At this point, it’s pretty well understood that “global warming” was a misnaming of the scientifically proven fact of “global climate change.” The problem has less to do with hot weather (although rising sea temperatures as a result of shifting weather patterns are a very real issue) and more to do with unpredictable weather. That’s why you get more and longer storm seasons. That’s why you get tornadoes ripping down entire cities in Iowa and tsunamis flooding nuclear reactors in Japan and hurricane this and hurricane that. It’s a real mess! But, because Dr. Drew, or whichever Important Scientist in the 1980s misunderstood the ecological shift that was taking place and made up a bubble gum name to describe its effects, that gives dumb dumbs like Pat Robertson free reign to get onto their hateboxes and shout about how the whole thing is impossible because last night there was snow. It has not, historically, allowed dumb dumbs like Pat Robertson to make the counter-point that global warming is impossible because THERE ARE NO SUV’S ON MARS. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

There are obviously plenty of problems with this “news” segment from “CBN News.” For one thing, I love how they really want to make their classic argument that global warming is impossible since there was so much snow during the winter (even though, again, the amount of precipitation is actually directly linked to the climate shifts and in no way proof that there isn’t any effect, and I know there is science to back up this parenthetical aside on a pop culture blog but I’m not going to bother to look it up because I’m fighting Pat Robertson’s ill-informed fire with ill-informed fire!) but they can’t even rely on that because this summer was actually very warm, and so they go to France. You know, France, the place everyone is always talking about when it comes time to discuss global HUH? This gets into very tricky double-standard hacksmanship considering the fact that it is exactly programs like Pat Robertson’s that would be quick to suggest that we focus on America and not bring France into it when discussing pretty much anything! (For example: the poor, beleaguered climate scientist that Pat Robertson is suddenly so concerned about, Claude Allegre, is also a leading socialist. But that’s not useful to Pat Robertson’s argument here, so let’s just ignore it and feel so sad that this truth-teller can’t get the real truth out about SNOW!) Then there are quotes like this: “Some people have compared France’s news media to North Korea’s.” Hahahaha. Uh huh. FOR EXAMPLE NO EXAMPLE NECESSARY JUST TRUST US SOME PEOPLE DEF SAY THIS NO DUH. Perfect.

But none of this even matters when the important quote here is to think of Mars and how many SUVs there are on Mars. HERE WE GO, NOW WE ARE COOKING WITH SCIENCE. Bang the gavel, Pat Robertson. Because Fucking Genius Court is Crazy Adjourned.

Comments (67)
  1. Wait. Are scientists really called “the apostles of climate change”?

  2. I still don’t understand why people don’t think that even if climate change is wrong, what is the harm in getting away from using unsustainable fossil fuels that pollute the environment anyway. I mean everyone can agree that pollutants are bad? I’m pretty sure Jesus would be against pollution, Pat.

    • Yup. That is officially The Craziest Part of The Whole Debate. Fresh air and clean water just seem like things everybody would want.

    • The craziest part of the debate is that no scientists are arguing that climate change isn’t happening. It is definitely happening. The only real dispute is whether it’s man-made due to pollution, or just a natural climate cycle. When people argue that climate change is not happening, you don’t need to check their credentials. You can tell right off the bat that they’re full of shit.

    • But Jesus is coming back real real soon guys, and God gave us reign over the earth and the animals and everything else, so we can just TRASH THE PLACE cuz JC will be here to rapture us all up soon!!

    • I know better than to wade into this but I’m going to anyway.

      Pat Robertson is increasingly going more and more bonkers over time. Now he’s getting all conspiracy theory weird.

      However, those of us that are skeptical about climate change, are not so much skeptical of the fact that the climate is changing. The main problem is the solution lots of people on the left would like to impose. We’re all for clean energy, but right now the tech cannot compete with fossil fuels in the market. Also, we have ways of using fossil fuels that are much cleaner than in the past. In the case of coal plants there are actually barriers (gov’t regs) to upgrading an existing plant to make it run cleaner.

      For folks like Al Gore (who’s made shitloads of money off of this stuff btw) and others the solution is to punish fossil fuel companies and subsidize unproductive green tech companies. Solyndra is just one of many companies that took tons of gov’t money and failed anyway. Plus, people don’t like being told what to do (light bulbs, low flow toilets, etc). This sort of thing can’t be just authoritatively imposed without getting pushback. Blocking an oil pipeline might seem like a good idea but it costs regular people jobs, contributes to higher gas prices that working class people can’t afford and doesn’t stop the oil production anyway. It just get sent to someone else.

      I actually think there can be a lot of common ground for pro-Green tech advocates and coal, natural gas and even oil companies. The Green-tech just needs more time before it can really take over as a viable energy source. Its advocates are overly impatient. It doesn’t really matter how right it may be in concept, the practicality is just not here yet. I think the transition to sustainable energy tech will happen when it is ready. Trying to force it now just creates all kinds of bad unintended consequences and is counterproductive.

      • No, that should read “those of us WHO are skeptical of climate change” not “those of us THAT are skeptical…” because you should not refer to people as “that” it objectifies them and robs them of their humanity and their power

        • Thank you Steve. In my role as occasional commenter, I officially dub thee Videogum Grammar Ranger. Thank you for your service.

        • Sorry to dissent, your majesty, but the demonstrative pronoun is perfectly acceptable in this case.

          • While it is true there is no official grammar problem with the use of “that” or “who” in regards to people, there is a more important spiritual problem in referring to human beings as “that” because, stylistically, it renders them dehumanized. You can argue in general that style is subjective but I say “No” because style can affect the content of the message. Sleep tight.

          • Maybe you’re right, but only if current usage dictates that “that” refers only to objects. Traditionally, both who and that have been used as relative pronouns, neither having more or less humanity inherent in them.

        • I am duly chastened Winwood.

      • The only problem with “waiting” and not trying to “force it now” is that we’re running out of time. So you make some valid arguments. It’s too bad people are so stubborn. We’re our own worst enemy.

      • “However, those of us that are skeptical about climate change, are not so much skeptical of the fact that the climate is changing.”

        About this – while your point may be about how not-ah-so-good you think the left’s approach to climate change solutions are, I’d say that a great number, likely even the majority, of “anti-climate-changers” are of the opinion that the basic facts are a hoax perpetrated by liberal scientists purely as a tool to promote an otherwise useless green-agenda. That’s the kind of claim Pat Robertson is supporting here and its dangerous for the very reason that it isn’t about policy and approach but a blatant rejection of reality.

      • It will never happen if we don’t invest in it. That’s how the technology “gets there.” Although Germany recently decided to cut solar subsidies, it also announced plans to invest 200 billion euros in huge wind farms. And Germany is only fourth or fifth of European countries in terms of clean energy investment mandated by the government. Political will and strong government leadership are necessary to arrive at clean, safe energy policy. But those wells appear to be dry for now. (Good thing it’s not an urgent matter!)

        • We also have the example of Spain’s Gov’t subsidizing green tech and it got ‘em to near (still possible) financial collapse.

          Pat Robertson is a clown and doesn’t represent serious thought from ANY perspective. Theological, environmental or otherwise.

          I’m not saying we should abandon green tech. It’s just that the current approach isn’t working. The Obama administration has made it a big priority (to their credit or fault depending on how you see it) but the companies still fail. I think tax incentives, etc. are a good idea for promoting green tech. We can’t just subsidize a weak industry into strength. It the way free economies work.

          At the same time, the absolutist approach is getting in the way of progress of reducing emissions.

          Full disclosure: I worked for a lobbying firm that represented electric utilities. There are many advances in burning coal cleanly in particular. Coal plants generate the electricity to power all those Chevy volts that nobody wants to buy. Natural gas is also plentiful and even cleaner. Yet, we have regs that make it prohibitively expensive for a coal plant to upgrade to burn cleaner. We could be producing cleaner energy and bringing costs down. In most of the US people rely on their cars and cannot just decide to drive less. High fuel costs also lead to high food costs (it’s got to get to the store somehow) and it’s the lower incomes that are hit the hardest.

          Also, just in general saying There Is NO Argument is not a good way to get people to listen to you. Basically what we hear is, “Just shut up and do what we tell you.”

          I don’t think I’m really all that of a rarity of right-leaning acknowledgers of climate change. I read pretty mainstream political magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard, WSJ Editorial Board, not so much Foxnews, their webiste kinda sucks just as a website). I’m not just coming up with this stuff on my own. There are a few apostate climate scientists out there too, like Bjørn Lomborg. The funny thing, he’s attacked as if he’s some kind of heretic crazy person but his position is that anthropogenic climate change is real, it’s just not an “immediate disaster.”

      • “We’re all for clean energy, but right now the tech cannot compete with fossil fuels in the market.”

        See, it would be easier to compete with fossil fuels if those fossil fuels didn’t get subsidized. Part of the reason there is a gap in profitability is that the infrastructure is already in place for fossil fuels, but not for green energy. It actually makes sense to subsidize start ups. It creates jobs too, and once the infrastructure is in place, it becomes cheaper over time. Research, and build up of infrastructure are the more costly parts. If the government wants to give money to ‘job creators’, helping them create new businesses is more effective than just letting the oil industry keep more of the money they are making already.

        As for gas prices … it isn’t directly tied to the price of oil, and the cost of oil is based much more on the speculation market than on the ammount being pumped out of the ground. Increasing the supply of oil doesn’t bring down prices. So while there would be jobs created by the oil priceline, it isn’t going to change the price of gas.

        Ultimately, the problem is that any real attempt a fixing stuff through the government involves going through the government. So they can never get rid of oil subsidies (since it’s “technically” a tax increase. They can’t really help the green sector, since fossil fuels with always end up with more money in subsidies. So, ultimately, the status quo has the government making sure they are more profitable than companies that are already at a disadvantage because of natural barriers to entry.

        The argument that it’s just not possible now is never really going to change. Existing businesses have a natural advantage against any start up, and government policy rewards the establishment while raising the barriers for new companies to be created.

        • ” Increasing the supply of oil doesn’t bring down prices.”

          You’re gonna have to do more than just assert this to make me take it seriously. The fundamental law of economics is that as supply increases it drives down prices. I’m willing to be convinced.

          As for Oil Company “subsidies” they get the same tax breaks that any other company gets. They do not get special treatment from the government. Solyndra and others got direct Gov’t loans that they defaulted on because they just could not make a product that would sell. Same with the Chevy Volt, nobody is buying them. (btw- the electricity they run on is largely generated by coal burning electrical plants)

          I’m all for getting rid of the tax breaks, etc. for oil companies as long as the do it across the board for all industries. Corporate Welfare/Crony Capitalism is a real problem and this administration is no better than any other and worse than many. But that’s a different issue.

  3. Clearly he has not seen Birdemic. That made a believer out of me.

  4. Pat Robertson has had his one required “smart moment” of his lifetime when he said that marijuana should be legalized and the war against marijuana just hurts poor, black kids and unnecessarily clogs up the jail and judicial system with sentences that are not equal to the crime. That was easily the sanest thing I’ve ever heard out of him. So he’s done. We can’t expect two epiphanies in one lifetime from him because well, he is freaking crazy.

  5. I was sold after the point about the Metrodome collapsing. Clearly, there can’t be climate change if a dome that is held up by nothing except air can be penetrated. Although, to be fair, I would believe anything that narrator’s voice told me.

  6. So, he’s criticizing France’s media because their news outlets treat climate change as a generally accepted fact. The implication, of course, is that any time there are people who disagree with something then their ideas have to be given the same credence because otherwise you’re biased. This implication is bullshit.

    One of the worst ideas that has crept into our discourse is the notion that all opinions are equally valid, which they’re not. Creationism is not on equal footing with evolution, tax cuts for the rich don’t benefit the poor, and all of the glaciers on Earth melting rapidly and simultaneously within 150 years of the dawn of large scale industry is not just a weird coincidence.

  7. At this point, I find this sort of thing coming from Pat Robetson to be a welcome relief. Yeah, Pat Roberston, go ahead and deny global warming exists, I’m cool with that, as long as it steers you away from your usual combination of racism and homophobia.

  8. All these natural disasters wouldn’t worry me so much actually, if Superman hadn’t gone and gotten so fat.

  9. I didn’t get to comment at all yesterday, so let me get back in this:

    More like Robert Downer Jr.

  10. I’d like to hear from Kirk Cameron on the subject. He seems like a pretty well-informed guy.

  11. as someone who lives in paris, i’d love to know from what winter all those snow clips came from since we saw about a half inch of snow this year.

    sacre bleu!

