pill, or the blue pill?" As it turns out, he had spent a lot of time sorting this out several years ago, and he started pointing me toward the sources I cite in my essay. I had lunch with a "green" friend, and I asked her about global warming. She said "Really, the science is settled, trust me," and that made me look deeper. Soon I was upset enough that I started to write. The first drafts were pretty confused, but eventually, with the help of Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, and others I reached out to, it came together. My goal wasn't to really interpret the science, only to try to explain clearly what we think we know at this point.

Tell us about what happened when your blog post hit the internet. Did you lose friends? Gain new ones?

I was told I was going to lose friends. I did. About five long-time friends took one look at my essay and decided they didn't want to hear from me again. I got some very angry emails from people saying I was simply wrong. It's amazing how the people who are with me talk about the data and the science, while the people who think I'm wrong simply resort to name calling and trying to discredit me. They never talk about the science, not even really in the rebuttal that group published, which weighed in at around 7,000 words. It was simply reiterating their position and trying to use psychology to discredit me, rather than addressing the scientific claims in the papers I cite.

One interesting thing happened. I was contacted by quite a few retired engineers, who said they had figured this out for themselves and were astonished that it wasn't more mainstream. Many of them offered to help me and said I was brave to launch a piece like that while trying to start a new consulting company. It's interesting that people who have spent their lives solving problems have decided to spend their time looking into this and trying to do something about it, now that they don't fear retribution from bosses and peers.

You have noticed that the mainstream press and major liberal-leaning internet sites have all but ignored your blog post. While this blackout isn’t surprising to conservatives used to the MSM ignoring non-liberal narratives, did it surprise you? Did it open your eyes to the way the liberal media operates?

I don't think it's a black-out. I think it's a blind spot. Listen, no media outlet wants to run too much on creationism, because they don't think that issue should be given "balanced" coverage. They are right. Since they have been told so many times that the science is settled, they simply have no incentive to even read my pitch or my essay, let alone think about publishing it or reviewing it. Bill McKibben at The Rolling Stone got back to me immediately, saying (he writes in lower case, which I like): "i think the likelihood that jim hansen etc have made up global warming is...unlikely." They have no incentive to open any cans of worms, even though it's really their job to do so.

I was hoping that the more neutral organizations (Slate, The Atlantic, Huffington Post) would be interested in a two-sided debate, but no such luck. They all ignored my emails.

Considering you have drilled down and reached what you consider the best truth possible about the global warming question and it is being summarily rejected by so many so-called “authoritative sources,” does it make you question other conventional wisdoms and narratives?

I am collecting them in a file I have and also on my blog, which I hope people will discover. I would write a book about applied rationality if book economics weren't so bad these days (I've written six books and my books used to really sell and make money - these days it's much harder). I try to teach this to business people in my seminars. I have a YouTube channel dedicated to Bayeisan Reasoning. But it's very difficult to get people to change their fundamental view of the world. If Bill Gates would give me $10m, I'd start a new nonprofit to do just that and get the word out. I think people should at the very least study decision science and behavioral economics, to learn that their view of the world may not be that much aligned with reality.

What is your next step? Do you have a plan to further highlight this issue, or is your experience so disheartening you are simply moving on to more pressing matters in your life and your work?

I've encountered several people who have given up. I still think my role is to be a communicator, not a front-line researcher. I would like to do something similar for nutrition, which is equally misunderstood. The evidence-based medical movement fascinates me. And professionally, I hope to help managers and executives understand that their personal view of the world may not be optimal and that cognitive diversity is a powerful business weapon. This is the new field of evidence-based management, which I think can really change the world. If more people made evidence-based decisions, we might be able to have a smarter conversation on energy. But I'd like to be part of the energy solution somehow. If I can see a way to add my particular talent - explaining - to the cause, I will continue to do so. Perhaps I'll end up creating a seminar that I can take to various cities to help people be less wrong and more open to new ideas. That would be fun.

Pence's Sunday blunder

by Dan Curry

Governor Mike Pence of Indiana made a big mistake Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He went on the show to clear up confusion over his state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and walked face forward into a liberal buzzsaw.

Pence made a mistake conservative politicians often make — they believe common sense and the truth will win out in such an interview. How many times will conservatives watch liberal hosts like Stephanopoulos act as agents of the Democratic Party before it will sink in?

Conservatives like Pence have to prepare for rhetorical battle against liberal hosts just as they would against an opponent in a debate. Pence came on the show and had some solid talking points but Stephanopoulos threw him off his game by insisting he answer whether the law could be used by business owners to not provide services to gays.

