A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.

Occupy Wall Street Climate Protest Image: AP

Occupy Wall Street Climate Protest Image: AP

By Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website

Summary: Here is a powerful presentation by Professor Roger Pielke Jr. that provides missing background for the flood of stories about climate change accompanying the UN Conference of Parties in Paris (COP21). The events he describes show how the public policy debate has been conducted, why it failed — and point to fixes necessary if we are to prepare for the future.

“It is not their wrongness so much as their pretensions to rightness that have brought economic predictions and the theory that underlies them into well-deserved contempt.”

— Peter Medawar in The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice: and Other Classic Essays on Scienceclip_image001 (1981).

Contents

  1. Introduction.
  2. His Presentation.
  3. Conclusions.
  4. For More Information.
  5. Upsetting the President’s science adviser.

(1)  Introduction

The debate about the public policy response to climate change began (to pick a date) with James Hansen’s Senate testimony 26 years ago, and went into hyperdrive with Gore’s speech ten years ago predicting a “time of consequences” (with, among other things, more Katrinas). It consists of a thousand smaller stories, which future historians will study with interest to learn why this great movement failed despite its strong support from the Left, academia, journalists, and the major science institutions.

Few more of these more clearly reveal the answer than activists’ response to  “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change”, a mild article in 538 by Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies at U of CO-Boulder, Director of their Center for Science and Technology Policy Research). It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.

Now that the policy debate has largely burnt out (e.g., see James Hansen’s rant about Obama), with the COP-21 party in Paris providing its wake, Pielke tells this story. It’s important to understand. Climate change has not stopped (it’s raised and destroyed civilizations for millennia), and we remain unprepared for even the repeat of past weather — let alone whatever the future holds for us. We have to learn from our mistakes in order to do better in the future.

(2)  His presentation

Introduction from his website

“Just over a week ago I gave a keynote lecture to the VWN – de Vereniging voor Wetenschapsjournalistiek en -communicatie, the Dutch Association of Science Journalists. My talk told the story of some of my experiences over about 20 years working on the subject of disasters and climate change.

“… my work attracted many critics who did not like what the research showed — in particular, the challenges that peer-reviewed research and the conclusions of the IPCC posed to linking rising disaster costs to human-caused climate change. In particular, more than a few journalists/activists (in collaboration with a few scientists) took it upon themselves to delegitimize my work and work to drive me from participation in the public debate. Ultimately, with the help of politicians like John Holdren and Rep. Raul Grijalva, they succeeded.”

The PowerPoint is here:26112015-Pielke-Jr-VWN presentation

(3)  Conclusions

“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”

— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

For more about the events Pielke describes — the firestorm over his accurate description of the findings of the IPCC and the peer-reviewed literature — see The Left stages a two minute hate on Nate Silver, Roger Pielke Jr. (& me) and Nate Silver goes from hero to goat, convicted by the Left of apostasy.

These tactics won many battles for activists, but lost the war. Now we have to understand what went wrong and try again. Climate change is ever-present in history, and today we remain poorly prepared even for the repeat of past extreme weather — let alone whatever the future holds for us.

(4)  For More Information

To learn more about Roger Pielke Jr., see his page at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. It has his bio, CV, and links to his publications for a general audience.

Also see these posts about the campaign for public policy action to fight climate change — how it went wrong and how it can be fixed…

  1. Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes.
  2. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
  3. The bottom line: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.

(5)  What so upset the President’s science adviser?

Here is a video of the fifteen words that so upset John Holdren, the President’s science advisor (slides 15-16) from Pielke’s testimony (pdf) before the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now” on 18 July 2013. See Holdren’s rebuttal, which Pielke demolishes here (showing that Holdren’s charges are baseless rhetoric). It’s another example of how the climate change debate degenerated into farce.

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.

    • And I’m not attending COP21 either, but millions of right-thinking people like me, armed with information only dreamed of two decades ago, just laugh at their antics and shake their heads.
      You don’t have to be a participant of these silly “Conference of Parties” to have an impact–in fact, staying away from that incredibly nefarious policy orgy would be the best thing a person (or millions upon millions of persons) could do.
      The circus COP has become is pretty obvious.

      • The farce has repercussions. Prime Minister Trudeau promised $2.64 Billion to the IMF’s Green Climate Fund over 5 years. Harper already gave at least $300 million.

      • Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Canada
        http://www.citizensclimatelobby.ca
        Parent organization is located in Coronado, Calif. with Dr. James Hansen on the advisory board, is alive and doing well in Canada. Has an Alberta Chapter too.
        In Canada first Chapter established at Sudbury, ON Sept., 2010 and has now spread across Canada.
        Check out their Canadian activities at the above website.

    • I monbiot,
      You might find the next in this series of interest: “Activists go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign”.
      COP21 is a wake — 40 thousand strong party in Paris marking the end of a 26-year-long-campaign for massive public policy changes to fight climate change.

      • What makes you think that? Why is Paris any different from the previous binges? All governments remain firmly onside, and the NGOs aren’t going anywhere either. I don’t see this ending soon.
        I do find it ironic that public scepticism of the climate bamboozle is strongest in the supposedly “under-educated” U.S. — you, that third-world country that is lagging the rest of the developed world in all the international comparisons of educational performance.

      • Michael,
        “What makes you think that? Why is Paris any different from the previous binges?”
        Great questions! They’re answered in my next post of this series: “Activists go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign.” Out later this week.

      • “[You Americans are] … lagging the rest of the developed world in all the international comparisons of educational performance.”
        But surveys show that US skeptics are more educated scientifically and know more about the climate issue than believers.

      • Roger-he said supposedly “under-educated” and later indicated that he was being sarcastic. The irony being that the vast majority of the population of such an “under educated, third world country” aren’t falling for the climate bamboozle. 🙂

      • @Michael Palmer – Perhaps we are ‘under-educated’ [sic], but don’t make the mistake of underestimating our intelligence, which is immune to the conditioning inherent to modern education.

      • I’m not an American, and Americans may be lagging the rest of the developed world in education, but where do 90% of the scientific, medical and technological breakthroughs come from? Is Bill Gates an American, Is Zukerberg and American? Shall I go on?

  1. Holdren’s emphasis has always been to foster the kind of Newmindedness that will produce new ways of thinking and new behaviours. In fact, in his 1989 book New World New Mind Paul Ehrlich thanks Holdren for his help in the book’s Acknowledgments.
    That this remains the point of the Climate Change juggernaut apart from statist economic planning and redistribution was laid out today in a UNESCO post https://efareport.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/education-a-powerful-response-to-climate-change/. As I warned in my timely book Credentialed to Destroy, here’s an open admission that the new purpose of K-12 globally is to change the student, not to transmit knowledge.
    Transformative, not transmissive as that post says.

    • That link’s long terms aspirations calls for ‘assessments’ that measure ‘higher order thinking skills.’ The so-called Bipartisan and Bicameral rewrite of federal education law was dropped Monday at 9:30 am at 1,059 pages to supposedly be voted on by the House today. After losing 13 hours of my life, I managed to finish it yesterday. It thoroughly enacts the UN’s behavioral agenda into US classrooms using various euphemisms like ‘well rounded education.’
      Most importantly though it insists that every state and school district assess ‘higher order thinking skills’ for every public school child at least once annually in grades 3 to 8. That would be the neural formative years as anyone who has read my book knows as I collected those confessions on what is targeted and why. Good day to call your House representative and complain.

    • Thanks for the heads up. I’m going to purchase your book. You should communicate with Anthony. I think his readers would appreciate an article on how the Global Warming agenda ties in to Common Core and the UNESCO effort.

  2. Larry’s treatment is confusing…the “debate failed”? What does that even mean? Did one side do poorly and it needs to try again? Or, did both sides fail? I’m mystified. A little clarity, please.

