
Guest post by Thomas Fuller
(Okay. Based on the assumption that overly cryptic titles of blog posts need to be explained early: Old Testament prophets predicting doom gave rise to the term ‘Jeremiahs’ after one prominent example, and their doom-laden screeds even got the term ‘jeremiads.’ Michael Tobis is lamenting the failure of climate activism of late and predicting horrible things will happen–very much like the Jeremiahs of old.
Tobis is a Research Scientist Associate (in practice, mostly a software engineer) who very rarely writes about climate science, preferring to pronounce on the sins and errors of journalists, bloggers and politicians. Instead of writing about what he knows, he writes about what angers him. He may well be an expert on climate science. He is not at all an expert on media criticism.
However, Tobis mostly sits crouched on the lilypad of his own weblog, and his posts are frequently written as if they were being croaked into the night, waiting vainly for a response.
So Three Dog Night was very wise when they wrote that Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog.)
Cap and Trade is dead. So says Joe Romm, so says the NY Times, so says the Atlantic.
Okay, what is next?
The wrong answer is C) Nothing. But thanks for playing our game. What will happen is that we will reframe the problem in a way that may be more acceptable to more people. That’s because restating the problem is much easier than readjusting the solutions so many have been working on. So we will start talking more about adaptation than mitigation, about regional resilience than global mean temperatures, about heat in the oceans rather than CO2 in the atmosphere. (All of which are fine with me.)
The world is not going to walk away from global warming quickly–even if many would like to run. Defeat doesn’t work like that in diplomacy. Cancun will still take place, options will still be floated, proposals bruited, etc.
But the surest sign that the air has gone out of the balloon is the decision to retain Rajendra Pachauri, as some gloomy Banquo’s ghost. If the IPCC had anything that was both new and real to offer, they’d have got a new guy in there.
So the diplomats will not acknowledge the failure of diplomacy. The mainstream media, having spilled more ink than an army of squids promoting the need to change our climate, will have to wait a respectable length of time before dropping the hot potato in favor of Lady Gaga or watching paint dry, whichever is more entertaining.
Domestic politicians won’t let go of their clubs until after the November elections in the USA, although the UK may be moving a bit more quickly. But being on the right side of the climate change issue now means no more than being on the wrong side. Next up–immigration reform?
We diehards on the blogs will still talk about it–we have a lot invested in the subject. I’ve noticed the range of subjects on climate blogs is widening a bit, with Keith Kloor reintroducing anthropology and archaeology, and Michael Tobis getting more local than global.
But despite this all giving discussions the air of a post-game show, it isn’t over. Not the actual changes to the climate, not the politics, not the blame game, and eventually not the policies to deal with it.
We still have climate and it will still change. We may be a bit less arrogant about our ability to predict those changes and assign the causes, but change there still will be.
Those who don’t like the changes will still blame human activities, although if they’re smart they might start reading Roger Pielke Sr. and attributing changes to more than just CO2.
People are still re-fighting the Vietnam War. Heck, there are people still re-fighting the Civil War. We’re not going to let this go any time soon.
Especially because of the twin peaks of Energy As An Issue and The Developing Countries As An Issue. Because we are the way we are, we will think we have to solve both. And because we are the way we are, we will think we have to solve both at the same time with the same tools, even though actions to make progress on one of them will make things more difficult for the other. Conserve energy, make the developing countries suffer. Help the developing countries, make the energy crisis worse.
And when we get frustrated, maybe we’ll pine for the easy days of fighting over climate change.
There are things we can do to protect against further climate change, improve energy security and smooth the path for developing countries. The conservative American Enterprise Institute and The Brookings Institute have teamed up with the Breakthrough Institute to propose a post-partisan solution (PDF), mostly based on research. It’d probably work, too. But the problem with post-partisan proposals is that they would put partisans out of a job, so of course left and right are ganging up on these people.
Their proposals are important, but it probably looks as though their timing stinks. This would have seemed really useful six months ago. But now it seems like they’re showing up with their party gifts just as everybody’s cleaning up and getting ready to go home.