Pence's specific mistake was not war gaming questions like that beforehand, and not knowing the material better than Stephanopoulos. Conservatives only win in these circumstances if they know the subject better than the hosts and can throw them off their game. They must learn to play offense, not defense (See Ted Cruz).

Pence also erred by not calling Stephanopoulos out for carrying Democrats' water by repeating exactly all the distortive liberal talking points. Conservatives must make liberal journalists pay a price for their blatant liberal narrative pimping.

A few lines like this would have chilled George out:

  • George, if you had done your homework on RFRA you would understand that the rights of gays have never been impinged by these laws. So I don't know why you are obsessing over something that never has happened and won't happen under our law.

  • Again, George, the only questions you are asking me mirror exactly Democratic talking points, which are false and misleading. You and they are trying to promote a narrative that doesn't exist.

  • George, it is no surprise a few corporations are disturbed by this. LIberal journalists have presented such a false, misleading picture of our law that this was inevitable. We plan to talk to entities like Angie's List and give them the real facts, not the distorted liberal narratives being promoted by the news media.

If conservatives are going to go on shows like Stephanopoulos,' they better be prepared to do battle. If not, they should decline the invitation.

When NBC deep-sixed a Lisa Myers story about Hillary Clinton

by Dan Curry

Former NBC investigative reporter Lisa Myers is traveling the country saying that her network refused to air negative stories about many Democratic politicians in the last decade. One, regarding Hillary's Clinton's sleazy relationship with an Illinois company that sexually harassed nearly 100 women, was a story I helped her on.

Myers had the story ready for broadcast on NBC in 2008, but it never aired. Instead it was relegated to the MSNBC website. The story has disappeared from the MSNBC site, but exists on several other sites, including this one. She was frustrated at the time and never told me why, but it was obvious — her bosses didn't want to attack Hillary Clinton.

Myers' 2008 online story described the harassment.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Hillary has been stonewalling this issue since a 2006 front page story in the New York Times outlined Bill and Hillary's close connection to IPA. She told the Times back then she'd consider returning the money. She never did. Then she told Myers in 2008 she'd consider returning the money once the EEOC's sexual harassment case against IPA was resolved. It is 2015, the case has long been resolved, and no money has been returned. Hillary still has the money earned by the company that made a practice of sexual assaulting and harassing dozens of women.

Dozens of politicians, including imprisoned ex-governor Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama, long ago returned IPA money while Hillary stubbornly held it. (The company has since been reconstituted under another name).

Hillary no longer has the "pending lawsuit" excuse for not returning the money. In 2011, the federal EEOC finally defeated IPA in court with an $8 million consent decree awarded to 82 women, in what the government called the longest-running sexual harassment case in EEOC history.

Donna Brazile insists this time Hillary Clinton is going to champion women's issues in her repeat run for President. I wonder if Hlllary will talk about the women of IPA and why $170,000 in campaign contributions and a ride in a corporate jet was more important to her than standing up for them.

Rubio answer good but not perfect

by Dan Curry

Conservative pundits are saying Marco Rubio's answer to the Rudy Giuliani manufactured outrage of the week is "perfect." It was very good but not perfect.

In case you missed it this week, Democrats and their allies in the national media are doing what they always do — trying to punish Republicans for controversial statements of other Republicans.

I could see the journalistic justification if the same reporters required Democrats to respond to controversial statements by other Democrats. But journalists don't. Therefore the entire exercise is a partisan attack and should be treated as such by Republicans unless they want to be the news media's prey.

In cases like this, I advise conservative political figures to:

1) Deliver a sharp attack on Democrats in your answer. Make them pay a price for their partisanship.

2) Deliver a sharp attack on the media. Expose the question as a proxy for Democrats.

3) Don't answer the question directly. If you do #1 and #2, the news media is still going to cover the answer to their slanted question. Don't provide it.

Here's what Rubio said today in response:

I don’t feel like I’m in a position to have to answer for every person in my party that makes a claim. Democrats aren’t asked to answer every time Joe Biden says something embarrassing, so I don’t know why I should answer every time a Republican does. I’ll suffice it to say that I believe the President loves America; I think his ideas are bad.

Rubio followed #1 and #2 but not #3. His last sentence should have been something like: "I don't know what is in Barack Obama's heart, but I do know his ideas and policies are bad."

By tweaking his answer a little bit he would prevent liberal reporters from saying: "Rubio disagrees with Rudy's claim that Obama doesn't love America."

Certainly, from a tactical point of view, Rubio's answer was better than most others but it wasn't perfect.