Merchants Of Smear

I always sit in the front row at movie theaters. Been doing that since my days designing and installing theater sound systems circa 1984. Tonight I was rewarded by getting to sit next to the greatness of Mikey and Katie.

unnamed (2) unnamed (1)

The guy in the middle is a Republican Congressman from South Carolina named Bob Ingliss, who turned to the dark side after his son watched Al Gore’s sci-fi flick and told his dad that he would only vote for him if he saved the planet. (True story)

Katherine said :

We are seeing climate change happening here in DC right here, right now.

I thought that was the arrival of a spring.

I asked Mikey why they don’t just make a Democratic state like Vermont or Rhode Island 100% wind and solar, and prove that it can be done. He said that they are already doing that in California and maybe in Pennsylvania.

You know, all those wind powered cars in LA

The movie itself was straight up filthy smear tactics. Most of the movie was about the tobacco industry in the 1960’s. Then they showed a few clips of climate skeptics and said that because skeptics question a scientific theory, they are just like the tobacco industry in the 1960’s – and intermixed imagery from big tobacco. Filthy propaganda.

There wasn’t any attempt made to trace money to the skeptics, because there isn’t any. It was all guilt by daring to question the $29 billion/year global warming scam.

Mikey and Katie both came across as actually believing their own BS. I think they are both deluded, rather than dishonest. Then I walked over to the White House and honored the messiah.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Merchants Of Smear

  1. Thanks for the reporting. I’m not surprised about your findings—I guess I expected that. I’m intrigued by the story of the son of Rep. Inglis. Not because it is new but because it is old. I know of such stories from the old Communist days.

  2. Chewster says:

    Believing their own demented thoughts (really feeling those beliefs)! Check!
    Trying to influence any human being who’ll listen! Check!!
    Incapable of absorbing Real Science or truly scientific conversation! Check!!!

  3. Anto says:

    Nah, Mann’s both deluded and dishonest.

    • omanuel says:

      Resolution of this matter will not be advanced by assigning motives for our opponents opinions.

      They may be as honest as me and as easily deluded by their own egos.

  4. Don’t know anything about Kati
    But I always thought mr mann believed his position strongly.
    That’s what makes him so useful.

  5. Barbara says:

    I have a problem believing in your just “delusion” theory rather than blatant “dishonesty”. It does not seem likely that Katherine who is very personable and well spoken could be so ignorant. Certainly, Mann with his education knows that climate always changes. We ALL believe in climate change! At least those with a modicum of common sense and a little knowledge of history do. We all or most of us believe in being good stewards of the earth. It boils down to the hubris issue. In the big picture we “people” are fly specks on this planet. Undeniably, we-like flies- make our messes, notably in densely populated areas; but overall where there is adequate energy and industry the air and water just get cleaner and healthier. People’s lives respond the same.

    • Sure the climate always changes. It’s their unfounded, near religious, belief that CO2 at trace levels drive the climate that is flawed. Hubris also.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “We ALL believe in climate change!”

      Actually, for the last couple of hundred years, its been remarkably stable 🙂

      • Yah, I don’t get this “climate always changes” assertion. By definition climate is the prevailing weather over a long period of time. Make that a very long period of time. Since my birth some 62 years ago, neither bananas in Buffalo nor pineapples in Poughkeepsie have been propagated. Now, there must be a reason such delectable endeavors have not ensued. And, I suspect it will indeed be a very very long time before they ever will. Yes, climate change does occur; but on a glacial time scale, far too long to be concerned with. So, while there is weather, climate change, . . . ummm, not so much. We all realize, at least those of us with a modicum of sense left, that “climate change” is the new nebulous phrase for global warming which refused to cooperate. Kudos to Tony for shedding light on the Ministry’s propaganda poppycock.

      • Dan W. says:

        What we have is climate variability. Weather for a given climate is extremely variable, Within a given season temperatures regularly vary 30 – 40 degrees night over day and day over day. Between seasons temperatures variation is typically in the range of 80 – 100 degrees. The date of transition between season also varies. Lots and lots of variation and it has always been this way.

        Climate Change is actually quite rare. Global climate change occurs but it is at a glacial pace over thousands of years.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sorry guys but Climate Change can actually be rather abrupt. (See Dr Brown’s comments below for a possible explanation of why.)

          The switch from the Wisconsin Ice age to the Holocene took place within three years. (Actually one year)

          Dansgaard–Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. The temperature swings were usually 8 to 10C but some were as much as 16C and they occurred within decades.

