Fossilized Thinking: Back to communal horse and water powered farms to save the climate

Guest essay by Robert Bryce
Horse-drawn-plow
In a simplistic and tedious new book, Andreas Malm argues that full Communism is the only cure for global warming.

Andreas Malm longs for the good old days. In his new book, Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming, Malm, who teaches human ecology at Lund University in Sweden, pines for a time when manufacturing depended on waterwheels instead of steam engines. Indeed, Malm spends more than 300 pages—about 75 percent of the text—discussing why English manufacturers abandoned waterwheels and replaced them with coal-fired steam engines. It’s worthwhile history. But in the hands of an avowed Marxist like Malm, it’s tedious sledding. In Malm’s view, the rise of the steam engine was little more than a ploy by evil capitalists to subjugate workers, and because of that, we are now all going to die from global warming.

Yes, that’s a simplistic analysis, but Malm has written a simplistic book. He quotes an economist, Richard Jones, who, in the 1830s, wrote that water power is “cheap but uncertain. The steam engine is costly but powerful and its action is certain and continuous.” Jones goes on to explain why waterwheels had to go. For some reason, Malm prefers the days of yore, when production had to be shut down because of drought, or flood, or frozen rivers. He attempts to explain the complex world of energetics by marrying Marxism with climate-change catastrophism. By doing so, he puts himself squarely in the camp of the climate doomsayers—a group that includes Canadian author/activist Naomi Klein and U.S. environmental activist Bill McKibben, who have claimed that the solution to climate change is to abandon modern society and organize a socialist, organic-agriculture economy, where we can all, no doubt, have free yoga classes. In a 2011 essay published in The Nation, Klein—who provided a blurb for Malm’s book, calling it “the definitive deep history on how our economic system created the climate crisis”—called for nothing less than “a new civilizational paradigm, one grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal.”

It’s not Malm’s fellow travelers who are the problem, it’s his blinkered approach to basic physics, and in particular, to the essentiality of power density—that is, the ability to concentrate the flow of energy from a given area, volume, or mass. Ever since humans began walking upright, we have been trying to corral more energy so that we can turn it into more effective power, whether for farming, heating, or computing. Farmers moved from doing all the planting and hauling themselves to using draft animals, which helped increase production. Over centuries, they perfected their harnesses, going from throat-and-girth harnesses to breastbands and finally to collar harnesses, which allowed animals to pull loads as much as ten times heavier than they could pull with the earlier models.

Berry_Schools'_Old_Mill,_Floyd_County,_Georgia

Over the last seven decades or so, we have moved from electricity-hungry computers based on vacuum tubes to ones based on nano circuits millions of times lighter and more efficient. Malm insists that every joule and BTU we use is infected with class struggle. In the first chapter, he writes that “fossil fuels necessitate waged or forced labor—the power to direct the labor of others—as conditions of their very existence.” Yet, he doesn’t provide a single example of any place on the planet where modern workers are being forced to produce oil, coal, or natural gas. Malm decries the steam engine at every turn, but ignores how steam power led to a revolution in transportation that allowed even low-skilled workers to travel and search out better opportunities on railroads and steamships. Malm condemns all hydrocarbons, yet he ignores the creation and perfection of the internal combustion and jet engines. In doing so, he leaves aside discussion of the parallel creation of the global oil and gas sector, which is among the world’s biggest industries. Malm also ignores electrification, though electricity production (the biggest share of which is provided by coal combustion) now accounts for about 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Malm spends 13 of his 16 chapters decrying coal and steam. He notes with approval that in medieval England, coal fields were often controlled by the king or local bishops, and that they often imposed “restrictions on output, guaranteeing that the enterprises would be puny.” He continues: “Thriving on sword and cross, they could afford to stay aloof from subterranean riches.” In his fourteenth chapter, “China as Chimney of the World: Fossil Capital Today,” Malm details the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and denounces “the bourgeois ideology of eco-modernism” because of its belief that technology can help bring more people out of poverty.

In chapter 15, we finally get to Malm’s solution, which is, wait for it . . . central planning. A few paragraphs after quoting Leon Trotsky, Malm notes that the majority of global greenhouse gases are emitted from four places: the U.S., the E.U., China, and India. The way to cut those emissions is simple, says Malm. We merely need to “set up one special ministry in each and we would be on our way.” Ah yes, a special ministry. Welcome, comrades, to Professor Malm’s Climate Gulag. It’s for your own good, after all.


