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.

New Yorker air brushes GOP field to fit liberal narrative

by Dan Curry

This week's list of most blatant media distortions, bias, or cheerleading for Democrats:

  1. CNN's Chris Cuomo tries to compare showing a Mohammad cartoon with saying the "N" word.

  2. New Yorker eliminates women and minorities from GOP presidential field to make anti-GOP point.

  3. DC Metro suspends all ads because it doesn't want to show one that might be offensive to certain Muslims.

  4. Obama EPA massively rewrites Clean Water Act to include regulation of muddy farm puddles while MSM ignores.

  5. Barack Obama continues to make false statements about "global warming" without correction from the national media.

  6. Networks link El-Nino inspired floods in Texas to "global warming."

  7. With new scandals emerging everyday about the Clintons' finances, ABC instead decides to devote airtime to a story about Hillary's hair color.

  8. Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby continues to display behavior indicative of a prosecutor pursuing a political agenda rather than justice.

  9. Shady Hillary advisor was paid $10,000-a-month by the Clinton Foundation while he was advising her on national security matters as Secretary of State.

  10. As world devolves into chaos, liberal media seems more concerned about Obama's legacy.

Less than quarter of America believes media is unbiased

by Dan Curry

This week's list of most blatant media distortions, bias, or cheerleading for Democrats:

  1. A new poll predicts that only 23 percent of reporters will provide unbiased coverage of the 2016 campaign.

  2. Politico's absurd story about GOP voters dying off that doesn't mention that as voters age, they trend Republican.

  3. Ted Cruz schools a reporter apparently fixated on one topic.

  4. Networks protect Obama by not mentioning his withdrawl from Iraq led to the fall of Ramadi.

  5. Instead of reporting on Obama's failure in Iraq, networks coo over his opening of a Twitter account.

  6. According to a New York Times reporter, Hillary's ducking of the press is a GOP problem.

  7. In a nearly incoherent argument, the Left complains that media coverage of the Waco biker shootout is not compared to Ferguson and Baltimore.

  8. WH spokesman says Obama's Iraq is a success and barely gets blowback from a comatose national press corps.

  9. President Obama makes a series of false statements about climate and there are no "fact checkers" to correct him — only the conservative press.

  10. A gay-obsessed news media and popular culture results in young adults believing in a poll that 30 percent of Americans are gay, when the real number is less than 2 percent.

Former Clinton aide turned TV host still a Clinton donor

by Dan Curry

This week's list of most blatant media distortions, bias, or cheerleading for Democrats:

  1. ABC's news host George Stephanopoulos has to admit he donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation after publicly downplaying scandals related to the organization.

  2. TV networks, like canaries singing in unison, push Amtrak funding angle after Philadelphia crash when funding appears to have nothing to do with the tragedy.

  3. Amtrak has been a dismal financial failure, something you will never learn from following the mainstream media.

  4. President Obama slams those who send their children to private schools when he does the same thing.

  5. Incredibly, President Obama blames Fox News for poverty and the mainstream media allows the outlandish statement to pass virtually unreported on.

  6. Hillary Clinton continues to duck the news media and receives very little blowback.

  7. Out of control EPA now going after nail salons without a questioning word from the news media.

  8. Bloomberg's Mark Halperin finally apologizes after racially insensitive interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, a Cuban-American.

  9. Senate Democrats hand President Obama a stinging defeat on trade bill and some of the networks don't even cover it.

  10. Bond rating agency downgrades Chicago to junk status, indicating a massive financial failure. Even though the city is run by a close Obama crony, the national media yawns and barely covers the story.