          Some quotes in my comment HERE from:

          Also see Dr. Richard Alley’s “The Two-Mile Time Machine”

          Dr. Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University made this comment on climate, chaos theory and “strange attractors”

          …..Let me also comment on the connection between HK dynamics and statistics and chaos. Complex nonlinear multivariate systems often exhibit “strange attractors” — local fixed points in a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations — that function as foci for Poincare cycles in the multivariate phase space. In classical deterministic chaos, a system will often end up in a complex orbit around multiple attractors, one that essentially never repeats (and the attractors themselves may migrate around as this is going on). In a system such as the climate, we can never include enough variables to describe the actual system on all relevant length scales (e.g. the butterfly effect — MICROSCOPIC perturbations grow exponentially in time to drive the system to completely different states over macroscopic time) so the best that we can often do is model it as a complex nonlinear set of ordinary differential equations with stochastic noise terms — a generalized Langevin equation or generalized Master equation, as it were — and average behaviors over what one hopes is a spanning set of butterfly-wing perturbations to assess whether or not the resulting system trajectories fill the available phase space uniformly or perhaps are restricted or constrained in some way. We might physically expect this to happen if the system has strong nonlinear negative feedback terms that stabilize it around some particular (family of) attractors. Or, we might find that the system is in or near a “critical” regime where large fluctuations are possible and literally anything can happen, and then change without warning to anything else, with very little pattern in what happens or how long it lasts…..

          A few months later Dr Brown made this clarification

          rgbatduke says: August 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm

          “So far there are those on both sides of extended interglacial vs headed into glaciation debate. Dr Brown @ Duke, made a comment eons ago about the climate being bistable. The questions are what tips it from one state to the other, how rough is the ride down from interglacial to glacial and how fast. Growing glaciers are not the real problem, unstable climate is.”

          Personally, I don’t think we understand any of this yet. Not even close. Milankovitch is a glib hypothesis, but one with many open questions (such as why the period of glaciation changes over the Pliestocene.

          If I had to try to muse on the probable nature/structure of the poincare cycles that describe the climate, it would be something like two major attractors but with NUMEROUS lesser attractors in the neighborhoods of the major attractors and with slow processes — e.g. Milankovitch — driving the actual motion and stability of the attractors themselves. As the interglacial draws to a close, the warm phase simply becomes less and less stable. Depending on pure chaotic chance, motion around the attractor will eventually carry the system into a state where transition to the cold phase attractor becomes likely — just enough positive feedback from e.g. glaciation albedo that glaciation becomes favored. Again depending on pure chaotic chance, the transition can be anything from very rapid and sudden to slow and with many bobbles.

          Empirically, the bobbles are a lot more likely in cold phase, though. The warm to cold transition is more usually quite rapid in geological time.

          I sometimes wonder why people do not try to match up a chaotic oscillator in N dimensions that has the right qualitative properties to describe this. Sure, it is blatant numerology, but if a good heuristic numerical model was found that had the right properties, it might give us insight into the underlying critical dimensionality, which in turn might give us insight into how many independent variables are important in the PRIMARY baseline evolution of the locally stable attractors themselves.

          But hey, not really my thing and I don’t have time to do it myself, at least not at the moment.

        • Dan W. says:


          That is a fair point. A better way of saying what I said is that the time between changes of climate change is very long and the timing of real, significant change is unpredictable. BTW, is there a scientific definition of what climate change is? Was the little-ice-age climate change? Was this global climate change or just a localized experience? Is it climate change if the change is cyclical? We do not view the change from night to day as anything unusual – it is a cycle. So what is “climate change” other than a lazy way for activists to blame human activity for the weather?

  6. I think they’re getting desperate…as Barry O’s reign enters its final phase, they’ve realised that the future is not looking bright for them.

    • Don’t be so sure it is the closing days of this regime. These are dangerous times; a post-Constitutional era for certain. It only took the “Enabling Act of 1933” for Hitler to assert himself. It’s looking like not even so much as an “act” will be necessary for our pajama boy-in-chief to assume such powers. The Repubs won’t stop him. I’m far more fearful of this prospect than AGW. One’s real, the other not.

  7. Brad Keyes says:

    1. If Mann believed his own hype, why did he spend years hiding his data and methods?

    2. But let’s say arguendo that he really is deluded. Would that make him a figure of pity, rather than condemnation? Intuitively, perhaps. But if you think about it, all it means is that he lied to himself before he lied to us.