 

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His most recent book is Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong.

h/t to Paul Driessen and John Droz

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
293 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 15, 2016 11:51 am

Another “goateed” expert with a perpetually furrowed brow. Communists always look so unhappy.

knute
Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 12:41 pm

fashion
the latest identifier i see in the goat is beads.
i’m sure they mean something.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/Dwarvendom?section_id=14399126&ref=shopsection_leftnav_2
oh I see that its been on you tube for a few years.
my bad, i must be missing this one.

MarkW
Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 12:51 pm

Most people become socialist/communist because they are convinced that the world hasn’t given them what they are entitled to.
Happy people rarely care how others are living their lives.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 1:05 pm

MarkW:
Most people become socialists because they care for people.
Happy people usually care enough to help others to live the lives they want.
Jealous and dissatisfied people support the extreme right: i.e. they become fasc1sts.
Richard

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 1:12 pm

Richard,
What do you suppose fasc!sm to be? Isn’t it national socialism, as opposed to international socialism, ie communism?
The overtly fasc!st party in Britain is the Scottish National (Socialist) Party and those of like mind in the Labour Party, not the Tories.

emsnews
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 2:47 pm

According to US rightwingers, Hitler was a commie.

emsnews
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 2:49 pm

I used a verboten word.
OK: people here want us to think that people we called ‘fascists’ running Germany in the past, were actually East Germans.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 6:43 pm

Richard said- Most people become socialists because they care for people. Happy people usually care enough to help others to live the lives they want. Jealous and dissatisfied people support the extreme right: i.e. they become fasc1sts.”
Wow. Richard has interviewed and diagnosed the motives of “most people who become socialists” and determined that they became socialists because they “care for people”. He’s also interviewed all happy people and determined that they “care enough to help others to live the lives they want”. And that “jealous and dissatisfied people support the extreme right-they become fascists”.
As always, I’d love to see Richard’s ground breaking work in these areas, his peer reviewed papers that document his research and give credence to his conclusions. But alas….there are none.
1) CARE for people-
I personally would say that most people become doctors, nurses, humanitarians, and volunteers because they care for people. Actually CARING for someone else involves physical and observable efforts that directly benefit the life of that other person. I can’t think of ANY physical way in which joining or belonging to one political or ideological party or another actually demonstrates CARE for other people at all. I cannot find any publication anywhere in which the term “socialist” is synonymous with “caregiver”. I do know that in the US, the state that donates the most volunteer time and money to charity is ALSO the #1 state in the US on the “Happiness” scale. Utah, a very decidedly “conservative”, right wing, happy state.
2) Happy people-
Speaking of Happy US States-heres a list!
https://wallethub.com/edu/most-least-happy-states-in-america/6959/#main-findings
It’s so WEIRD how almost every survey I can find usually show that the most “unhappy” cities/places in the US tend to be “liberal” or vote Democrat (left), and how the happiest cities/places in the US tend to be “conservative” or vote Republican (right).
Happy people DO help others to live the lives they want….er….at least I agree with you if you mean they help other people to live the lives those other people want….NOT to help other people to live the lives that the “happy people” THINK they want, or assume they want, or think they SHOULD want.
I’ve never met a fasc1st so I can’t tell you if they are jealous and dissatisfied or not, or who or what they “support”. The only self declared”socialist” I know (and just from reading his comments) is Richard and he absolutely hates it when anyone else talks about living the lives they want if those lives are different than his version of “socialism”. He spends a great deal of time being dissatisfied by America’s historical “left and right” wings being different than the “left and right” wings in Europe, and calling anyone who points that out a Big Lie propagandist who merely wants to chuck H1tler over to the left side because of some stigma he claims to know that all “right wing” Americans have about the Naz1s.
What he doesn’t understand is that most modern Americans don’t suffer from any of the cultural, ancestry, past generational sin guilt or stigma that old world Europeans do. H1tler could have been a member of my family, my current political party, my book club, my carpool, my church, my HOA….doesn’t really matter to me. I’d have still called him a disgusting, abhorrent, subhuman monster and shoot him in the head myself if given the chance to without embracing ANY guilt at all from his death OR any other associations we may have shared. It’s beyond my comprehension why Richard even feels the NEED to argue about it, much less almost have a stroke every time it comes up, because H1tler’s personal ideologies are completely and totally irrelevant to me.

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2016 6:27 am

Say the word, “free stuff” and the hoards come a-running. EX: Bernie Sanders.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2016 8:34 am

EMS,
I apparently didn’t make the distinction clear enough. H!tler was not a commie, but a National Socialist, ie N@zi or Fasc!st. Stalin was an international socialist, ie Communist, although he was forced for a while to advocate “socialism in one country”, so went through a national socialist phase, while never giving up on the Communist internationalist ideal.
Mussolini was an international socialist before founding a national socialist movement, ie Fasc!sm.
I hope this helps.
Libertarianism opposes both forms of socialist totalitarianism.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2016 11:08 am

I love the way socialists actually believe that the only way to “care for people” is by stealing from those who have more than they do, and using the money to buy votes.
In Richard’s world, private charity doesn’t exist.

Reply to  MarkW
February 19, 2016 1:05 am

MarkW:
What gives you the right to claim I don ‘t support private charity?
Clearly, I had underestimated how great a loathsome creep you are.
Richard

Goldrider
Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 7:57 pm

Comes from overdosing on $5.00 lattes while reading Kafka in Starbucks instead of getting a JOB.

David Chappell
February 15, 2016 11:51 am

The thing I always wonder about people like Malm, Klein et al is; do they ever who’s going to deal with their night soil in the utopia?

David Chappell
Reply to  David Chappell
February 15, 2016 11:53 am

… do they ever think about… duh

Reply to  David Chappell
February 15, 2016 12:12 pm

“night soil”?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 12:30 pm

Aphan: You don’t know the term “night soil”? No sh*t son.

hanelyp
Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 1:32 pm

The term “night soil” fell out of relevance with the spread of indoor plumbing.

Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 6:50 pm

I do apologize Harry, but now that I know what it is, I cannot imagine any reason why I WOULD be familiar with it, because we simply called sh*t, sh*t! (And I’m not anyone’s SON) 🙂

Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 11:04 am

I still have a “night bucket” in the basement – I use if for storing rasps but it brings back memories of many a frosty night every time a pull a rasp out of it.

Tom Judd
February 15, 2016 11:58 am

Is Malm’s groundbreaking book printed on a printing press? I think, if the man demonstrates fidelity to his beliefs, that he should write out, by hand, each and every one of his book’s 300 pages for each and every copy that’s distributed.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 15, 2016 12:11 pm

I was just thinking the same thing Tom. I wonder if he wrote it out in long hand by candlelight on sheepskin he harvested and prepared himself, with a feather quill and homemade ink? I wonder if he rides a horse to the college every day, spins his own cotton into wool and makes his own clothing? I’m sure he’s never flown anywhere to take a class, or give a speech or interview or used a public road, or any other utility.
If he doesn’t live what he preaches, he’s just another hypocrite using all of the benefits of a fossil fueled world while he complains about that fossil fueled world. Yawn

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tom Judd
February 15, 2016 7:54 pm

Many of these types forget that the invention of the printing press freed people from relying on the Church for books and texts. And Malm would not be able to do what he is doing, speading his foolish opinions about the climate on this rock and what to do to save it (Whatever that means.), without the internet.
Malm should set an example. Get some land and some beasts and see how long and hard he’d have to work just to feed himself and his beasts. He won’t have a phone (The most powerful kitchen appliance ever invented.) to hand to call in some takeout.

LarryFine
February 15, 2016 12:01 pm

If these people were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they’d want to close central banks. But that would drastically reduce their power, so it’s out of the question.
All “solutions” on the table require their power to drastically increase. And as we’ve witnessed in recent history, that never ends well for the masses.

Don G
February 15, 2016 12:10 pm

The Amish lifestyle is available now, but I don’t see any elitists adopting that life. Or maybe they are and I don’t hear from them because they are “off the grid”.

The Expulsive
Reply to  Don G
February 15, 2016 12:31 pm

I have friends that live that lifestyle (Mennonite) and my wife’s family. Many stay, many join, but it is not the life for the weak and many have a great respect for mechanization.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Don G
February 15, 2016 12:45 pm

In the Midwest at least, Amish and Mennonites use chemical fertilizers and pesticides and light their lamps with petroleum.
Maybe Malm thinks we should go back to whale oil instead of rock oil, too.

schitzree
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 17, 2016 12:20 pm

Heck, here in North Eastern Indiana most of the Amish use Solar Panels.
I guess that makes it home made electricity. <¿<

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  Don G
February 16, 2016 6:29 am

They’d have to give up their smart phones. Ain’t gonna happen. Not now…not ever!

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2016 12:15 pm

Does he mention Lysenko in his writings? I’m sure he would have been a great fan.

Bill Illis
February 15, 2016 12:20 pm

The value of fossil fuels can be summed up in this picture.
For less than $1.00 of gasoline, you can move you and your car all the way down to the end of this road in minutes and be comfortably seated doing so.
Or you can push you and your car to the end of this road over two full days of hard physical labour. Or your draught horse could pull your car and you to the end of the road over one full day but it would take many times more resources than $1.00 worth.comment image

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 15, 2016 12:47 pm

Either way, he looks suave doing it in suspenders.

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 15, 2016 1:45 pm

’51 Crown Vickie?

February 15, 2016 12:22 pm

I always found it interesting that Marxists condemn the very way of life that simplified their life so much that they now have enough time to come up with their Marxists ideas. If the way of life they condemn never came to be, they would be too busy figuring out how to survive until tomorrow and wouldn’t have time to invent new ideas.
To Professor Malm and every other environmentalists, communist, or totalitarian: you first. Before I do anything you tell me to do, I want you to be the first to live that way.

Latitude
Reply to  alexwade
February 15, 2016 2:31 pm

LOL….true, socialist/liberal/etc is the product of an affluent society

mikewaite
February 15, 2016 12:24 pm

Like the Amish and Mennonites perhaps . They seem successful and happy with their horse and buggy existence. How much they are actually dependent on modern technology is never made clear in the few tv documentaries I have seen.

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  mikewaite
February 15, 2016 1:13 pm

You never see their secret underground bunkers powered by 3rd generation Thorium reactors. Nor their stealthy hot-rods that burn up the Pennsylvania back roads at oh dark thirty.

February 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Malm is the complete nut. The biggest crime? he gets paid for this nonsense.

The Expulsive
February 15, 2016 12:28 pm

I was told recently by an old friend that everyone is reading Marx now and the tide is turning against Hobbesian contempt for the weak and needy people. These weak and needy will be better managed by a command economy. I assume he thinks Marx didn’t work before because of the capitalists, not because the Marxists became the Soviets.

MarkW
Reply to  The Expulsive
February 15, 2016 12:54 pm

I’ve never met anyone who has contempt for the weak.
According to liberal doxology, not giving others what they want is a form of hatred.
Just like disagreeing with a liberal is by definition hate speech.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 7:58 pm

I agree with MarkW, I’ve never met anyone who has contempt for the weak and truly needy. Compassion, sorrow, active service for and on behalf of…that’s how the people I know behave. The only people I have contempt for are those who seek to control or change the lives of those who choose to live differently than they do, those who presume to know exactly what another person, or worse…a whole group of people to whom they apply one label or another, thinks, feels or believes, and those who will perpetuate lies or deception for an agenda in which they feel the ends justify the means.
Whether those people are weak and needy or strong and self sufficient is irrelevant to me.

brians356
February 15, 2016 12:35 pm

Must be something about the name “Andreas”. This chap reminds me of the German pilot Andreas Lubitz who flew the plane into a mountain last year. But at least that other rabid dog settled for only 300 or so souls to murder along with himself.

Bruce Cobb
February 15, 2016 12:38 pm

Clueless ideologues like him never have a clue the death and misery their “vision” would unleash upon the world. Or that they are likely to be the first up in front of a firing squad.

MarkW
February 15, 2016 12:40 pm

Leftists in general and Marxists in particular are convinced that the only reason why they don’t have everything they have convinced themselves they are entitled to is because people with money are conspiring against them.

fretslider
February 15, 2016 12:43 pm

Communism has become extinct. True, North Korea is the land that time forgot, but hey, it’s the exception that proves the rule.
“every joule and BTU we use is infected with class struggle”
What an utter plank. Keir Hardie wouldn’t be impressed with that, at all.

February 15, 2016 12:48 pm

I get really tired of this constant left-bashing on WUWT. Whether or not non-motorized agriculture is a cure for global warming (it’s not) is irrelevant, a red herring, a meaningless, distracting diatribe. It is simply another way of growing food, a method which does not use fossil fuels, thus lowering its cost and dependence on finite resources.
Stick to climate science and leave politics out of it, please.

MarkW
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 12:55 pm

Fascinating how the leftists get so upset that we are laughing at them.

emsnews
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 2:45 pm

You do not understand the danger you are in. Anyone who understands how rulers divide people…they play the right like a fiddle and the left like a tuba.
BOTH have severe problems with understanding anyone who disagrees with their individual dogmas. Also, you are not building alliances on say, the climate issue when you attack potential allies over say, women’s or gay rights, for example like some here love to do whenever anyone tries to be friendly.

Reply to  emsnews
February 15, 2016 7:10 pm

“Danger”? He’s in “danger”? Please. Did MarkW tell you for himself that he’s interested in, or hoping to, form alliances with anyone? He’s just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else, and what you think constitutes an “attack” when someone tries to be friendly is also that…your opinion.

Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 7:31 pm

Dipping my toe into the three-way. My take on what ems is saying is as follows ….
WUWT has a tendency to be perceived as a right wing conservative site. I haven’t surveyed, so I wouldn’t know the reality. Because of this perception, I have heard people in real life who don’t identify with American conservative politics dismiss the climate change related solid critical thinking that goes on here.
To be fair, some of the liberal people that I’ve heard dismiss WUWT in real life also dismiss semi liberal people who are not as liberal as they are on certain issues. Sounds messy doesn’t it ? It is messy.
Mostly, what I see is people have made up their minds and believe in CAGW till kingdom come. I have political opinions that range throughout the spectrum of political genres. What I find most interesting is that people in real life try to pin me down as a right wing conservative which I am on certain issues when I debate the science concerning CAGW.
Perhaps I’ll throw them for a loop a the next dinner party by showing up in dress with a Hillary Now pin and see how it works when I discuss the MWP and LIA.
I could be wrong but EMS was trying to promote tolerance of other political views than what is normally perceived as being par for the course at WUWT in order to make room for CAGW doubters who aren’t conservative. Of course, I could be totally tone deaf on what she meant but I figured I’d give it a stab.

FTOP_T
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2016 5:01 pm

Because rulers divide people, the answer is LESS GOVERNMENT. Leave power locally, and limit the Federal government to its specific Constitutional authority. If you believe rulers pit sides against each other restrict their power.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2016 11:13 am

ems, there is more than one problem in the world, and the greatest fallacy of all is the one that says we have to give up all battles with the exception of the ones others declare to be the most important.
PS: The AGW scam was created in large measure to give cover to the socialists as they seek to gain more power. Once the AGW scam is defeated, the same rascals will move on the next scam. If we merely concentrate on defeating the scams one at a time, we lose.

Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 12:59 pm

Is politics so commonly discussed alongside climate science (and the health fields) because the science has taken a backseat to the politics ? Is the selling out of the scientific method to the glitter of political support the reason for the intrusion of politics ?
Once you invite politics (and let’s not forget religion) into your bed, is it fair to only want to discuss science ?
It gets messy pretty quickly and I’m pretty sure its going to get more messy before science sleeps alone.
Or, better yet, till politics finds another bedfellow.

Graphite
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 1:06 pm

Check the title of the book under discussion, Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming,
It’s a book about global warming, so is therefore relevant to this site. Its author, Andreas Malm, has linked global warming to political issues by suggesting communism as a solution to what he sees as a problem.
It therefore follows, as night follows day or inanity follows a liberal arts degree, that any discussion of the book includes comment on its political element.
Comprende?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 1:09 pm

Your comment is just one more indication of leftard’s views of both economics and your Malthusian confusion.
Those who wish to farm without the use of fossil fuels are free to do so. No one’s stopping them. But this chap, and those of his ilk want to stop us from using fossil fuels. That way lies authoritarianism and human misery.

Frodo
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 1:13 pm

“Climate science” hasn’t been valid science ever since the IPCC was created as a political/propaganda institution in 1988. It’s now impossible to separate “climate science” from politics (or religion, for that matter), and it’s the CAGW movement’s own fault. One of the reasons people like myself are so disgusted with this movement is that it is an affront to the scientific method itself. Science, properly practiced, has provided enormous benefits to humanity, and the CAGW movement wants to trash some of those very benefits in order to achieve it’s political/social engineering ends CAGW is a failed hypothesis, but the CAGW movement won’t let it go – and for those at the very top of the movement, they never did care whether it was true or not. It’s simply a means to their ends, the truth doesn’t matter. It’s a disgrace to science.

Reply to  Frodo
February 15, 2016 1:24 pm

“but the CAGW movement won’t let it go”
Thanks for spurring the thought ……
Let’s say for a minute that climatologists want to actually be free of the political/religious manipulation.
The sad truth is that their very existence depends on keeping the crazy bedfellow happy.
At this point, I don’t think its too far a stretch to imagine that climatology as a serious science can’t survive without the crazy person in the bed with them.

Frodo
Reply to  Frodo
February 15, 2016 1:56 pm

Knutesea,
Speaking of crazy people, how else do you explain Obama’s appointment of Holdren – a pathetic failure going on many decades – as his chief “science” adviser without also understanding that climate science has now become completely political? This loathsome ghoul should have been completely irrelevant many years ago – except that politicians liked what they heard from him, whether it was true or not. CAGW is ALL political. Now the EPA itself, after 35+ years of doing a great job cleaning up real pollution, has also politicized itself and become Obama’s political puppet. Sigh.

Reply to  Frodo
February 15, 2016 2:17 pm

Frodo
I think politics/religion has sunk its teeth into a willing public health industry which includes many disciplines.
A book called hubris does a wonderful job describing it. It’s going to get worse before it gets better because there is still to much money to be made from the unholy union. I think 2016 going into 2017 is going to be a wakeup call for economy. It may be big enough to shake up the frivilous findings and policies that have resulted from such unions, but I’m not sure about that yet.
And yes, my money is where my mouth is on the subject.

Frodo
Reply to  Frodo
February 15, 2016 2:15 pm

Finally, CAGW isn’t political?
https://youtu.be/oQNkVmdicvA

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 1:19 pm

At least five of the seven billion people on earth would starve to death without fossil-fueled agriculture, as advocated by this ecoloon.

MarkW
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2016 11:16 am

Probably a lot more than that. While the earth could support 2 billion without fossil fuels, the people don’t have the training to live without fossil fuels and the tools to live without don’t exist either.
It will take time to transition, and in that time many more will die.

Tom Halla
Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 1:33 pm

All “Climate Science” is political (and leftist), so getting into the area must get into politics.

Reply to  malanlewis
February 15, 2016 8:04 pm

malanlewis
Then don’t come here or don’t read those threads. No one has ever said or declared that WUWT is a blog strictly for the discussion of climate science. It’s Anthony’s blog and under “About” you’ll find:
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”
If you want to lower the cost of food, using non-motorized means is the LAST thing you want to do. Manual labor costs a whole lot more than mechanized labor, or were you suggesting that we pay manual laborers mere pennies per hour to keep the cost of “growing food” down?

Reply to  Aphan
February 15, 2016 9:14 pm

malanlewis,
I have to agree with Aphan, knutsea and others here. Anthony Watts makes it clear, in writing, that this site covers the gamut. Anthony has his finger on the pulse of current events in science, which includes plenty of discussion on the current (so-called) “climate” issues. The amazing success of WUWT attests to that. No alarmist blog comes close to the traffic that WUWT generates. In fact, this site gets more traffic than all alarmist blogs combined.
The reason (IMHO) that most commenters here support the view that the cAGW scare is politics and not science is because skeptical commenters are rational, rather than being emotional. It takes a certain level of rigor to keep the emotion out of the analysis. But with the dumbing down by the gov’t .edu factories, that rigorous analysis is missing. It’s emo-response all the way, with a lot of the public.
To me that means that things must come to a head; there will be no rational, unemotional discussion of the facts and evidence. It’s all emo, all the time, and facts be damned.
The Left (the intelligent ones, who are callling the shots from the sidelines) are guiding the masses toward the cataclysm. They figure they will pick up the pieces. If they do, then the one-world UN believers will trade their freedom, enterprise, and self-sufficiency for safety and security.
But if — and it’s a big IF — the rational folks get hold of the reins, then the doom of a one-world government can be averted for a while. But things don’t look good at the moment.
In my almost seven decades of observing the human condition, one thing I’ve found is that predicting the future is pretty damn difficult. Anything can happen. But right now it’s clear that freedom and the free market — which have both given humans the best standard of living ever — are very fragile constructs. All it takes is a devious ‘Communtity Organizer’ to destroy the greatest wealth-producing system in existence. So I pray the one-world folks fail.

Simon
Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 12:34 am

DB….
You bang on about how the science debate is motivated by the political leanings of the left, then give a big lecture about how the free market will save us all. DB, climate cares not a jot for whether you vote right or left, whether you are free market or socialist. It changes when it is forced…. You can keep watching the political world, I will watch the science.

MarkW
Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 11:20 am

Simon, it’s the political world that is driving the science.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 11:23 am

Simon,
If you watch the science rather than the politics, then you should see that nothing out of the ordinary has happened to earth’s climate in the 70 years since CO2 began its monotonous rise.

Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 11:52 am

Simon,
Since there’s no verifiable, empirical, measurement-based evidence that supports your CO2=AGW belief, it doesn’t surprise me that you’re conflating science and politics.
I wrote that the free market has produced immense wealth for the average person. You don’t seem to agree. Tell us, what system would you like to see implemented?

February 15, 2016 1:02 pm

Please oh please just let me live to see the day these halfwits have to admit to themselves that they are a bunch of boobs, chumps and dunces, and that there has never been one single unusual weather event that could be attributed to anything other than random chance and natural variation.

dickon66
Reply to  Menicholas
February 15, 2016 1:56 pm

Keep thinking those happy thoughts, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. Climate ‘science’ is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where they have a complete inability to see their own incompetence.

brians356
Reply to  Menicholas
February 15, 2016 2:59 pm

Dream on. Deny everything. Brazen it out to the end. Joseph Goebbels said “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

Reply to  Menicholas
February 16, 2016 3:00 am

Admit to failure? Ain’t gonna happen. Cf. the central bankers.

1oldnwise4me@reagan.com
February 15, 2016 1:14 pm

That is called communism…

February 15, 2016 1:24 pm

Fossilized indeed! I lived in communism for 12 years and I know what that means!!!!! What is worst than that is the way people think, the lack of equilibrium in this story about climate change/global warming. There’s a long way from communal horse and water powered farms to offshore wind farms, for example. In my native country, we have them both, and there’s no equilibrium…. Climate is still changing (since we’re speaking about a global scale change), we still have extreme phenomenons and temperatures and we still refuse to understand the way that climate change works….

nc
February 15, 2016 1:37 pm

Does anyone know this fellow’s life style? Does he live the life he preaches? The Amish use cell phones.
I have a vision of the Kardashians tilling the land.

Ed
Reply to  nc
February 16, 2016 8:52 am

With her lower body, Kim could probably outpull a horse.

hanelyp
February 15, 2016 1:38 pm

Communism, the social order that gave us all of history’s greatest ecological disasters, the solution to save the environment … I see a disconnect here.

Bryan
Reply to  hanelyp
February 15, 2016 2:11 pm

Nothing to do with Marxist philosophy.
Socialism plus Electricity = Communism said Lenin 1921.
The 5 year plans for industrialisation of USSR and China are implementation of that philosophy!
Huge collective farms using tractors and combine harvesters was this ideal implemented.
Plough horses and nostalgia were looked on as backward peasant feudal thinking

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Bryan
February 15, 2016 3:42 pm

“[Lenin coined a slogan about how communism would be achieved thanks to Communist Party rule and the modernization of the Russian industry and agriculture: “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country!” The slogan was subjected to mathematical scrutiny by the people: “Consequently, Soviet power is communism minus electrification.”]”
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

Joel Snider
February 15, 2016 1:40 pm

As if they would let us ‘abuse horses’ like that.

February 15, 2016 1:41 pm

Malm is really advanced. He’s allowing farming with tame animals and farm implements. Shouldn’t he be advocating hunter gatherer bands with no clothing technology allowed and no weapons besides bare hands and maybe rocks?
These whackjobs reinforce my belief that we could, worldwide, downsize academia by 95 % and not miss a thing.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
February 15, 2016 2:35 pm

Mike, I think this is a step in the right direction but goes too far.
How about eliminating tenure and make all sabbaticals be one year working at common labor without any university support.
If nothing else, they would get a change of scenery and a change of income too.

