I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.
Briefly, this appeared on Google News:
That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:
Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul:
As to your suggestion that some of the more rabidly conservative comments here may be planted: I have no idea. Possible, but they do seem like the real thing.
Climate Heretic (12:29:54) :
No this will even more elevate chances the EPA to become the regulator of last resort.
EPA can expect the same treatment other AGW proponents have gotten. The failure of Copenhagen demonstrates the efficacy of that treatment. Those who support regulation of CO2 as a pollutant – will be marginalized. With Democratic seats up for election and the Administration’s plummeting poll numbers – the writing is on the wall.
Tor Hansson
You are quite right. There is a tendency on blogs of this kind on controversial issues to become dominated by a small clique of posters, whose interest is, for personal reasons, in the continued shouting of extreme minority points of view. If you are not careful in moderation, you end up with a claque all posting for themselves and reinforcing each other. Everyone else leaves. The classic case was technocrat, which it put out of commission. Blogs that remain accessible to the general public do not tolerate this stuff.
It has happened to Grant Foster’s blog which is unreadable, its happened to the comments section of RC. It has not happened to Climate Audit only because Steve M immediately snips all the ‘piling on’ posts and the nutty politics and religion posts.
Although the obsessives cannot be expected to see it, dhogaza and the rest on tamino and RC, with their hysterical rants about Bush and Cheney and Exxon, tobacco, intelligent design and neo-cons, they are exactly the same thing as the hysterical rants that are becoming more and more frequent here about Maobama and Communism.
Folks, some of you have got to realize that the vast majority of people do not share your political obsessions or worries about the Great Global Conspiracy. They are as turned off by this stuff as they are by dhogaza. They may or may not agree with Bush or Obama, but what they want is evidence based politics and a reasonable ordering of government priorities. They may vote Republican or Democrat in the US. In the UK they may vote for any of the three major parties. They are visiting this blog because they want to find out and debate about climate.
Not because they want to hear a claque of nutters repeating the same pointless obssessive rants over and over again.
[Reply: this article is filed under “alarmism, media, politics.” Comments relating to those issues are allowed within the parameters of site policy. Notice that the newest article just above this one has no political comments. ~dbstealey, moderator]
I’m still curious as to why the environmentalists would endorse a treaty that would force production to move from clean factories in the developed world to dirty polluting factories in China.
Seems to me that would increase pollution, not reduce it.
Ern Matthews (10:37:11) :
I would not start dancing just yet,Maobama still has a card up his sleeve.
ok now the card
http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/17620
Tor Hansson (17:56:16) :
“I am a liberal Democrat”
What does that mean to you?
Tor Hansson (17:43:49) :
The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise towards a pointless end.
Tor:
I suspect you are subscribing to the “business as usual” scenario. We are witnessing something entirely different. Whether we are talking about Waxman-Markey or the health bill, “they” are planning to change the way we live. Can’t afford to bring your house up to standard before you sell it? You can’t move. You MUST buy health insurance? If you smoke, drink, eat red-meat or don’t get enough exercise… well they won’t give you health insurance, will they? Why should your bad habits cost your neighbors money?
Tor Hansson (17:56:16) :
Tor, I agree with you.I’m an independent with a conservative/libertarian streak.
I would vote for a Dem (and have like Peter DeFazio of Oregon) if they are not
kool aid drinking ideologues.Same for Republicans. The issue here is the truth
about what is and isn’t real.I’m convinced in this case President Obama may be engaging in “kick the can”-move the issue down the road to deal with later.-Maybe
the next congress,administration, whatever.
I will bet he’s getting an earful of why the Chinese are not willing to go and take the
econocide dihed up by Copenhagen..
As for the EPA they will be sewn up in court like a stuffed turkey for years.There are
corporate Lawyers that are setting in the company Bizjet with the engines running
-ready for the EPA to pull the trigger.They will descend on DC like Vultures on a
Dead Rino….
“Dished up”…BTW
Tor,
I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m glad to know that there are some liberal elitists that think critically on at least the global warming topic. Politics and other sophisticated topics might be a step too far though. I understand.
Re: Tor Hansson (17:56:16) & (17:59:58)
Thank you for the exchange of ideas.
The real REAL problem from both sides of the political aisle is that the people who are in power in either…ain’t that smart.
There is the reason the USA ends up with atty’s general like Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, and Eric Holder.
And there is a reason the USA ends up with science advisors who are merely politicians, i.e.: wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Bureaucrats….appointed by other bureaucrats…..that is the only way they can propagate themselves.
The process is painful, but necessary: As we transition away from bureaucrats (hopefully) and actually EVOLVE as a species, expect to see the lag effects of the old guard, the dim, reactive, big-business-backed BS, from both sides of the aisle, such as “Copenhagen.”
Just as the USA “world” shifted from the military-industrial complex of Dick Cheney, to the current poised carbon-trading complex of Al Gore with this last election, do NOT be deceived:
They are all essentially one in the same.
Same LIPSTICK, different PIG.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tor Hansson (17:43:49) :
John Adams:
The EPA will follow the Administration. The Administration will follow the polls. The voters will follow their pocketbooks. Once there is enough evidence that AGW is bunk, or even simply overblown, they will move to shelve the whole issue, as it will come across as nothing but a costly exercise toward a pointless end.
—-
I am not sure what America you are watching closely but my friend it is not the current one. Climate has been bundled in Energy and now Security, but most importantly it has been promoted as a Jobs creator. It cannot be unbundled so your whole supposition on the Administration starting to get it and caving in is wrong. They will re-message it but not abandon it in the 2010 elections Jobs will be issue number one.
There is far too much political capital invested in this right now and far too much money pitchforked into the “new green economy” via the Energy Department,EPA Budget, GM\Chrysler takeover forced utility portfolios and promises of PTCs until the end of time.
The payoff for the Duke Energys of the world is the scamming of the Cap and Trade and the free permits they will receive, and in some cases have already sold as far out as 2030 on meaningless token renewable projects that do not even have to be built in order to receive the tax subsidies (see Oregon State for an example). The Administration cannot step back and I counter they will be moving the Climate\Energy\Security = Jobs platform to front of the agenda for the election. Democrats truly believe that Climate Change Legislation forcing money flows into bad ventures will save the economy and create jobs, it is a Party Policy Platform and will not be abandoned no matter how much science is used to disprove it, nobody in politics is listening to the science anymore.
There would have to be a Plan B and since this Administration has no Plan B for anything, why would one expect the Party to have one?
This is not a left-right thing, on the right the Republicans support much of the same nonsense just without the taxes, just the spending on their all of the above agenda so their solutions at the moment are not much better! So the issue of Climate Change and GHG Emissions is not going away, it just is not important to have an agreement in Copenhagen before the election cycle.
If the political capital gained by not having the agreement can be used to pass Healthcare then the delay is worth it to the Administration. Delay is all it will be, if it makes you feel better the Cap and Tax legislation will named The US Renewable Energy Investment and Job Creation Act of 2010.
johneb:
Thank you for the kind words, and politics being too sophisticated? You are a funny man, John. But I for one agree that this forum works better with less of it. There are plenty other fora where politics are front and center. I just came back from Huffpo, where the Copenhagen issue is being downplayed, and the posters are hanging their beaks. Not to say that the occasional jibe isn’t being thrown my way of course.
Paul:
No, thank you.
If you want to throw-up, here are some of the related brilliant comments from the UK Climate Change Secretary (does the USA have a Climate Change Czar, yet??):
“The overwhelming body of scientific information is stacked up against the deniers and shows us that climate change is man-made and is happening now. We know that we still have a way to go in informing people about climate change and that is why we make no apologies about pushing forward with our new Act on CO2 campaign.”
Thoughts??
At the risk of getting snipped, because if I comment, there will be a long, LONG string of both British and American choice, sailor words, I will withhold my remarks on the above quote.
Use your imagination…and fill in the blankety-blank what you think those words might be. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Climateheretic:
I don’t think there is any doubt that green energy industries are booming. Take a company like nanosolar in California. They are sold out for the next nine months, and every square inch of thin film solar they are producing is going to Germany.
Those are real jobs, and the industry should be encouraged and supported. Green industries will help put a minor dent in foreign oil imports eventually, but I don’t think there’s much doubt among sober observers that nuclear will be at least a temporary solution, say for the next 50 to 75 years. Funny how that has become an alternative energy too, but it has.
My point with my comments on the chain of influence, to call it that, is that politicians still care about public opinion. The electorate is highly sensitized to their financial well-being at this point, and will react swiftly if Washington doesn’t pay attention.
Apart from that I agree that the Administration will re-message the whole green dimension. It will become about jobs and energy independence, especially when winters get colder and people get to pay ever-increasing fuel prices.
I don’t think there is much disagreement that we have a huge windfall to collect in energy efficiency, both for transportation, homes, and industry. It’s the next wave as far as I can see, and will create a large number of jobs.
savethesharks:
The comment is expected—when the audience loses interest, shout louder.
Here is the translation:
“Our “climate accord” is @ur momisugly##@ur momisugly#@ur momisugly#!!!, and I’ll be a #(*&^!#@ur momisugly &@ur momisugly#@ur momisugly%^^&$* if facts are going to get in the way of our neat little carbon offset scheme. Who do those ·°‡flfiR&$#%&%^ plebes think they are, who are going to prevent me from making a ^$#^#$@ur momisugly))(%%$ pile of money!!!!???”
The comment about “having a way to go to inform people” is pretty funny. The tide of opinion is turning. Although this guy surely has gotten the memo he refuses to admit it. Admirable.
Glenn (18:21:51) :
Tor: “I am a liberal Democrat”
Glenn: “What does that mean to you?”
Just go with the basic definition minus a few things, one of them being AGW alarmism.
Tor Hansson (19:25:48) :
“I don’t think there is much disagreement that we have a huge windfall to collect in energy efficiency, both for transportation, homes, and industry. It’s the next wave as far as I can see, and will create a large number of jobs.”
The problem with this idea is that it is an artificial economy that depends entirely on your and my taxes to keep it going.
The windfall you envision is slated to go to those who sing the song – not those who produce the best product. When the taxes dry up, which they will when the voters revolt, the false economy fizzles and the only ones who come out with a profit are those who set up the scam. The ordinary investors (and that includes your and my pension plans) get screwed.
It just a government sponsored ponzi scheme.
Climate Heretic (19:02:18) “There is far too much political capital invested in this […]”
Exactly.
Strategic thinking at this stage has moved on to how to “role with the punches” (so to speak) – i.e. how to morph the emerging structures to render them constructive in worthwhile pursuits 10 years out.
Those doing their homework now on that front may have a strategic advantage 5 years from now over those choosing to spend their time in the present fighting battles that were lost yesterday.
savethesharks
That statement and the ad campaign is from the current New Labour government and, as they are despised and distrusted by all sides in the UK, are likely to be ignored and/or ridiculed. The ad campaign, coming from the people who brought us “sexed up” dossiers about WMDs is likely to be treated with deep suspicion by anyone other than the feeble minded.
In case anyone is rejoicing too much at the thought of New Labours almost inevitable defeat at the next election, both the Conservatives, the likely winners, and the Liberal Democrats, who might hold the balance of power if there is a hung parliament, are pretty much as committed to the AGW rubbish as New Labour.
Sciencemuseum:
“Global temperatures have risen by 0.76 degrees in the last 100 years.”
Oh my god.
Tor Hansson (19:35:57) :
There goes Tor with his thunderbolts. [“Thor” right??]
The tide of opinion is indeed turning. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tor Hansson (17:59:58) :
Paul:
As to your suggestion that some of the more rabidly conservative comments here may be planted: I have no idea. Possible, but they do seem like the real thing.
I’m curious. Which comments do you feel were “rabidly conservative”?
This is, after all, a political topic:
the-delayer-in-chief-obama-backs-postponement
Tor, don’t want the name calling when all is done? Tell your buddies to debate the science and piss off with the moon landing/holocaust denial associations with catastrophic AGW skepticism. If you don’t see how your MASSIVE government (and growing) is slowly killing your country, go play in the paddock.