Skip to comments.Thomas Friedman On Conservatives Questioning Global Warming:...Thatís Trotskyite Radicalismí
Posted on 04/07/2014 3:17:54 AM PDT by markomalley
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman took a nasty swipe at conservatives over the subject of climate change on Sunday April 6. Friedman appeared alongside Heidi Cullen of Climate Central on Sundays CBS This Morning and proceeded to mock conservatives who question human-caused climate change.
Speaking to host Bob Schieffer, Friedman claimed that 97 percent of scientists believe in climate change and conservatives are saying Im going go to with the 3%. Thats not conservative, thats Trotskyite radicalism. [See video below.]
(video at link)
Friedmans obnoxious comments came after Schieffer wondered, In our politics now, everything breaks on these ideological lines. It just breaks. Is there such a break in the scientific community? How does the scientific community come down on this whole idea of climate change?
The Times columnist then misleadingly argued: Let me put it in personal terms. So your son or daughter has a disease and you go to 100 doctors. 97% of them, 97 of the hundred say this is the cause and this is the cure. And 3% say this is the cause and this is the cure. That is what it is on the climate science.
Friedman is not the first person to use the misleading 97 percent of experts claim, which has been refuted numerous times. Unfortunately, Schieffer failed to challenge Friedman for his attack on conservatives or for his use of an erroneous statistic. Instead, the CBS host allowed his guest to go on an extended monologue to push his climate change agenda unchallenged.
See relevant transcript below.
Face the Nation
April 6, 2014
10:50 a.m. Eastern
BOB SCHIEFFER: Tom, let me just ask you this question. In our politics now, everything breaks on these ideological lines. It just breaks. Is there such a break in the scientific community? How does the scientific community come down on this whole idea of climate change?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Let me put it in personal terms. So your son or daughter has a disease and you go to 100 doctors. 97% of them, 97 of the hundred say this is the cause and this is the cure. And 3% say this is the cause and this is the cure. That is what it is on the climate science. 97% of experts say this and 3% say that and conservatives are saying Im going go to with the 3%. Thats not conservative, thats Trotskyite radicalism. Okay? That you would go with the 3% and not the 97%. To pick up on something that Heidi said. I don't like to use the term global warming because that sounds so cuddly. To a Minnesota boy Bob that sounds like golf in February. I much prefer the term global weirding because thats actually what happens. The hots get hotter, the wets get wetter, the dries get dryer and the more violent storms, for the reasons Heidi outlined, are most likely to become more severe and that is what he we saw in Syria. We saw a four-year drought, worst in Syria's modern history that preceded the revolution there and produced a million refugees that basically laid the predicate for that revolution
So if my views are “Trotskyite” that must make Obama, the MSM & most of Academia “Stalinist”? I can see that!
So anthropogenic climate deniers now have to worry about warmists with pickaxes in their hands? Nonbelievers must be killed?
I guess the one doctor who said:"it is just a phase, she'll come around" doesn't count.
With some diseases, you need no cure: let the climate run its course. If people look back far enough, they'll see this has happened before and we are just along for the ride.
FTA: Friedman claimed that 97 percent of scientists believe in climate change and...
83.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
That makes him an IDIOT right there.
The 97% comes from a static including but ~47 "scientists" cherry picked from some lame survey. Most respondents were dropped from the analysis.
"Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant surveys form the best evidence global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is."
John Cook is known charlatan shill.
Thomas Friedman is such a hypocritical *ss.
And if your son or daughter has a rare disease that the majority of physicians have never seen, you probably want the specialist knowledge of those 3%.
The validity of science does not lie in how many scientists agree with a particular claim--rather, it lies in the evidence and the significance of the evidence.
I am a scientist, and I am highly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming claims. That is because I have seen no real experimental or observational validation of those claims. I have seen many papers that say "if global warming continues, we can expect to see ___", but that kind of speculation is not evidence of anything.
I have no idea who this Thomas Friedman is. He is probably no one important, who is almost definitely not a scientist.
——I have seen no real experimental or observational validation of those claims-—
There is no cause actually shown
Good thing I don’t watch that drivel or read Friedman.
Really, I am a scientist, in geology, look at the rock record and prove it to me. I do not think 97 per cent agree.
So that makes the global warm-mongers Stalinists.
O never seen a man who has a record of being so wrong on everything have such credibility
The world renowned scientist wannna be, Thomas Friedman is using the 97% consensus canard to make a point.
Those same 97% scientist could not accurately predict the 24 hour weather, let alone 10 years from now.
Friedman and Cullen are carnival barker charlatans who should be shunned and laughed at.
Friedman always has been a leading Environmental Whacko. He’s part of that big environmental lobby that buys politicians. Together they represent the single biggest threat to the U.S Economy and National Security.
Anyone who uses that as an argument is not qualified to write about science.
Of course, it probably isn't true, but attacking the number (97% ? No, it's really 88% !) accepts the underlying premise.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT "SCIENTISTS" "BELIEVE". Only the truth matters.
Most of those 97% have no qualifications to evaluate the methods OR the data. And, even if they did, the word "believe" gives the game away. What scientists may or may not "believe" is of no importance. The only thing they bring to the table is evidence, and the job of real scientists is to attack the evidence, and then to attack it again.
“We saw a four-year drought, worst in Syria’s modern history that preceded the revolution there and produced a million refugees that basically laid the predicate for that revolution”
Even for a warmist alarmist, this is a mind-boggling reach.
Friedman suffers from a Nostradamus complex.
But,hey, judging by his decadent mansion, it works for him ;)