But that’s an illusion. The climate / energy wars will last another generation. This is just a pause of exhaustion. We will change names, politicians, bloggers and the nuances of our positions and get ready for Round Three. This is, after all, the title fight to end all title fights.
But more on that another time. Meanwhile, Joy to the World!
=========================================
BTW, I’ll bet most readers didn’t know this:
“Joy to the World” is a song written by Hoyt Axton, and made famous by the band Three Dog Night. – Anthony

Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You believe politicians when they give pronouncements? Boy, that’s rich…talk about bullfrogs on lillypads! LOL
(I see a whole bunch of people that believed Big O before the elections–They’re now accusing him (rightly so) of going the opposite way on just about everything he said.)
“Help the developing countries, make the energy crisis worse.”
What energy crisis? Earnest question.
optimistic much?
I’m 35 yrs old and my generation is chock full of brainwashed liberal puppets. These issues are FAR from over. I expect to be fighting these robots for the rest of my life and so be it.
Interesting article, Tom, and on one level I’m hoping you’re right – but Congress left town without taking a stand on extending the Bush Tax Cuts, primarily to finesse the issue. If the November election is as bad a bloodbath as some are predicting, the lame-duck session will have every incentive to try and cement the progressive agenda into place and hope that the new congress will be unable to over-ride certain Presidential vetoes of bills attempting to roll-back some of the administrations accomplishments or that inertia and the prospect of a vast revenue stream will blunt any attempts at roll-backs. The experience of Connecticut is instructive. Governor Lowell Weicker in 1991 refused to sign any budget that did not include an income tax. The legislature finally caved and passed an income tax and politicians from both parties in subsequent elections vowed to repeal the tax. It’s 20 years later and we still have the tax.
I’m expecting “dead” Cap and Trade legislation to be presented and passed during the lame duck session. Congress will have nothing to lose.
So your message seems to be that because AGW support has declined somewhat and is dissolving at the edges into other more marketable enviro-concerns, we can all relax?
I don’t think so. We cannot let up on the AGW-istas, because of the serious damage that they have done to the credibility of science, not to mention diverting research and funding resources away from real issues. This situation canot be allowed to recur, we have lost twenty years in gaining proper understanding of climate effects, and it will take many years to recover from that position.
Building knowledge in climate science is essential to a multitude of human activities and in preparing ourselves for any eventualities, be they beneficial or adverse. I would not wish to see that permanently lost, nor be regressed back in the future due to lack of vigilance on the part of the climate scientists’ peers and interested observers.
Eco totalitarians at work in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-11557909
I’m with DirkH on this one : what energy crisis ? Our current “crisis” appears to me to be a fabrication .
Thanks for mentioning Dr Pielke Sr., who has perhaps the most sensible, even-tempered science blog. Now, if he were in charge of IPCC’s WG1, it would be a fair account. Sadly, and probably deliberately, that’s not likely.
Here’s a fact of life (ALL life ). Find something to eat, pass on your genes, don’t get eaten. I mention this because there is no way in hell anyone is going to solve world hunger – or any other so called global problem.
What was the point of this post ?
Is this MSM ? I thought I was on a blog.
The MSM need to fill up pages with words.
Hoyt was God in Gremlins!!! RIP
Three Dog Night
It refers to being cold. Often when ranchers or cowboys were out on the range they would have to sleep with their dogs to keep warm. A one dog night was a night when he had to share body heat with one dog, two dog night was two dogs and a three dog night was an extremely cold night where he would have to share body heat with three dogs. “how cold was it on your trip?” “It was a three dog night”.
I found it here:
http://www.idiomsite.com/threedognight.htm
PS to my previous. Do you know why there won’t be any “solutions”? Because progress (evolution) requires conflict and competition. Solutions such as have been proposed for climate, energy, etc. all require cooperation, which leads to evolutionary stagnation. In short terms; Life must fight to live.
An interesting piece on the future direction of the Royal Society:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/10/what-next-for-the-royal-society.html
“There are things we can do to protect against further climate change”
Mr. Fuller, you know only too well the position the vast majority of WUWT readers have on climate change. If you wrote the article for this audience, why do you so nonchalantly use a premise that you know is not accepted and never address the fact that the premise is challenging to us? Your articles always follow the line then suddenly ask us to take the bait, almost as if they are simply a ‘long con’.
Why should we listen to your opinions when you, as a non-scientist, stand on the shoulders of IPCC science but seem oblivious to this site’s continual dismantling of it.
“Domestic politicians won’t let go of their clubs until after the November elections in the USA, although the UK may be moving a bit more quickly.”
FIFO
In re: BTW, I’ll bet most readers didn’t know …
Hoyt’s mother, Mae Axton , with Tommy Durden, wrote “Heartbreak Hotel”, a mega hit for Elvis.
EPA prepares to veto coal mine permit over CO2. And this makes it sound like it has indeed been killed.
In other words, who needs laws when you control the bureaucracy.
Hey Fuller, “wall of text” look it up.
This is where you lose me, Tom. I don’t see any reason to control co2 at all, yet. What on earth do you mean “protect against further climate change?” I’m opposed to ANY policy or tax dollar designed to somehow influence the climate of this nation. Until further notice this would be an act of insanity. As far as energy security goes, by all means let us exploit all of out fossil fuel options here in North America as well as greatly expanding our nuclear facilities.
If you want to find new ways to possibly convince the public that global warming is indeed still a threat, by all means, go ahead. Just don’t ask for any government dollars to do so. After November 2nd, there will be no more tax dollars left to play with. The answer to what comes next IS nothing.
But that’s an illusion. The climate / energy wars will last another generation.
Why are you conflating climate with energy?
They have as much in common as the average breast size and the price of gold.
This is just a pause of exhaustion. We will change names, politicians, bloggers and the nuances of our positions and get ready for Round Three. This is, after all, the title fight to end all title fights.
No. This “pause” will last about one Grand Cycle. Which is a long time.
There will be a period of coldness to come, but the usual thing of “A new Ice Age is COMING!!!” (like the 70’s) won’t happen because the embarrassment of this current debacle will permeate the various “establishments”. Then it’ll warm again and again the embarrassment of this current debacle will silence the idiocy – despite that it will be well over 60 years in the past by then.
Then it’ll get cold again, and there may be murmorings of idiocy – but that will be about a century into the future. At that point, they will be thinking (like we do) “People of a hundred years ago were as dumb as rocks, had no idea how to do science and used such primitive equipment”
The image of the Bull is just kick ass, it’s like the bull has just landed, one can even see the bubbles around the chest. Usually frog pics are more like frogs in flight or just starting their jump, never just having recently landed. So +1 for the Bull.
What I don’t get though is why it really starts out focusing on someone called Tobis who calls himself a software engineer when he’s no such thing but an 80’s systems engineer, software engineers never did much hardware stuff after all not even back then.
Maybe it’s just my dislike for the pathetic language of python but somehow I figure not but rather the weirdness of someone having freely spent more ‘an 23 years in higher education and apparently have no real world application to show for. I’m stumped. And probably, as I read it, that Bull is too, because it seem to be saying: Get real and move it already!
Does this mean the AGW inflationary bubble has burst?
Clue: Globalism = ++ Inflating bubble
Cue: Freezing in the dark at the start of the Greatest Depression ever?
Cue: WW3?
Cue: ?
Philip Thomas says:
October 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm
“There are things we can do to protect against further climate change”
“Mr. Fuller, you know only too well the position the vast majority of WUWT readers have on climate change. If you wrote the article for this audience, why do you so nonchalantly use a premise that you know is not accepted and never address the fact that the premise is challenging to us? Your articles always follow the line then suddenly ask us to take the bait, almost as if they are simply a ‘long con’.
Why should we listen to your opinions when you, as a non-scientist, stand on the shoulders of IPCC science but seem oblivious to this site’s continual dismantling of it.”
Thank you Philip Thomas.
You’re hitting the nail on the head.
Websites such as WUWT are really good at science. May they prosper forever, especially WUWT. However, something that is greatly need now is a website that can do for funding mechanisms, laws, the UN, IPCC, environmental lobbies, and similar matters what WUWT has done for science.