  8. Steve, did any of them know who you were?

    • Mikey certainly didn’t. Katherine looked at me very suspiciously, I don’t know what that was about.

      • I think I know. It’s an ancient dilemma. Katherine knows the workings of the devil but she doesn’t know what Satan looks like.

        Women have often better intuition than men about evil in their presence.

        Robert Kirby, a columnist for The Salt Lake Tribune wrote about how to recognize he devil here but he made it clear that the devil could look like anyone and I assume that Katherine researched the question in her climate change ministry as well.

  9. Alan Poirier says:

    How many people attended the showing? The last time I checked, the film was bombing at the box office.

    • Maybe 150? pretty awful for a Friday night opening in a liberal hellhole with the top stars in attendance next to the White House.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Yeah. But they have YouTube and D’smear Blog, etc., to get the message circulated.

      • rah says:

        They can point to no real casualties. Even the Polar bears and Penguins are doing fine. No catastrophes they have predicted have occurred. So there is nothing that hits the heart strings for the vast majority. The presentation of their argument has no soul, and so the film will strike no chord with the masses.

        • Disillusioned says:

          I hear you rah. But in reality, they have government financing and propaganda machine behind them (which includes the MSM). All the masses hear is that the climate is changing (and CO2 – “carbon pollution” – is causing it), from those they should be able to trust.

          Empty as it is, this movie supports their propaganda message, and it will be circulated. Goebbels said all you have to do is keep repeating the lie, over and over. And they will eventually believe it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “no real casualties”

          The real casualty has been science. It has been co-opted and corrupted for “the cause”

      • Alan Poirier says:

        Figured as much. The film will not recoup costs of production.

  10. NancyG says:

    Wait, in the second video the guy in the middle is talking about how views have changed from the “belief” that it’s a hoax, to “I’m not a scientist” which is agnostic, and the next step is a walk toward “faith” in the science behind man made climate change. Sounds awfully like religious talk to me.

  11. What is she so happy about? She’s grinning from ear to ear like a person who just won a $29 billion dollar lottery.

    • rah says:

      She is getting attention. Don’t you see? That is what a great deal of this is about for them. Celebrity! Notoriety! At the heart of it, the reason why they will not and cannot ever review and revise their own beliefs is because of their own massive egos!

      • Edmonton Al says:

        Yes…. right on. “Look at me, Look at me” I am on tv, in a movie; in the newspapers; on the cover of people mag; I’m so wonderful; …… ad nauseam .

  12. Gail Combs says:

    Mike knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

    What Mikey and Katie believe in is ‘The Cause’ and that is the belief you see that makes them seem sincere

    “…the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”” —-David Rockefeller at the Bilderberger Meeting, Baden Germany, June 1991.

    The idea of a Technocracy is very very seductive to intellectuals

    ….Technocracy was once a communist idea: with the proletariat in power, administration could be left to experts. But the appliance of science to politics was popular under capitalism too. A fully fledged Technocratic movement flourished in America in the inter-war period: it believed in an economy based on measuring energy inputs rather than prices, and in what would now be called crowd-sourced solutions to political problems…..

    …technocracy and autocracy have long been natural bedfellows. When political power is not publicly contested at all, electability is irrelevant and expertise can give the ambitious an edge. In China all but one of the nine members of the Politburo Standing Committee are engineers. This marks a shift: many of Mao’s revolutionary generation had no higher education at all. And it may be temporary. Li Keqiang, likely to take over from Wen Jiabao as prime minister in 2013, has degrees in law and economics. Other upcoming leaders are similarly schooled.

  13. Tel says:

    Mikey and Katie both came across as actually believing their own BS. I think they are both deluded, rather than dishonest. Then I walked over to the White House and honored the messiah.

    Do they make an honest effort to question their own beliefs? If not then their delusion is by their own choice and all it means is they have been dishonest so long the forgot the way back.

    • Disillusioned says:


      They do not make an honest effort to question their beliefs. At least not publicly.

      I don’t know about Katie, but Mikey is not deluded. His Hokey Stick was fraudulent. He knew he flattened the MWP and the LIA. He’s no different than Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, et. al. Sociopaths are convincing. They have altered the past to fit their hyped-othesis of CO2 warming, and refuse to admit that they have chased and are chasing a phantom squirrel up the wrong tree. Or Gleick, et. al. They are criminals. They are all doing their best to keep the belief in their highly-financed – *and failed* – hypothesis going just as long as possible.

