Barbrady Science

16 Nov

A BBC documentary television series called “Frozen Planet” will soon air on the Discovery Network here in the U.S.

Well, most of it will.

U.S. audiences will not be shown the last episode, which looks at the threat posed by man to the natural world.

It is feared a show that preaches global warming could upset viewers in the U.S., where around half of people do not believe in climate change.

The Daily  Mail points out that 53% of self-identify Republicans refuse to believe the science establishing that humans contribute to global climate change, and the number leaps to 70% among the so-called “tea party” ultra-right wing.

Sir David Attenborough presents and authors the series, the seventh episode of which, entitled ‘On Thin Ice’, looks at how the planet’s ice is changing and what it means not only to the animals and people at the Poles but also the rest of the planet.

How about that. Only 32% of Americans support the Tea Party movement, which is perceived favorably by 28% of Americans. Only 29% of Americans self-identify as Republicans. Most Americans (38%) self-identify as “independent”.

I don’t quite understand, then, why a small minority of Americans gets to drive the nation’s scientific bus over the cliffs of ignorance.

28 Responses to “Barbrady Science”

  1. MJC November 16, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    Are there any Tea Partiers that don’t buy 100% of the Fox News propaganda ? This always amazes me. Is there anyone that both believes that Obama is an evil commie AND that climate change is real?

    These people look at politics the same way they watch sports. They root for their favorite team/party and despise everyone and everything on the other team.

  2. saranac November 16, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Dailymail says half of the people in the country dont believe in climate change. How do you get to a “small minority of Americans”?

  3. Alan Bedenko November 16, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    Daily Mail was wrong.

  4. pirate's code November 16, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    Curious as to who made the decision not to air the final episode?  Discovery?  BBC?  It didn’t seem clear in reading the Daily Mail piece.

    Anyway, a quick read of the comments section of the Daily Mail shows that some Americans aren’t the only ones with uncertainties regarding climate change.  Lots of talk of “deniers” and “warmists” back and forth.  

  5. WhoCares November 16, 2011 at 12:50 pm #


  6. STEEL November 16, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    Its because the so called Lllllibralllll media gives so much lip service to wacky right wing propaganda machines. Just say it and the media in American transmits it as a truth that must be considered no matter how stupid the issue is.

  7. Ray November 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    But it snows in the wintertime! There! Where’s your commie liberal global warming hoax NOW?

  8. RaChaCha November 17, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Hey Tea Party: HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?? (apologies to Bill Cosby)

  9. Leo Wilson November 17, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    Unfortunately, climate scientists don’t just claim that global warming is happening, they also make predictions about its implications that are measurably off-kilter. The Gulf Stream isn’t slowing down. Greenland’s glaciers are not going to rapidly rush to the oceans and cause unprecedented tidal waves. There weren’t a half billion climate refugees by 2011. We were not struck by multiple category 4 and 5 hurricanes after Katrina.
    In the past few days
    , Cornell’s scientists announced that they are releasing their predictions for NY’s weather patterns in the face of global warming in a report with measurable predictions, too. Let us see how accurate they are.

    The interesting thing is that Politico acolytes always seem to find some way to discount reality when these predictions fail to pan out – particularly alarming is the claim of “consensus”, which was discarded when science measured the Gulf Stream and proved that it isn’t slowing down: they claimed that only “some models” depended on this integral piece of climate. If there is consensus, why is there more than one model?

  10. Leo Wilson November 17, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    I have no doubt about the recordings of the scientists, and very little about their conclusions about its meaning… but, there’s evidence that proves their chicken-little predictions are so far off that they are laughable. Every student, even in failing public schools, has mathematical modeling illustrated to them, including the impact of errors. When the model includes an error close up, that error is magnified over the span of the model. The warmist religion’s predictions are alarming wrong close up, with no innouclation from the basic rules of mathematical modeling, so their long-term predictions are/will be even more dramatically wrong.

  11. Leo Wilson November 17, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    Ra-cha-cha, just who is treading water and acting on an irrational faith?

  12. Leo Wilson November 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    OK, I retract that last… just feelin’ a little confrontational today and misdirecting it.

  13. Buffalo Rude November 17, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

    @Leo Wilson: Citations, plz. Reputable and peer reviewed sources. I can save you the time and tell you there are no verifiable or reliable sources for your information, but I kinda want to see you try.

  14. Mr.F.N.Magoo November 17, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Does four comments in a row without any other responses nor attribution undermine the author’s credibility?

  15. jhorn November 18, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    magoo- thanks for the link. particularly liked #8- “animals and plants can adapt”. wonder how the climate change deniers handle the pushback from the evolution deniers?

  16. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 9:31 am #

    Start here:

  17. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    I was off by an order of magnitude about the climate refugees, and I do apologize for that error.,1518,757713,00.html

  18. Bbill November 18, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    Ignorance takes one on the chin

  19. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Well, I’m unable to find a link to what I was reading about the predictions about hurricanes. I do know that it was Judith Curry’s (speculation?) that the media took off with after Katrina, and I must say that I admire her blog/discussion site for its honesty and candor, and its focus on ethical research methods, taking to task both sides of the debate. She talks about it somewhere on her site,, and I’ll bet that you can dig it out if you want to try… it’s a worthwhile site to look at anyway.

  20. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 1:02 pm #

    Unfortunately, someone is paying me to do something else, and I won’t be around again until at least Monday. On the Greenland Glaciers, the results were from the Greenland Ice Core Project and the results summarized by Professor Eske Willerslev from the University of Copenhagen. Again, you’ll have to dig into that yourself… one thing it suggested was that the glaciers are MUCH more stable than thought, and had survived the intergalacial period when temperatures were as much as 5 degrees celcius warmer.

  21. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    @13 – Please, take the time. Anyone concerned about science and the recent decline in esteem the public has for it should be willing to challenge their own convictions.

  22. Eric Saldanha November 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    Shorter Leo: I am far too busy and important to provide citations, links or support for my awesome takedown of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Lookit up yourself, Fleabagger!

  23. Bbill November 18, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    science and the recent decline in esteem the public has for it

    …and how might we suppose that “decline in esteem” came about, and who may have funded the propaganda and misinformation leading to said “decline in esteem”??

  24. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    C’mon, Eric… I’m a layman participating with an even keel on an opinion blog, doing my best to respectfully answer a challenge from another, somewhat more contemptuous poster. How disingenuous is it to challenge an opinion that’s more free of invective than this threads norm? The original article here is about opinion polls, not science. And, while I’ve clearly posted my opinion of the Occupy movement in other threads, why project name calling?

    You can be better than that.

  25. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Hmm, maybe I used the wrong word. Contemptful? Anyway, what I meant was that the challenge was heaped upon me with contempt, not that I hold any for the challenger.

  26. Leo Wilson November 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    @23 – I believe that would be Julian Assange, and his release of ClimateGate emails?

  27. Mr.F.N.Magoo November 19, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    jhorn, another good site for background is; example:

  28. Mr.F.N.Magoo November 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Good News: It was a misunderstanding after all.

Contribute To The Conversation

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

%d bloggers like this: