Chasing Ice: Fox News Fan Discovers Bill O’Reilly Lies About Climate Change

Here’s a video that’s going viral. When I first watched it on Tuesday, it had just over 3,000 views. Late on Tuesday it was posted on , and when I saw it there yesterday it was up to 18,000. This morning it’s up to 44,571. So if you’re interested in what a diehard Bill O’Reilly fan has to say after watching the documentary Chasing Ice, check out this video and then share it yourself:



Here’s the trailer for Chasing Ice. It is now showing in major cities across North America – go to their website, for details. For those of us who don’t live in any of those cities, I guess we’ll have to wait for the DVD. The film synopsis is:

Chasing Ice is the story of one man’s mission to change the tide of history by gathering undeniable evidence of climate change. Using time-lapse cameras, his videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate.



0 thoughts on “Chasing Ice: Fox News Fan Discovers Bill O’Reilly Lies About Climate Change”

  1. Are you guys really, really certain you want to stick with this one?

    “Bizarre ‘Fox Lies’ video: Alleged “Climate-Denying O’Reilly Fan” Now Believes Global Warming is Real”


  2. Christine
    I saw ice at the globe-Wpg this weekend. I was moved. Not by another affirmation of anthropogenic climate change. By the way James Balog gets the message across. Amazing photography and a simple message.
    I also think this interview is powerful to deniers. When i encounter deniers in the future i will direct them to this interview. A simple guy with a geomorphology degree who used to be a denier. He doesn’t seem offensive, just very convincing in his sincerety. I thought of you Christine when he is asked why he does this-So when he is 90 he can say to his kids i did something.

    • I watched the Moyers interview as well. What we have is a photographer making science pronouncements that are at odds with what skeptics say, who rely on very detailed peer-reviewed science journal-published papers for their assessments ( http:/ ) that contradict what the IPCC says.

      Yet all that is explored for any resistance to the idea of man-caused global warming is some vague free-market capitalism thing, a much-repeated bit of armchair psychology by the likes of Naomi Oreskes, Myanna Lahsen and other such folks who all rely entirely on the premise that skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie to the public like the old ‘expert shills’ did for big tobacco.

      But in case any of you haven’t yet noticed, all you see out of ExxonSecrets, Greenpeace, etc are guilt-by-association accusations about donated industry money figures that end up looking like starvation wages when you do the math of how any of it was distributed to people over periods of time.

      The only reason why such a weak and backwards tactic for trashing skeptics has held on for as long as it has is because the mainstream media hasn’t asked tough questions about the origins and people involved in the accusation. Fail to prove the accusation holds any water, and now you aren’t looking at ‘skeptics manufacturing doubt about a settled science’, you instead have the appearance of enviro-activists manufacturing doubt about skeptics because the IPCC looks like it can’t actually maintain its own credibility in the face of valid and heavily supported skeptic criticism.

    • ” … my heart is bleeding for you “poor” skeptics – funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Exxon, AEI, Heartland, etc … ” You mean me? I’m corruptly funded to say what I say? Two words: prove it. Go pedal to the metal on this. Word to the wise, though, based on what might be unfair ‘insider knowledge’ on my part regarding folks telling me what to say – you cannot prove that accusation in any form. Just sayin’.

      Meanwhile, I had to update my article with a quote from a 60 Minutes interview of O’Reilly: “But what you don’t expect are his views, which sound more like they’re coming from a Democrat. …. “Government’s gotta be proactive on environment,” says O’Reilly. “Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn’t here. That’s ridiculous.” Transcript here , YouTube short clip here .

      Are you still SURE want to stick to your narrative about the daily O’Reilly viewer lady here, and what looks like an enslavement to sidestepping what I say rather than refuting it?

    • I agree. Folks like that just couldn’t seem to be able to predict that science is actually more accurate than ideology, and that the truth would catch up to them (and the rest of us – unfortunately, as they help to stall political action on climate change) sooner or later.

    • (Aside: I’m getting the distinct impression that those in denial that skeptic climate scientists may have plausible criticism of the idea of man-caused global warming have recently gone into overdrive. I wonder why that might be?)

      What utterly baffles me is the outright resistance that promoters of man-caused global warming have against skeptics who arguably point to a future that is not as dim as those like Christine say it might be. When the IPCC’s Phil Jones said to skeptic Warwick Hughes years ago: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” ( http:/ ) – shouldn’t Jones have been pleased beyond description that somebody had plausible proof that the planet is NOT endangered?

      Why aren’t you guys more outraged with Phil Jones’ seemingly self-centered protection of his ‘work’ and what might ultimately be an epic waste of time and resources that could have been devoted to problems of proven concern, like over-harvesting forests, SOX & NOX pollution, disposal of nuclear waste and toxic heavy metals in hybrid car batteries, etc?

      Why do you cling to global warming narratives – this O’Reilly video and the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money – when they crumble to dust under hard scrutiny? And most important of all, why do you not apply your own devils’ advocate questioning to those two points in order to be certain you aren’t painting yourself into a corner? Here I am, completely open to challenge on these things, and you don’t even lift a finger to refute them.

      I wonder why that might be?

        • Good question – I popped over to his website to see, and there haven’t been any recent updates (although he has uploaded several videos over the past year touching on various topics related to American politics, not just climate change). I’m so grateful for the work that he’s doing, so I sent him an email letting him know.

      • Fully aware of the Greg Craven vid. Is that the best shell-game tactic you have for your abject failure to refute Media Matters own vid http:/ showing O’Reilly as a global warming believer, along with the 60 Minutes interview of him where they said (bottom of the page here ) that his belief in global warming made him look like a Democrat?

        As for Craven’s odds choice demo, you realize that line of logic fully supported the idea of invading Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his WMDs? How well did that idea turn out, when a minority number skeptics said there was no evidence to support that choice? Those skeptics were called anti-American.

        You guys endorse trashing critics instead of having fully qualified experts show how skeptics are proven wrong before any sort of major political actions are taken?

        • Mr. Cook, you aren’t a publishing scientist, and you aren’t referencing credible peer-reviewed science in your comments about the science of climate change. Surely even you must be getting tired of trying to convince me that Bill O’Reilly is a strong supporter of action on climate change. Clearly he isn’t, as this long-time viewer attests to in her statements in the video – or if he is, he’s a closet one and publicly he takes the Faux News line re: denying that there is a problem.

          I will refer you to my comment policy – feel free to review it and respond in kind. This blog is not a place to debate the science of climate change, it’s a place to discuss solutions and ways to collaborate locally and globally to address this issue, so that our children may live in a world with clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. Ciao.

      • Christine – what exact climate science expertise do you have to assert the NIPCC Reports are not credible, since they most definitely cite peer-reviewed science journal-published papers in order to support their assessments, a fact that cannot be disputed?

        What part of O’Reilly’s own out-front extremely public words (e.g. this from 2009 “So right now, the only global warming strategy that might work worldwide may be prayer. That’s how difficult it will be to convince emerging nations to clean up their acts.” http:/,2933,531481,00.html ) are you unable to accept? How many more examples of his own public words does it take to convince you that you are painting yourself ever further into a corner? It cannot get any clearer that he most certainly IS a global warming believer. Why are you denying this?

        And as you can plainly see thoughout my writings, I do NOT make any attempt to declare which side is right, I have no such expertise to make that claim. I point to the two sides and ask why one side – the IPCC side – finds it so necessary to marginalize the other side in the eyes of the public, including apparently resorting to a poorly done attempt to create the spectacle of an “O’Reilly convert” among myriad other unsupportable efforts like portraying skeptic scientists as shills of ‘big coal & oil’.

        I do thank you for allowing my comments to appear here, seemingly to your own detriment considering you can’t refute a word I say about the original topic but instead resort to continual sidesteps. Most of your readers will continue to unquestioningly support you, but regarding those few who begin to wonder why you won’t back down in the face of evidence about O’Reilly’s actual demonstrable position, shouldn’t you at least make a direct effort to find evidence supporting the claim of the lady in the video in order to retain those readers? Or will you write them off as “feeble minded”, easily swayed by a smooth talking “denier”?

        • Mr Cook, you and the rest of your ilk have no credibility left: I already know which 24 papers out of the 13,950 peer reviewed climate science papers from 1991-2012 your pseudo-scientific NIPCC refers to (see: LOL – did you miss that Mr. Monckton was kicked out of the Doha conference?

          As with tobacco science, where the evidence was overwhelming and yet the industry led an unethical and immoral campaign against tobacco regulation, climate science is too solid to be refuted (and has been for decades), but the fossil fuel industry has been bribing politicians and playing citizens for fools by sowing seeds of doubt.

          I have no interest in dialoguing with you. I only leave your posts up as an example of the lengths people will go to, to twist the facts to fit their ideology. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”


Leave a Comment