      They all know their ‘science’ (hypothesis) has collapsed against overwhelming empirical evidence that falsify the ‘science’ behind their CO2-phobia campaign. They rely on government backing, a compliant MSM, and an ignorant public. They all know their world would collapse if the government pulls support on this failed theory/ turned scam. They have proven they will do almost anything to keep it alive.

      The movie is disgraceful, filthy propaganda – another attempt to protect their message, and to attack those who question (read: looking for) the ‘science’ behind it .

  14. She said it all when she said “This isn’t about liberal or conservative, this is a people issue, this is about the people”

    Yeah, it’s always about “the people” with communists.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “This isn’t about liberal or conservative, this is a people issue, this is about ENSLAVING the people”

      There fixed it for ya.

  15. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Mikey and Katie both came across as actually believing their own BS. I think they are both deluded, rather than dishonest.”

    They *have* to believe their own BS. Anything slightly less means their precious careers, reputations and stake in the $29 Billion Global-non-Warming industry is severely compromised. If not completely wrecked.

    Thus the merchants of smear, and their fellow Global-non-Warming alarmist minions will never ever relent.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “They *have* to believe their own BS. Anything slightly less means their precious careers, reputations and stake in the $29 Billion Global-non-Warming industry is severely compromised. If not completely wrecked.”

      I agree with your second sentence I quoted above. But if you will, allow me to take the liberty to fix your first sentence: “They *have* to [keep convincing others to] believe their own BS.”

      There we go. 🙂

    • Climatism says:

      …or at the very least, be guided by the ‘scientific’ method.

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      – Richard P. Feynman

    • Another Ian says:

      “Thus the merchants of smear, and their fellow Global-non-Warming alarmist minions will never ever relent”

      But Mother Nature won’t relent either so they’re in for a wild ride

    • Climatism says:

      …or at the very least, be guided by the ‘scientific’ method.

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
      – Richard P. Feynman

  16. Slywolfe says:

    Inglis is no longer a Congressman. He quit to be a full-time warmist.

  17. richard says:

    Merchants of Smear-

    The british labour government-

    “weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq”

    “Kelly spoke to BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about WMDs. Kelly said that government figures had pushed to make the claims in the dossier stronger than what intelligence service officers preferred. In Gilligan’s words, the dossier had been “sexed up,” in other words exaggerated and distorted”

  18. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for having the fortitude to attend the gathering.

    Because I once believed most of the post-WWII propaganda myself, I agree that radical environmentalists are mostly innocent believers.

    We mustn’t scorn those deceived by:

    1. The news blackout of events in AUG-SEPT 1945 that preceded formation of the UN in OCT 1945 to save frightened world leaders from nuclear annihilation.

    Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf

    2. Seventy years of false information disguised as Standard Models of Earth’s Climate, Nuclei, Stars and the “Big Bang” Cosmos.

    All of the world’s political powers and financial resources failed to hide the fact that the Sun’s pulsar core:
    _ a.) Made our chemical elements
    _ b.) Birthed the Solar System, and
    _ c.) Still sustains and controls every atom, life and world in the Solar System today, including the climates of planets.

    The current “pause in global warming” and the record low number of sunspots in solar cycle #24 confirmed the need to correct false climate models used by government scientists, the UN’s IPCC and promoted by politicians like Al Gore

    See: “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)]:

  19. sully says:

    I am sure these “merchants” know full well that it is getting colder. They know they have run out of time as they were riding the natural up swing of global warming. Now it is a matter of selling a rotting product as a loss leader before the train wreck.

  20. omanuel says:

    I salute you, Steven, for your wisdom in listening to opposing opinions and realizing that the opponents are also convinced they are right.

    You have, by example, demonstrated what both sides must do if we are to benefit society rather than split it into waring factions.

  21. gator69 says:

    I’m surprised that Mkiey and Katie allowed Inglis on stage…

    Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
    Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
    Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
    Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
    Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
    Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
    Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
    Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
    Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
    Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)

    Gee, what does a sellout look like?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Hopeless returned last night after you were gone, so Andy and a few of the rest of us ‘responded’

      Interesting that she waited until you had not commented for a while before she reappeared.

      • gator69 says:

        Yes, I saw, and LMAO! (See my new comment)

        Hats off to you guys for humiliating Hope, especially Michael who spent the time to parse the case info.

        But of course, nothing can change the mind of a mindless zealot. (Especially one on the take)

  22. chick20112011 says:

    Did Mike talk about his Nobel Prize? hehe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s