    • ..I think he means the ” debate ” failed to be a ” debate ” and simply became political trash talk..??

    • Roy,
      Good point! Writing clear & interesting titles is a difficult skill; I don’t do it well. The intro explains…

      The debate about the public policy response to climate change began (to pick a date) with James Hansen’s Senate testimony 26 years ago … Now that the policy debate has largely burnt out …Climate change has not stopped (it’s raised and destroyed civilizations for millennia), and we remain unprepared for even the repeat of past weather — let alone whatever the future holds for us. We have to learn from our mistakes in order to do better in the future.

      This is the next in a series about this complex matter. This framing of “the public policy debate” was discussed in detail here: How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future..

      Summary: Climate science as an institution has become dysfunctional; large elements of the public no longer trust it. The politics of climate change are polarized and gridlocked. The weather will determine the evolution of US public policy. All we can do is learn what went wrong so we can do better next time, and wait to see the price we pay for our folly.

    • It’s worth seeing this entire hearing, and not only these quotes from Dr. Pielke. The full video shows also the testimony of Dr. Roy Spencer, and for me his answers actually flummox the Senate panel more than Pielke. It is important to also note the attitude and body language of some Senators. You will see what I mean.

  3. speaking of failure:
    2 Dec: Bloomberg: Luca Casiraghi: Abengoa, the Teetering Sun King of Spain, Prepares for End Game
    In the years that followed, Abengoa, founded as an electrical company in the Andalusia region more than seven decades ago, morphed into a global engineering giant. It wasn’t just solar installations but power-transmission lines and water-desalinization plants.
    The far-flung expansion, from Brazil to India, with each project raising financing as it went along, cloaked how much the entire operation was borrowing: too much, as it turned out. Even with world leaders gathered in Paris promising a climate-change deal likely to bolster solar operators, Abengoa is fighting to stave off what would be Spain’s biggest corporate collapse.
    “Investors stayed in because they thought that Abengoa was too big too fail,” said George Kaknis, an investment analyst at LNG Capital in London…
    “I can’t see how the company will manage to avoid a breakup,” said Maxime Kogge, an analyst at Spread Research, an independent research firm, in Lyon, France. “It needs too much money to keep going and to finish projects that haven’t been completed. I am very pessimistic.”
    So far, the company’s connections to the highest echelons of the Spanish establishment didn’t work to clinch a deal…
    Javier Benjumea, the founder of Abengoa, was made marquis by King Juan Carlos, an aristocratic title now held by his son. The company also has a long history of hiring former government officials, or relatives of officials, as board members. Bill Richardson, the ex-governor of New Mexico and a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet in the 1990s, now sits on the international advisory board of Abengoa Yield Plc, an independent unit spun off by Abengoa…
    “The whole house of cards collapsed,” said Antoine Bourgault, a London-based head of credit research at ISM Capital LLP, a merchant bank…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/abengoa-the-teetering-sun-king-of-spain-prepares-for-end-game

    • “with each project raising financing as it went along, cloaked how much the entire operation was borrowing: too much”
      Ah yes an eco-Enron raising from the dead.

  4. 1 Dec: Reuters: Jose Elias Rodriguez: Shareholders threaten to sue Abengoa over plunge in share price
    Spanish renewable energy and engineering group Abengoa faces a civil lawsuit after shareholders accused the indebted company of keeping them in the dark when it last week initiated insolvency proceedings…
    He also said AEMEC, which is looking for compensation for 250 of the close to 50,000 minority shareholders in Abengoa, could also pursue criminal charges…
    The company’s share price fell 73 percent last week and is down 93 percent since April when the shares hit a six-month high of 3.75 euros…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/01/abengoa-restructuring-lawsuit-idUSL8N13Q48P20151201
    1 Dec: Global Trade Review: Melodie Michel: Abengoa collapse could change renewables financing
    Santander is reported to have the largest exposure at €1.5bn, followed by CaixaBank and Banco de Sabadell, each with more than €300mn. International banks involved with the company include Citi, HSBC, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Barclays, among others.
    In the past year alone Abengoa raised financing for three projects in South Africa, Uruguay and Israel, and won a number of contracts across Egypt, Mexico and the US…
    She (Josefin Berg, senior solar power analyst at IHS) believes that after benefiting from the exponential growth of the solar industry in Spain, spurred by government incentives, the company hoped to export its expertise, but may have been surprised by the slow growth of the sector on a global scale.
    “This growth never happened in other countries; even in Spain they realised that this was an expensive programme and it was cut, and Abengoa was involved in about a third of those projects. Abengoa is involved in scattered projects in various geographies, but nothing of the same extent and of the same perceived stability after the Spanish programme. There was nowhere to go to expand based on the expertise they had in this particular sector,” she tells GTR.
    As a result, banks are likely to look more closely at renewable companies’ growth plans and how they connect to real market opportunities before funding them…
    http://www.gtreview.com/news/europe/abengoa-collapse-could-change-banks-approach-to-renewables/

  5. “The debate failed”? What debate?The whole climatist meme is in the process of failing, due to the fact that it isn’t really based on science, and invoking the IPCC and calling anything it has cranked out “science” is laughable.

    • Bruce, I think the slowness to catch on in the minds of the public is in an apathy towards science (as a mundane study of real-time observations vs. hypothesis) and an attraction towards science fiction, which (as Orson Welles demonstrated so effectively) can cause undue alarm and have some negative consequences.

    • You are correct and his remark came as a surprise. Where has a clear CO2 signal in the surface temp records been detected?
      Jr. has always been a bit of a warmist, but he should know better than to appear before the Senate and preface a throwaway BS remark with “It is true that…”. Maybe that’s just a tell, a giveaway that he knows he’s not being honest.

      • I’d agree it ought to have an impact, but natural variation is more than big enough to explain all that we’ve seen, like 20th century warming. So, we’ve not even crossed a 50% confidence limit – indeed in engineering speak it’s “In theory it should … but in practice we have a clue how much is caused by CO2”

    • “human causation can be detected in the temperature signal.”
      Perhaps he is also being sarcastic?
      Or the signal is entirely a human artifact, given all the cudges and improvements, we can say very little with respect to what has actually happened.
      However the official “temperature signal” is entirely the work of mann, extrapolated from interesting locations, airports and growing cities,diffused from changing sensor methods and so forth.
      Given the growth in Polar Ice, I suspect we are sticking with the roughly 60 year cycles suggested by our pre-Climatology measurements.

    • The surface record in that it contains a component due to direct thermal flux due to human activity (energy dissipation, albedo mods, motor exhausts and heat, etc, etc) has arguably been anthropogenically affected. It is interesting that the surface record apparently shows a greater rise than the satellite record. The arena of debate should be the satellite record. That is where one can debate which components if any were of anthropgenic origin.

    • I’m sorry, Pielke is wrong to say that human causation can be detected in the temperature signal.

      You are the wrong one. Pielke knows very well what he is talking about.

      • Perhaps you would provide a link(s) to any temp. data set showing a clear CO2 signal. Otherwise…

      • In some temperature records, you can see a possible correlation between CO2 and the temperature signal. But correlation is not causation. And there is no such signal in the satellite temperature signal for at least 18 years. Besides, in some temperature data sets, there is also a correlation between CO2 increases and temperature adjustments, which appear to be an effort to adjust the temperature signal to match CO2 measurements. And although those adjustments are human caused, I don’t think that is what Pielke is referring to. Then there is the problem of determining whether the increases of CO2 are mostly human caused, or whether natural temperature increases are warming the oceans and causing greater CO2 outgassing. I don’t think these questions have been answered definitively. If Pielke can show which correlation is the true cause, then I’d like to see his evidence.

      • This is where Spencer & Pielke disagree then, because Dr. Roy says in his evidence that whilst he accepts that increased CO2 should cause some warming, it isn’t possible to discern a distinct Human signal in that. Of course we can calculate (by doing extrapolations from world fossil fuel consumption figures) how much “fossil” CO2 Humans put into the atmosphere, but we can’t actually measure that signal in the data from Mauna Loa Observatory though.
        Not only that, but recent research shows that CO2 residence time in teh atmosphere, may not be nearly as long as was one hypothesised. However we cannot easily quantify the draw-down measurement, because it’s difficult to measure all the vegetation which is growing in the biosphere, and the animals which may consume them or the amount of additional CO2 which they as a result emit, and for example how much timber by molecular carbon weight is destroyed by felling and naturally induced conflagrations, such as in Siberia (ongoing Dec 2015).
        As another example, I don’t believe that ANY of the so called “climate” or “CO2” models take other than Human animal emissions, or indeed insect emissions into account at all. Termites and Ants alone, are said to produce more than double what all Humanity produces due to industrial activity. Then there’s spiders, beetles, bees, wasps, and other winged insects, and the birds who feed on them, as weel as frogs, toads, lizards, snakes, rats, mice, polecats and other predators, all of which are breathing out CO2 and defecating digested Carbon based waste, which again is further broken down and consumed by insects, to create even more CO2. NONE of that is even considered because…….
        ……The so called IPCC and the so called UNFCCC are concerned with looking for ONLY SIGNALS OF HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE and HUMAN EMITTED CO2. The entire subject and agenda is as pre-ordained as a Saturday Night Wrestling Extravaganza. Right down to self induced razor cuts, the Balsa Wood Tables, and Barley Sugar Beer Bottles & etc.
        (see Dr. Roy Spencer testimony in above video)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/a-story-of-the-climate-change-debate-how-it-ran-why-it-failed/comment-page-1/#comment-2086947

  6. Lets say it is warmer farther up to the north. That means less cold air to flow down and clash with warm moist air. This means that global warming in theory should result in less violent storms, tornado’s and hurricanes. He said in the video that violent weather is down. If the earth is ever so slightly warmer than say 100 years ago and it can be proved that this is the cause of the less extreme weather and this gets out as fact. Along with higher CO2 resulting in better growth of plant life. It will be very hard to get anyone to actually want to fight the possibility of a little more warming. Really, in my 48 years of life. I don’t see any change in my little point on the earth. Nothing has changed. Same seasons and seasonal random weather, temperatures and all.

    • Hurricanes do not depend on temperature difference between polar air and tropical air, at least while they are in the usual tropical hurricane formation and intensification areas. Instead, they are fueled by temperature difference between the sea surface (which has been warming in part from more greenhouse gases) and the top of the troposphere (which has been cooling (in part from more greenhouse gases).
      However hurricanes sometimes act up and do weird things far from the tropics, for example Hazel of 1954 and Sandy. This does depend on temperature gradient between polar air and tropical air, so this aspect of hurricanes (at least in the northern hemisphere) should get less severe as the Arctic warms faster than the tropics.

      • Have to disagree with you about sea surface temperature increases being caused by more greenhouse gasses.
        Green house gasses can only warm via Long Wave Infra Red radiation (LWIR). That surely can raise the temperature of land, roads, concrete, buildings, us etc.
        However, LWIR is absorbed by the first few microns at the surface, which will most likely cause an increase in the evaporation at the surface, and thus lower the temperature due to loss of latent heat.

      • The atmosphere can readily warm the sea surface, all it requires is that the dew point be above the sea surface temperature. Water – dew! – will condense on the sea surface and release a lot of heat in the process. Most will stay with the water where conduction and wave mixing distributes it.

      • @Ric Werme December 2, 2015 at 7:07 pm

        The atmosphere can readily warm the sea surface, all it requires is that the dew point be above the sea surface temperature. Water – dew! – will condense on the sea surface and release a lot of heat in the process. Most will stay with the water where conduction and wave mixing distributes it.

        Yes, but that’s not because of (anthropogenic – i.e. carbon dioxide) greenhouse gasses; it’s a natural occurrence, involving the most important greenhouse gas – water vapour.

      • Regarding XYZZY11’s response about LWIR heating only the top few microns of the oceans: This creates a very concentrated temperature gradient in the next few microns down that leads to the heat being conducted downwards to the next few microns in milliseconds. This process repeats, so that the heat gets conducted to a goodly fraction of a millimeter down in a matter of seconds, despite this process slowing as it progresses deeper. This extra heat gets conducted downward faster than it is lost by evaporative cooling. And once it becomes a matter of seconds, waves will often stir this heat downward by centimeters within a matter of minutes.

      • Donald L. Klipstein December 2, 2015 at 9:21 pm
        Regarding XYZZY11’s response about LWIR heating only the top few microns of the oceans: This creates a very concentrated temperature gradient in the next few microns down that leads to the heat being conducted downwards to the next few microns in milliseconds. This process repeats, so that the heat gets conducted to a goodly fraction of a millimeter down in a matter of seconds, despite this process slowing as it progresses deeper. This extra heat gets conducted downward faster than it is lost by evaporative cooling. And once it becomes a matter of seconds, waves will often stir this heat downward by centimeters within a matter of minutes.

        I used to think that, but I have not discovered any research that proves that to be the case. Can you cite any such research?

      • XYZZY11 quoting DLK said ….
        “waves will often stir this heat downward by centimeters within a matter of minutes”
        […. Red Herring Detected (Klaxon sounds) … ]
        However the converse is also true surely.
        The process described is entirely reversible,
        and natural.
        Water evaporating from the sea surface will remove a lot of heat
        from the sea surface, and waves will stir this cold water downwards,
        and bring some more slightly warmer water to the surface, to again
        be cooled by evaporation. If it were not the case, then most clouds
        would not exist, to rain their water onto the land, n’est-ce pas?
        So what is the balance or difference between these two diametric
        effects, and as it will be different, dependent upon prevailing
        barometric pressure, and humidity, and time of day, existing
        cloud cover, and a host of other variables including location ?
        How would you propose to measure these effects, and at which
        points across the globe would you put your sensors, and finally
        who would pay for all this?
        Oh silly me, it’s the hard pressed taxpayer of course,
        who would be expected to stump up, but to what end ?
        For me this is an entire spurious hypothetical argument,
        which can never be proved categorically, hence it makes
        an ideal subject for a “rent seeker” money drain. This is
        the sort of “research” that today’s crop of pseudo-scientists
        relish with glee. I can hear the clatter of distant keyboards
        already as the “faithful” send out myriad grant applications.
        Oh, and don’t forget to add the magic rent-seeker’s phrase
        ..”with respect to increased CO2 and catastrophic climate change”

    • How do you prove the cause of some weather event that happened once, and will never ever repeat so you could experimentally confirm your theory ??
      I still can go back to a 1 deg. F cooler climatic Temperature that supposedly there was 150 years ago, where I live now, by simply getting in my car and moving about 10 miles to the south of where I live now.
      But I don’t want to live colder, and that place is a lot more expensive too.
      g

  7. There can’t be a “public policy response” to something which can’t be shown to be a problem, let alone that man had anything to do with. The bottom line is that the Climatists are now at the point of simply pointing to weather and calling it climate change. That, and hyper-ventilating about what “will” happen in the future unless we do as they say.

    • Bruce,
      The climate is changing, as it always had. We need to respond to these changes, as all civilizations must. Those that don’t sometimes die.
      We’re not ready for repeat of past extreme weather, let alone future climate. The policy gridlock in this vital area is a result of the failure of this 26-year-long public policy debate.