  12. have you guys actually watched the 700 Club? it comes on in chicago right after that movie you’re half-watching – in my case “Dodgeball” – while doing something else and you’re too lazy/”busy” to change the channel, so you end up getting caught up in it.

    essentially, it’s like any other news show. they give headlines, cut to prepared stories, and cut to remote shots with reporters. the only difference is that after each segment, they cut to Pat for “commentary,” or what amounts to ramblings from your crazy great-uncle/grandfather, or any drunk off the street.

    it’s both insanely infuriating if you take him seriously – and its tragic that so many people do, all 700 of them – but it’s transfixing and just hilarious to watch. He says many horrible things, and these get isolated from the flow of the show when they’re picked up by new wires and the larger media, but to watch them couched into the news is just so funny.

    …law makers fighting for the legislation say well water in the region will not be affected and they are taking every precaution to ensure that water meant for consumption will remain unaffected.

    [cut to camera 3, reporter turns to Pat]

    Well, Nancy, what they seem to have trouble with is the notion that contaminants – like flouride – that have been in our water. the US government put them there, and that’s why we have this radical homosexual element – the rise of sin, and homosexuality – lust, really, is probably the result of this.

    [cut back to camera 1]

    President Obama today….

  13. More like Pat Downerson Jr.!

  14. Mars Needs Soccer Moms.

  15. wasnt the japanese tsunami result of an earthquake and not climate change? not trying to troll, just asking

    • You are correct. Tsunamis are caused by 1 of 4 things (or any combination of these, I’m sure):

      Deformed plate boundaries that cause the water above the plates to be displaced, causing huge waves on the surface.

      Earthquakes on the ocean floor


      Volcanic eruptions.

      None of those have anything to do with climate change.

      • Check that. Apparently climate change IS affecting those things in some way. Thanks, internet.


          • Apparently, they are looking into past (i.e. like prehistoric) seismic activity, and there is a connection between melting glaciers and volcanic activity. As the glaciers melt, a ton of weight comes off the Earth’s crust, and that, in turn, causes some seismic activity.

            So, it’s unlikely to be the cause of that Tsunami, but as glaciers melt, there will likely be an increase in earthquakes, and other seismic activity.

          • Right, because frozen water and liquid water don’t weigh the same. Shit is gettin’ all sciency up in this bitch.

  16. It occurs to me that lower temperatures in France could be an expected result of climate change if ocean and atmospheric currents are affected significantly, since Europe’s temperate climate is made possible by the Gulf Stream and similar cycles.

    • Actually, according to Pat Robertson, France is getting colder because they have allowed homosexuals and Muslims to take over.

      “Take that, Frogs.”

  17. “Global warming” and “global climate change” are two separate concepts. They are not two different ways of saying the same thing. The average temperature of the entire Earth is going up. This is called “global warming”. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and leads to more extreme weather, and shifting of climate patterns. This is called “global climate change”.

    See? Two different concepts. Can we all stop pretending like one term is replacing the other?

    • chillax, bro

    • “…in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels will affect.”

      So yeah, climate change emcompasses and includes global warning, but it includes more than ‘just’ global warming, and thus is a better view of the negative effects of polution, etc. Also, it works better from a branding perspective, because it’s harder for idiots to say “there is lots of snow so no global warming”.

    • Whatevs. That’s like saying that it is incorrect for someone to refer to an air cooling device as an “air conditioner”, as in “Hey, bro, turn on the A/C.” since conditioning the air refers to changing the air temperature in either direction.

      The term “climate change” is a refined term that has become more popular because of its inclusiveness, as Ryan has astutely pointed out.

  18. Yes it is important to take care of the environment – that was the job give to Adam and Eve in the Garden…and Man has failed miserably…. that said …man is not the only factor in the equation of environmental change …We have natural disasters such as volcanoes and forest fires that eclipse the man made factors . Whether folks want to accept it or not …variation in solar activity from our sun has an enormous effect and there is data to support other planets are going thru similar changes ,Many of those pushing Global warming ignore this. Every man/women is responsible to do his or her part in taking care of the blessing God has given us…but do not ignore environmental driven factors !

    • ‘I don’t know about that, Ron, but anyone who doesn’t see that the “fruit” from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as a metaphor for fossil fuels is just a fucking moron.’

      -Pat Robertson (aka Pat Downerson, Jr.)

      Other relevant Downerson quote:

      ‘God has been trying to destroy the Earth (at least the California part) with fire for a while now, but Satan has convinced the forestry service to eliminate much of the fuel source. Have faith, Christians, God’s one smart cookie. He’ll get ‘em with the volcanoes.’

    • would be nice if you would cite your sources for this data – on the internet it’s fairly easy to do so.

  19. This is exactly how I feel about my landlady…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.