      • “The climate is changing” is a truism. It is meaningless. With the exception of SLR, we can’t say exactly what those changes are, let alone what lies in store for the future. Even SLR is just the continued, gradual rise that has been on-going for centuries. Nothing to panic about. Droughts and floods have always been with us. The insignificant temperature rise, if anything has been a blessing, and even that appears to have stalled, with a good chance of a cooling period in decades to come. If we should prepare for anything we should prepare for that, since cooling is actually cause for concern.

      • So whereabouts in the 150 deg. C global extreme Temperature range, would you like to live.
        According to Galileo Galilei, there is an infinity of places, having any temperature between those extremes that you would prefer.
        Now yes; some of those places will be out in the oceans, but not all of them.
        And there is far more empty land on earth than human occupied land.
        g

  8. Oh one can argue as to the debate being won or lost. I would say skeptics have won the debate at every step. It just doesn’t matter.
    It is the war we have lost. Each new generation of politicians grows up with the CAGW meme being a defacto truth embedded in their collective consciousnesses. Each new generation of is increasingly willing to allow the crony capitalism and crony socialism that feeds increasing billions to corrupt corporations and un-elected power hungry bureaucracies. COP21 will fail to produce any meaningful “breakthrough” in climate policy because to do so would strangle the world economy and foment the exact unrest and disruption that the politicians claim to be fighting. But make no mistake about it, the creeping doom is upon us and it will take tiny steps forward in Paris.
    It is not the tiny steps that they take that are dangerous, but that each set of them piles upon those taken before. The electorates in the free world remain unconcerned in poll after poll in regard to climate change, and so live their lives in blissful ignorance of the wealth and power being slowly siphoned away from them world wide.
    We won the debate.
    We’re losing the war.

    • I’m not sure we are losing. Even with declaring any agreement not a treaty, as with the Iran deal, so as to avoid the 2/3 constitutional requirement in the Senate, I still doubt that Obama can get even half of both Houses of Congress to sign off on whatever monstrosity emerges from the sewers of Paris.
      Besides which, while there are various flavors of skeptics, all agree that man-made climate change, if it exists, is not catastrophic and can be adapted to. Hardcore skeptics might doubt that the planet has warmed more than half a degree since the end of the LIA and/or that CO2 is even a GHG. Lukewarmers acknowledge that without feedback effects, climate sensitivity could be around one degree, which means that any warming won’t be harmful. IMO this latter view will eventually “win”, thanks to Mother Nature herself showing its validity.

      • I should add under the hardcore skeptics those who don’t think that rising CO2 (if rising) is mainly man-made.

      • I think, as in any war, sometimes one side surges ahead, and sometimes the other side does. A war is a series of battles, small and large, and each one is different as far as territory involved, number of soldiers, types of weapons. A war is neither won, nor lost, until it’s over and the opposing sides either agree to a truce or one side obliterates the other.
        Ironically enough, the greenies winning the climate debate has just as much chance of causing the same world wide problems that they assure us will occur if we do not act soon; famine, death, shortages, and hostility to name just a few. Should that happen, they would be responsible for starting a “real” war, and the irony is that the “greenies” are the least prepared army of soldiers in the history of history.

      • Well the problem in the Congress is that those with the money, have already bought off both sides of the argument, so nothing is going to change substantially.
        Neither the Administrative arm, nor the Legislative arm follow the Constitution any more, and the SCOTUS does nothing to force their compliance.
        g

    • David,
      “We won the debate. We’re losing the war.”
      Please explain that in a bit more detail.
      There has been almost no public policy action in the US to fight climate change. What little there has been accords with long-standing programs to reduce pollution (e.g., Obama’s phase-out of coal) and to achieve energy independence (e.g,, subsidies for renewables and electric cars). Whether or not you agree with these measures, they are insignificant compared to those sought by climate activists.
      Nor is this likely to change soon, with polls consistently showing that climate change ranks at or near the bottom of the public’s major public policy concerns.
      The picture is the same in most of the other developed nations (e.g., Europe’s frantic attempts to develop alternative energy sources, reducing their dependence on Russia). This is even more evident on a global basis. Most of the emerging nations remain strongly opposed to the proposals of the climate activists.

      • “We won the debate. We’re losing the war.”
        Please explain that in a bit more detail.
        There has been almost no public policy action in the US to fight climate change.

        First, the US is not the world.
        The World Bank no longer will lend money to 3rd world countries for the purpose of building coal fired power plants, a position they took in part due to pressure from the US. That’s public policy action on a global scale that is affecting billions of poor.
        Second, there has been substantive subsidy of solar and wind in the US. Tax payer money going into the pockets of crony capitalists.
        Third, do not mistake the lack of policy action with inaction. The manner in which you get policy enacted is to first socialize the idea among the electorate to make it acceptable to them. That is much of what is going on now. Laying the groundwork for future draconian policy action that the electorate has bought into.
        Fourth, Europe’s frenetic attempt to wean themselves off of Russian energy is part of the exact same picture. If you are correct, and that is what they are trying to do, they have picked the worst possible way of doing it. Had we won “the war” on this matter, the shear lunacy of trying to replace fossil fuels with windmills and solar panels would have been laughed out of existence. Instead, money would have been spent fast tracking fracking, and developing alternative sources of supply such as Canada’s Energy East pipeline. Instead they put tax payer money into the pockets of wealthy crony capitalists eager to profit from wind mills and solar farms that otherwise would never have been built, and provide precisely zero toward the goal of weaning off of Russian supplies.
        Fifth, speaking of Canada, the government of Alberta (the defacto economic engine of Canada) has declared that they will be limiting growth of emissions of oil sands production to no more than about 15% higher than current levels. Talk about driving a stake into the heart of a major economy! There’s some public policy for you that if enabled as proposed, will drop Canada out of the G8.
        So yes, the creeping doom is all around you. You haven’t noticed because that’s how creeping doom works.

    • I am not so sure.
      The majority of our citizenry have paid no attention so far.
      However their attention will focus very sharply when the costs come to their pockets.
      Every disease must swell before the fever breaks.
      This self congratulating bunch of professional parasites have swollen as far as they can.
      What they have done is cause measurable destruction to public health and wealth, clearly identify themselves and their illogic as responsible and openly attempt the most audacious con in modern history.
      The robbery of the poor to enrich the well connected is a very fine art, the Popes and Royal Family have walked this edge for centuries, however the act can implode in a heart beat.
      The sheer number of greedy, useless persons involved in the UN and its self serving appendages is a receipt for disaster.
      The tools the Team UN IPCC ™ chose are the tools of their own destruction, the big lie.
      Brainwashing school children.
      Policy based evidence manufacturing.
      Do not under estimate the energy and anger of lied to and used young adults.
      The truth will out.
      I believe the people involved forgot their reality, they are parasites upon productive society, tolerated as long as their costs do not exceed the effort required to remove them.
      I picture them as a congress of ticks, congratulating themselves over their domination of their cow, as the cow shuffles into the drench chute.
      I also believe the UN will agitate its useful idiots to seize control of this tool, the internet, as belatedly they must have realized there is no control of the message, when strangers such as we can openly communicate..
      The Australian Government has already started, Canada has the Human Rights Tribunals, to separate you from your civil and legal rights, expect some new and interesting trolls as the “cause” implodes.

    • Excellent analysis David. My only hope is one similar to one expressed by Thomas Sowell about the coming economic collapse. He said he was 80 years old and that he didn’t think he would live long enough to see it. I just turned 64 and I don’t think I will last too many more years. I once thought that if I won the power ball lottery, say 200 million, that I could turn this war around. Now I don’t think it will be possible.

    • There are several parallel wars being fought in relation to CAGW: the war on the integrity of Science, the war on ruinous green policy and the war on an expanding and dysfunctional UN. I suspect that the outcome of COP21 will give us an idea on how we are doing on these three fronts.

    • davidmhoffer,
      ” Each new generation of politicians grows up with the CAGW meme being a defacto truth embedded in their collective consciousnesses.”
      I doubt that very much. I think at this point the majority are either just going with the flow, so to speak, or know damn well it’s a con.. Same with mass media talking heads, and many who run things like science journals and “organizations”, etc, it seems to me. Most such persons can pretty easily grasp the implications of claims that “the science is settled”, and the term “denier” being routinely used as a descriptor for those who dare to disagree, as I understand my world and specie, anyway.

  9. “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science,”
    Except it isn’t, is it? It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. No lie at all. Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

    • seaice:
      You say

      “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science,”
      Except it isn’t, is it? It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. No lie at all. Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

      What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?
      I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest. Please cite, quote and link to what you refer.
      While writing I point out that the IPCC is a political organisation and all its publications are political – n.b. not scientific – documents some of which provide selected scientific information.
      Richard

      • “While writing I point out that the IPCC is a political organisation and all its publications are political – n.b. not scientific ….”
        That’s why we should refer to it as IGPOCC. (Also, because it’s an acronym (pronounceable), not just a set of initials.)

      • The passage in full is:
        “Few more of these more clearly reveal the answer than activists’ response to “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change”, a mild article in 538 by Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies at U of CO-Boulder, Director of their Center for Science and Technology Policy Research). It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.”
        There is no noble lie corruption in the climate science as represnted by the IPCC report. That is very much the point of the original article on 538. Pielke is using evidence from the IPCC report to justify his claim. So it is definitely not telling a story of corruption in the science. He also says “and in the scurillous behaviour of activists”, so the claim of corruption in the science is in addition to the activists behavior and it is wrong.

      • seaice/seaice1 (why the multiple accounts? )
        Since it seems like a fair number of newer participants here are acutely challenged by grammar/language, the following examples should be a learning experience. The Fabius Maximus Editor might want to clean up a few things that I mention below regarding the paragraph that seaice1 is misrepresenting, to prevent further such misrepresentation. seaice1’s statements will appear between dotted lines like this-******* for clarity
        (regarding the full passage-)
        ***********
        “Few more of these more clearly reveal the answer than activists’ response to “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change”, a mild article in 538 by Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies at U of CO-Boulder, Director of their Center for Science and Technology Policy Research). It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.”
        ***************
        My response-The person speaking/writing in this instance is Larry Hummer, who is reviewing/summarizing an article from the Fabius Maximus website. The paragraph just prior to this one tells us what the “these are” refers to in the first sentence. (“The debate…..consists of a thousand smaller stories, which future historians will study with interest to learn why this great movement failed despite its strong support from the Left, academia, journalists, and the major science institutions.)
        So, “Few more* of these (stories) more clearly reveal the answer” (“to why this great movement failed…”) “than activists response to…..a mild article…by Roger Pielke Jr.”
        *indicates what is probably just erroneous editing/addition of an extra “more” in this sentence. I believe the sentence should read “Few of those stories more clearly reveal the answer than activists’ response to…” or better yet “Few of those stories reveal the answer, to why this movement failed, more clearly than activists’ response to”
        So…when Larry Hummer uses the following (also incomplete sentence) -It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.- we have NO idea if Larry Hummer is saying that the activist’s response to the article is the “telling story” or if he’s saying that the article written by Roger Pielke Jr. is the “telling story”. But we CAN use basic grammar and punctuation skills to look for clues.
        *************
        “There is no noble lie corruption in the climate science as represnted by the IPCC report. That is very much the point of the original article on 538. Pielke is using evidence from the IPCC report to justify his claim. So it is definitely not telling a story of corruption in the science. He also says “and in the scurillous behaviour of activists”, so the claim of corruption in the science is in addition to the activists behavior and it is wrong.”
        **************
        My Response-
        Clue #1-
        There is no indication that the author talking here-Larry Hummer- is talking about, or referencing, the IPCC report OR the climate science referred to in Pielke’s article at all.
        Clue #2-
        Larry uses quotation marks twice in the paragraph. Once to set apart the title of Pielke’s article (which according to MLA standards really should have been italicized or underlined rather than encased in quotation marks) and once to set apart the phrase “noble lie”, to which he applied a link tap that leads directly to a wikipedia entry defining the term “noble lie”. Linking to the definition proves he used the quotation marks the same way someone does if they use fingered air quotes when they are speaking-to indicate words used ironically or with some reservation, which is also proper usage.The link also proves he wasn’t referring to a quote by Roger Pielke Jr.
        Clue#3-
        Since the quoted term “noble lie” is not tap linked to Roger Pielke Jr.’s article, we can assume that the “The telling story” refers to the “activists’ response to” Pielke’s article, and that the story about the activists’ response is a “telling one” “about ‘noble lie’ corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.”
        Clue#4-
        It is terribly, morally wrong to pretend to know what someone else thinks or believes based on nothing more than your own understanding or interpretation of something. If they didn’t SAY it, you shouldn’t ASSUME it. No one can magically, or scientifically, read someone else’s mind or heart. And giving your opinion about something in a form that IMPLIES or INSINUATES that someone’s words meant something different than what they actually said, it both logically flawed and irrational. It’s perfectly fine to say something like “I think the author is saying…..” or “I think this implies”…because you are qualifying your statements as being exactly what it is…your thoughts, your opinion. It’s wrong, and illogical to read something, interpret it to mean a specific thing according to you, and then present YOUR interpretation as if it constitutes fact or evidence.

      • This place; WUWT is a …. BLOG …..
        It is not a course in English literature.
        It is generally used for the free exchange of ideas. So long as the ideas get communicated to most of the readership, it matters not whether one uses the punctuation rules from French, Spanish, or English.
        We have plenty of German participants too, but they don’t rebuke the rest of us for not capitalizing our Nouns.
        In spite of our sloppy grammar habits, WUWT continues to grow in readership, and participation.
        G << g

      • seaice1,
        “There is no noble lie corruption in the climate science as represnted by the IPCC report. That is very much the point of the original article on 538. Pielke is using evidence from the IPCC report to justify his claim. So it is definitely not telling a story of corruption in the science. ”
        Did you read Pielke’s presenation?
        First, the core of it is a critique of a high-profile finding in AR4 — one which was both unrepresentative of the existing peer-reviewed literature AND didn’t follow IPCC standards. Second, he briefly mentions the rebuttal by Obama’s science adviser (which I describe in more details) — which was clearly polemical and unrepresentative of the science.

      • Aphan. If we are going down the literal interpretation the passage is obviously wrong.
        Hummer needs to have something that is “telling story about “Noble lie” corruption in the climate science.”
        You say “we have NO idea if Larry Hummer is saying that the activist’s response to the article is the “telling story” or if he’s saying that the article written by Roger Pielke Jr. is the “telling story”.
        It is clear that it doesn’t matter which of these he means. Corruption in the science is supported neither by the activists response nor by Pielke’s article. However you wriggle, you cannot get away from this.
        The activists response does not reveal corrution in the science because it is activists, not the science.
        The Pielke article does not reveal corruption in the science because it uses IPCC reports as evidence for the articles claim -therefore corruption in this science cannot be revealed by using it as evidence.
        Neither reveals corruption in the science.
        “Since it seems like a fair number of newer participants here are acutely challenged by grammar/language, the following examples should be a learning experience.”
        You may indeed find this a learning experience. There is often an assumption here that anyone posting a contrary view is somehow deficient. As well as learning some reading comprehension, perhaps you will learn not to make disparaging statements about someone you disagree with.
        Seaice was what I used to post directly. Posting via wordpress the name “seaice” was already taken, hence seaice1.

    • Editor of Fabius Maximum website: “Did you read Pielke’s presenation? ”
      OK – it has become clear. This is an example of very muddled writing – to the point of incomprehensibility. The “it” in the “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science…” refers to the presentation, although the presentation has not yet been mentioned in the body, and makes no sense in the context of the paragraph. Even Aphan did not consider that as a possibility. There is no way one could reasonably conclude that the “it” refered to the presentation. The passage as written is wrong.

      • seaice1:
        I asked you for clarification and added a statement in my post that said

        “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science,”

        Except it isn’t, is it? It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. No lie at all. Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

        What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?
        I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest. Please cite, quote and link to what you refer.
        While writing I point out that the IPCC is a political organisation and all its publications are political – n.b. not scientific – documents some of which provide selected scientific information.

        You have failed to provide the requested clarification pertaining to your assertion of IPCC statement(s) and I now understand that failure to be because you know you made an unsubstantiated assertion with no relation to reality.
        Others have pressed you on your unsubstantiated assertion, and your response has been waffle and evasion.
        In response to ‘Editor of Fabius Maximus website’ (whom you misname) you have tried to justify your floundering by saying

        OK – it has become clear. This is an example of very muddled writing – to the point of incomprehensibility. {snip}

        NO! What has “become clear” is that you cannot clarify your original post which was intended to disrupt the thread with its ambiguity and untrue assertions.
        Subsequent comments – and your floundering – have revealed why you made your post but have not stated that you suggested a falsehood when you wrote

        Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

        I now write to correct that to avoid your falsehood misleading onlookers of this thread.
        The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts of this are as follows.
        It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

        This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
        The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

        These are stated at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
        Near its beginning that document says

        ROLE
        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

        This says the IPCC exists to provide
        (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
        and
        (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
        Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
        The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
        1
        amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
        2
        by politicians approving the SPM
        3
        then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
        All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

        Richard

      • Richard. For you to accuse me of waffle is a bit rich, since your comment has nothing to do with the point I made. That is why I did not respond – to avoid getting distracted with irrelevancies.
        I say the claim that the information refered to does NOT tell a story abut lies and corruption in the climate science.
        You say “What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?”
        This has nothing to do with whether the information given tells us anything about lies and corruption.
        Please stop accusing me of distraction, when it is you who is adding distractions. If you have a comment to make about my comment, then do so.
        “I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest.”
        That is clear. It shoulkdalso be obviuos that the answer cannot be found in IPCC publications. I have posted several times since then which should have clarified my position, but once more just for you.
        I am suggesting that “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science…” is wrong, because nothing to which the “its” could reasonably refer says any such thing. We have since had clarification that it actually refered to the presentation, but there is no way one could ascertain this from the writing. If anyone doubts me, just show the passage to anyone and ask them what the “its” refers to.
        Apologies to Editor of Fabius Maximus website for wrong name.

      • seaice,
        “although the presentation has not yet been mentioned in the body … There is no way one could reasonably conclude that the “it” refered to the presentation.”
        OK, so you just skimmed it. Thanks for explaining. The first line of the post:”Summary: Here is a powerful presentation by Professor Roger Pielke Jr. …” The Table of Contents says…
        (1) Introduction.
        (2) His Presentation.
        (3) Conclusions.
        I believe most people understood when reading the Introduction that the subject was a presentation by Roger Pielke Jr.
        To keep an analysis of a complex subject in reasonable length (my data shows that readership falls off as length exceeds a thousand words), an author has to assume a moderate level of attention from the reader.

      • seaice1:
        I refuse to believe you are as stupid as you say you are when you write

        Richard. For you to accuse me of waffle is a bit rich, since your comment has nothing to do with the point I made. That is why I did not respond – to avoid getting distracted with irrelevancies.
        I say the claim that the information refered to does NOT tell a story abut lies and corruption in the climate science.
        You say “What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?”
        This has nothing to do with whether the information given tells us anything about lies and corruption.

        Say what!?
        YOU wrote

        “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science,”

        Except it isn’t, is it? It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. No lie at all. Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

        And I asked

        What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?
        I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest. Please cite, quote and link to what you refer.

        You did not answer because – as your subsequent waffle and evasions clearly demonstrate – you cannot clarify your original post which was intended to disrupt the thread with its ambiguity and untrue assertions.
        And you now compound your attempt at distraction when you write this idiocy

        Please stop accusing me of distraction, when it is you who is adding distractions. If you have a comment to make about my comment, then do so.
        “I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest.”
        That is clear. It shoulkdalso be obviuos that the answer cannot be found in IPCC publications. I have posted several times since then which should have clarified my position, but once more just for you.

        NO, seaice1. YOU said

        It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change.

        So I asked

        What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?
        I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest. Please cite, quote and link to what you refer.

        YOU now say ” the answer cannot be found in IPCC publications”.
        Well, that explains why I had no clue as to what you were trying to suggest: YOU WERE MAKING STUFF UP.

        Richard

      • Richard. I think I see why you do not understand. When I said “it clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change.” I was refering to the article by Pielke.
        The bit in question is ““Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change”, a mild article in 538 by Roger Pielke Jr. (Prof of Environmental Studies at U of CO-Boulder, Director of their Center for Science and Technology Policy Research). It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science, and the scurrilous behavior of activists to advance their political agenda.”
        Pielke’s article uses IPCC reports to make the point that increased damage is not due to climate change. So if I slightly re-phrase my line to “Pielke’s article clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change” does that answer your question?

      • seaice1:
        You are incorrigible!
        In attempt to further obfuscate your having waved a ‘red herring’ you now ask

        Pielke’s article uses IPCC reports to make the point that increased damage is not due to climate change. So if I slightly re-phrase my line to “Pielke’s article clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change” does that answer your question?

        NO!
        I remind that my question was

        What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?

        It is possible that you want to claim that no IPCC Synthesis Report says anything about any “rise” which you are considering. If so, then state the ‘rise’ so the veracity of your claim can be challenged.
        Alternatively, if you want to claim that some IPCC Synthesis Report says something other than Pielke wrote then cite, quote, reference and link to it.
        Importantly, when you wrote

        Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

        you admitted your ‘red herring’ would not be true if it were shown that “the IPCC is not representative of climate science”.
        I provided full documentary evidence that the IPCC exists to – and does – represent climate politics; i.e. NOT climate science.

        Richard

      • Editor of Fabius Maximum website. The “it” in the paragraph does not appear to refer to the presentation, since the reader would have to refer back to a different section. The reader is supposed to determine that you suddenly switched back to something you mention in the summary.
        You don’t have to believe me – look at what Aphan said. He analysed the paragraph in detail and said:
        “we have NO idea if Larry Hummer is saying that the activist’s response to the article is the “telling story” or if he’s saying that the article written by Roger Pielke Jr. is the “telling story”.
        He is synpathetic to your view and against mine, yet he did not see that the “it” might mean the presentation. You may think you were clear, but I suggest this shows that you were not.
        Aphan did not realise that is what you meant, and it would be nigh on impossible for any reader to ascertain that. I understand that may be what you meant, but your writing does not convey that. It requires not moderate attention, but psychic powers. If you want to test this, why don’t we show a few people the whole piece and ask them what “it” refers to?
        Richard. “It is possible that you want to claim that no IPCC Synthesis Report says anything about any “rise” which you are considering. ”
        No, no, no. I explained what I was claiming several times. I made it very clear that it was NOT about IPCC reports at all, but about Pielke’s article. Why can you not take this in?
        I originally said ” It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change.” The “it” is Pielke’s article on 538. It is not the IPCC reports. I made this abunbdantly clear when I re-phrased it to start “Pielke’s article” instead of “it”. I am talking about the article and always have been.
        take it a bit at a time
        “Pielkes article says…” OK, I am talking about the article.
        “…that the IPCC synthesis report says…” Now I am telling you that Pielke’s article talks about the IPCC reports.
        “…that the rise is not due to climate change.” Now I am telling you what Pielke says the IPCC reports say.
        Richard says Alternatively, if you want to claim that some IPCC Synthesis Report says something other than Pielke wrote then cite, quote, reference and link to it.
        It should now be clear that I am claiming that the IPCC report says exactly what Pielke says it does.
        Pielke says in his article:
        “Fortunately, scientists have invested a lot of effort into looking at data on extreme weather events, and recently summarized their findings in a major United Nations climate report, the fifth in a series dating back to 1990. That report concluded that there’s little evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.”
        See- he is using the IPCC report to establish his point.
        If you have an issue that the reports do not say what Pielke says they do, you should take it up with him. I am simply pointing out what he said.
        I had a dispute with Editor of Fabius Maximus Website about what he meant. He said he meant something other that what I though he did. I acknowledge that and point out that although that may be what he meant, it was not what he said.
        You have a dispute with me about what I meant. I explain what I meant. You ignore it and carry on asking about what you thought I meant. I have again explained what I meant, so there is no point is continuing to ask about something that you thought I meant.
        If you think what I said was not clear then please say so.
        I will point out that it would make no sense for the “it” to mean the IPCC reports. Otherwise the sentence would read “The IPCC report says that the IPCC report says that the rise is not due to climate change.”

      • seaice1:
        For the benefit of onlookers I again point out that you have failed to provide the requested clarification pertaining to your assertion of IPCC statement(s) – you have provided no quotes, no citations, no references, no links – and you have made clear that your failure is because you know you made an unsubstantiated assertion with no relation to reality.
        I see no purpose in further comment on the matter so I have decided to ‘stop feeding the troll’.
        Richard

      • Apologies to Aphan for mis-calling her a he.
        Richard. For the benefit of onlookers I again point out that you have failed to provide the requested clarification pertaining to your assertion of IPCC statement(s)
        I repeat – I did not make any assertion of IPCC statements So I cannot provide any links about something I did not say.
        I have explained several times that my assertions were about Pielke’s article, NOT the IPCC reports.
        Please provide the quotes, citations or reference where you think I did so and I will address it.

      • seaice1:
        I see you provide more tricks. I said I wanted to ‘stop feeding the troll’ so you ask a question that wrongly implies I have made a false suggestion when you write:

        I have explained several times that my assertions were about Pielke’s article, NOT the IPCC reports.
        Please provide the quotes, citations or reference where you think I did so and I will address it.

        NO! You made a claim that Pielke’s article was inconsistent in its claims about an IPCC report. Your post that did it is here
        My first post in this thread in response to your claim is here. It quotes your post and asks specific questions concerning which statements in which IPCC Report you were considering. I have repeatedly quoted that post in response to your weasel words attempting to evade my questions. I yet again copy it in this post because it provides the “quotes, citations or reference where” YOU DID REFER TO AN IPCC REPORT.

        You say

        “It’s telling story about “noble lie” corruption in the climate science,”

        Except it isn’t, is it? It clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. No lie at all. Unless you want to say the IPCC is not representative of climate science.

        What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?
        I have read every word of every IPCC publication and I don’t have a clue what you are trying to suggest. Please cite, quote and link to what you refer.

        Please stop disrupting the thread with your nonsense.
        Richard

      • Richard I will try one more time.
        “It quotes your post and asks specific questions concerning which statements in which IPCC Report you were considering.”
        I was not considering any statements in any IPCC report. I was considering Pielke’s article.
        Maybe an example would help.
        seaice: “The Archbishop says the bible says we should love one-another”
        Richard: “What does the bible say about loving one-another? ”
        seaice: “I am not saying the bible says we should love one-another. I am saying The Archbishop says that.
        For comparison, the initial exchange is here:
        seaice1: “It [Pielke’s article] clearly says the IPCC synthesis report says that the rise is not due to climate change. ”
        Richard: “What does which IPCC Synthesis Report say about what rise (temperature, CO2, GHGs, or etc.)?”
        seaice1 “I am not saying the IPCC says the rise is not due to climate change. I am saying Pielkes’s article says that”
        Do you see now?
        The IPCC report actually says that increased damage cannot be shown to be due to climate change, so not something I would think you would have an argument with.

  10. If the President of the USA has such an idiot as a science adviser, what else is hiding in the bushes ?
    It is obvious that during the Presidents time in office he has not the intelligence to worked out that the bridge spike he is trying to drive in with a tack hammer is not the tool required !

  11. Dr. John Holdren has a long history of dramatic predictions of future. One that made him famous was his participation in a Simons-Ehrlich wager on a losing side (“we will run out of resources”). With a poker-faced “scientific” gambler on his side, what can we expect of a community organizer?

    • Holdren authored a Sierra Club “Battle Book” in 1972 entitled “Energy: a crisis in power” … or was it “Power: a crisis in energy”? Anyway, I doubt the predictions he offered in that book could have been more wrong.

  12. Me thinks you have predicted the demise of the movement to reduce carbon emissions a bit prematurely. Time will tell.

    • Luke,
      The ‘movement’ you’re part of is populated by nitwits who don’t know the difference between carbon (an element) and carbon dioxide (a compound). That includes you.

      • Say dbs, if pH = log (base 10) of hydrogen ions per cc of solution.
        And if I add this carbon dioxide (CO2) of which you speak, to the solution;
        Please explain; from whence (what part of the CO2) come the extra Hydrogen ions that make it more acidic ??
        Any ideas on that ??
        I first thought it must be from the water itself (the solvent) but every time I try to get an extra H+ out of water, for some reason, I end up with an OH- as well, or maybe another H+ and an O- –
        g

  13. “…why this great movement failed despite its strong support from the Left, academia, journalists, and the major science institutions….” The list of participants explains better than any long-winded thesis why this “great movement” failed. This was never really about climate change at all, but rather about CAGW, the centralization of political power and taxation. The buggers just changed the name of their quest in what is a common rhetorical tactic–changing their flag to fool the credulous. This is how socialists became leftists, became progressives, became liberals, became environmentalists, became progressives again.
    The guest author produces a number of pertinent quotations, but here is one that I hope soon applies to the whole dreary COPx hoopla…
    “Every pig meets his Saturday [barbeque]” (Venezuelan folk saying).

  14. Regarding COP21: it must be apparent even to the most diehard climateer that the jamboree in Paris is the most inappropriate way of dealing with AGW. What contribution are all those delegates going to make? Wouldn’t videoconferencing me a more cost-effective way of doing it? What’s the size of the carbon footprint produced by the conference? Why bother at all when history tells us that these conferences never produce any meaningful agreements?
    But as far as I know, none of the climateers, nor their camp followers in the media, has broken ranks and pointed out the hypocrisy of it all.

  15. I am not sure you could call anything related to climate alarmism a failure. Let’s check.
    -Mass media hype and half truth reporting of unverified claims is still happening. Check
    -Mass educational “green” indoctrination of the young in the US, EU, AU, etc, is still happening. Check
    -Political agenda driving policy implementation without scientific substantiation is still happening. Check
    -Political agenda driven modifications of data sets on global temperature is still happening. Check
    -Agenda 21, sustainable development now days, policies proliferating local communities is still happening. -Check
    -Continued assault on Capitalism as a cause of global warming is still happening. Check
    -Judicial assaults on energy companies is still happening. Check
    -Political assaults and outright oppression on dissenters of the unproven theory (CAGW), even by the POTUS, is still happening. Check
    -Refusal to provide data, code, and communications on climate modeling is still happening. check
    -Protection of high profile climate communicators privacy and IP (Intellectual Property rights) at the taxpayers expense is still happening. Check
    -The ever increasing departure between observations and model output (that is creating policy) and going completely unnoticed, is still happening. Check
    -The demands for restitution/reparations of poor countries not so use cheap energy is still happening. Check
    Need I go further? I don’t see failure here unless there is a break in the ranks of those at the center of the movement. The facts remain, but the political influence surrounding them completely overwhelm those facts at this point. Amazingly, China and India are the only bastion of hope to avoid some type of UN run global governance of our energy future.
    When the POTUS says climate change it the biggest threat to our future, he really means that climate change it the biggest opportunity for developing big global government.
    Regards, Ed

    • Which just goes to show that if you took 100 “”normal”” people into a secure room and asked then to form a political party with a consensuses of all( 100%), after 5 years of debate you would have 200 political parties yes two hundred ( maybe 300)

    • Ed/ossqss,
      “i don’t see failure here…”
      These things are subjective. Most people, I suspect, decide failure/success on the basis of actions achieved. For climate activists, that means public policy initiatives implemented. As I said, their scorecard is quite bare. What has been done, has been continuation of decades-long policies to reduce pollution (e.g,, phase out coal) and diversify the West’s energy sources away from reliance on Russia and the Arabs.
      You prefer to count as success activists’ big talk. Each to their their own. But that’s a pretty low bar. Many long-forgotten political and religious movements had similar “wins”.

      • Consider the financial and industrial impacts through the EPA and other associated regulatory demands and subsidies. That number is in the Trillions of dollars globally and that has been directly derived by the activist big talk. Killing cheap energy sources such as coal, is not just talk. Raising energy prices for everyone, including the poor, is not just talk. Forcing us to use inefficient renewable fuel, Ethanol, is not just talk. Stifling developing countries growth by not allowing cheap fossil fuel plants to be built, is not just talk.
        I agree, there are many deficiencies in what the alarmist say and do, but they are the creators of unjustified change through the influence and leverage of junk science, not just talk. Their talk has an impact that goes far beyond the basics and we see more of it impacting our lives everyday. Those talkers/pushers are indeed the biggest threat to our future, not the climate.
        Regards, Ed

      • My points Maximus,, were not to underestimate, or simplify. Nothing more….
        I am far from an alarmist, or over the top. The rhetoric, as you call it, is the reality at hand, no?
        Where is the description of such wrong?
        How do we correct this is the more important piece of the puzzle. @everyone
        Regards Ed

      • I would add that I have watched, as many have, the direct assault on several vocal and honest experts, including RP Jr. as discussed here (reviewed his presentation several days ago). It speaks volumes as to where we are in society. Look at what was done via the Grijalva letter as an example.
        Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, RP Jr., and many others, have endured ongoing assaults because they speak of what they actually know or understand on climate or associated data. We have a lot to learn, but we can certainly learn from those who have exposure, and experience, to discuss such from knowing unadulterated shoes.
        What lengths are needed to convey the truths associated with climate? @anyone
        Regards Ed

  16. Polar Bear populations have blossomed so much that they are apparently having to migrate all the way to Paris to find food. Looks like lots of tasty morsels all around the one in the picture at top of this post. I’m hoping the bear goes on an eating binge.

    • Everyone knows that “French food” is some of the tastiest food on the planet, so no migration was technically necessary….just a sensitive nose, knowledge of French cuisine, and a plane ticket. That bear is awfully emaciated and should be eating everything in site, but we know bears are carnivores and that one is currently surrounded by “greens” that he most likely finds confusing or bitter tasting. (grin)

      • Also the skimpiest, and most overpriced. I know, I went to a French Restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner, with my local family.

      • “george e. smith
        December 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm”
        Skimpiest? Rubbish! Overpriced, maybe. Some French peasant seafood soup made from bones fish etc, bouillabaisse, is most expensive in London. Look up “French Paradox”.

      • A couple of people could pull of the greatest thing…One person dresses up as a real polar bear and runs around Paris in a soaking wet suit (from swimming) with blood dripping off of it’s face and paws, a partial seal carcass dangling from it’s fur, and knocking people over while huffing and growling loudly.
        Someone else follows them around holding a sign that says something like “This is the raw, savage behavior of real polar bears in their natural environment. PROTECT THE SAVAGE BEAUTY!” It could also include the photo above with a cancel symbol over it and something like “This is an insult to actual polar bears and anyone with an above average IQ” or “Polar bears aren’t pacifists” or “Meat VS Meetings”, “Vegetarians=healthy entrees” “Fur World vs Fantasy World”….I could go on all day…:)
        It would be the greatest fun just to see the looks on the activists faces when reality is represented instead of cartooned, imagination. Sigh….

  17. A most interesting article: thank you Anthony and Larry.
    “Debate”.
    There has been no debate: there has been and there continues to be tyranny, misuses of power and mindless spending of OPM (other peoples’ money) throughout government(s).
    Debate about spending (our) money would of course be admirable, however, there has been NO SUCH debate.
    None of the following is prepared to offer “debate”:
    climate loons and the bed-wetters
    climate ninnies
    the Alarmed Ones
    global warming alarmists
    Enviroprofiteers (wind and solar industry, mostly)
    the climate mafia
    Climo-Nazis
    government-induced climaphobians
    warmista jackasses
    the church of climatology
    the eco-loons (ecolunacy)
    climastrologists
    eco-tards
    They all just follow the money and they deny “debate” because it would kill their cash-cow.
    Regards,
    WL

  18. Too funny. Those 2 weirdos on the left are my local headaches and I don’t live anywhere near NYC. They sure do seem to do a lot of traveling. They were part of that west coast kayak blocking the oil rig thing too. I’m sure they didn’t use any fossil fuels though, that would be hypocritical. I do know who paid for them to be there though. US taxpayers, via an EPA grant.

  19. “A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed …”
    As with previous ambiguous posts from this writer I’m at a loss to know what his game is.
    In what way has it failed, who has failed?
    “Fixes necessary if we are to prepare for the future …”
    What “fixes” — what needs fixing?
    “These tactics won many battles for activists, but lost the war. Now we have to understand what went wrong and try again …”.
    But if the activists lost the war nothing “went wrong” everything went right.
    “Climate change is ever-present in history, and today we remain poorly prepared even for the repeat of past extreme weather — let alone whatever the future holds for us …”
    That is an utterly vacuous statement and who are “we”?
    Will this writer stop ‘beating around the bush’, does he hold that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate climate change and if so what does he think ought to be done about it?

  20. “The debate about the public policy response to climate change began (to pick a date) with James Hansen’s Senate testimony 26 years ago,”
    But no-one in the real world pays attention to the idiocies of the US Senate, so it only became important when Margaret Thatcher began pushing the idea. She was the one who made it a big international issue.
    (Later, when she was out of power, she changed her mind, but it was too late. The damage had been done.)
    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

  21. It simply failed because CO2 is not the dominant controller of temperature, and the alarmists over hyped the amount of warming that there would be, and the problems that would be associated with the over hyped warming.
    It is nature that has caused this issue to fail. Everyone has seen the overhyped predictions of catastrophic events which time and time again, simply have not come to pass.
    The repeated failed predictions are the underdoing of all of this.

  22. I’m an optimist.
    First, because the climate change alarmists have failed to persuade the vast majority of Americans that there is a serious crisis. Ordinary folks can see right through the hysteria, wrong forecasts and political tricks. They may not know much about climate science, but they know a whole lot about people, especially about whether to trust someone or not. The dilemma for the climate activists was that the more they yelled and shrieked and painted apocalyptic pictures the greater the risk they would lose their credibility. And a lot of the forecasts have turned out to be wrong. But you can’t restore credibility with more yelling and apocalyptic visions. So folks stop listening.
    Second, because of the above, Obama can’t commit. He doesn’t have Congress behind him. But all the nations with their hands out look to the US because that’s where the money is (or is supposed to be). Jawboning in Paris may be expensive, but it’s nothing in comparison with the trillions of dollars the activists want. So, with no money, the activists will eventually move on.
    I do believe time is on our side, if we just keep pressing with the facts.

Comments are closed.