Retired Kit P
February 15, 2016 1:50 pm

Robert Bryce is a journalist who now makes a living writing simplistic books. I am not saying that there are not crackpots at universities who also write books. I am just saying I am wondering why Bryce bothered to write an essay about one of them.
It would appear from searching on the internet, that Malm is about as obscure as one could be. The book is just a commercial printing of his phd thesis defended in 2014.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
February 15, 2016 2:02 pm

Retired Kit P,
Don’t kid yourself, there are plenty others just like Malm. Some of them are even more radical:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong
“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.” Dr. Jacques Cousteau
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“This is a political game. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with health and safety.” Sherry Neddick, Greenpeace.
“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society…all potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing. – David Brower
Societies go in cycles:
From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

We’re at the second to last stage…
…and then:
You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.
~ Soviet Premier Nikita Khruzchev

Bryan
Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 2:15 pm

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.
~ Soviet Premier Nikita Khruzchev”(sic)
Could you give a link to this quote?
I dont think you can!

Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 2:21 pm

Another fine DB post saved.
I actually had to create a DB folder.
Complacency to apathy
Apathy to dependence.
Could be a few things that shake that up though.
We’ll know in the next year or so … my opinion

Retired Kit P
Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 5:35 pm

db I agree that there are lots of people who disagree with my views on how to protect the environment and but I do not have to debate with them unless others can benefit from the debate.

hanelyp
Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 11:03 pm

I repeat my retort to Malthusians advocating human population reduction:
You first.

Bryan
Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 12:26 am

DBS
Read this, you have posted a fake quote
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=63995

Reply to  Bryan
February 16, 2016 8:37 am

Bryan,
Thanx for your opinion, and for the opinions you posted. They are both unconvincing.
The quote is from a conversation between Secretary of Agriculture Benson and Nikita Khrushchev, which took place during Khrushchev’s visit to America. Benson repeats Khrushchev’s comment, which might not be absolutely verbatim — who really knows? — because Khrushchev’s comment is repeated from memory.
Unless, of course, you’re calling Benson a liar. If that is the case, you had best provide some solid evidence showing that he went around telling lies.
I recently viewed a video of a Benson speech. Benson certainly comes across as a no-nonsense, level headed guy. Also, I note that Snopes has a distinct lefty point of view. Given the contrast between them and Benson, I go with Benson…
Unless, of course, you can show that Benson is a liar.
The ball is back in your court.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 7:19 pm

DB
Haha. No it is not in anyones court but yours. You said it, you own it. Once again you show you have no interest in the truth. The quote is a complete load on nonsense. Just try using your friend google. Any number of sites will tell you it is a myth. If you think otherwise then “you” prove it.

Reply to  Simon
February 18, 2016 9:35 am

You said it, you own it.
Simon, I wasn’t the one who said Benson’s comment was fabricated. That was Bryan. He said it, he owns it.
Haha.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 7:31 pm

Even the so-called debunking at your snopes site shows there are disagreements about the quote.
(It is NOT proven incorrect in either intent nor general content at the snopes site.) Do you dispute the intent or meaning of the quote?

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
February 17, 2016 10:13 am

dentalmanagerdmd@gmail.com
I think you can safely assume DB doesn’t have a quote.

Reply to  Simon
February 17, 2016 3:10 pm

Simon,
Can’t you read? I posted the quote right above.
Every comment you make confirms that you’re mentally dull. I referred to Secretary of Agriculture Benson’s comment. But as usual, you both deflected from my challenge: you can’t document any evidence that the AgSec is a liar, or you would have.
Thus, you’re both blowing smoke from the anonymity of the peanut gallery.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 17, 2016 2:09 pm

The origin of that particular quote is from a public speech given by Benson in 1966-
“I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half day, when he visited the United States. Not that I’m proud of it – I opposed his coming then and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But according to President Eisenhower, Khrushchev had expressed a desire to learn something of American agriculture, and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why.
As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, would live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance:
You Americans are so gullible. No you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and you find you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like over-ripe fruit into our hands.”
Note the two qualifiers-1) it is a representation of something said in a private conversation, and 2) the words “in substance”. Those two words indicate what is defined as a paraphrase. Benson did not attempt to pass off his words as a “direct quote” from Khrushchev. There is no more “evidence” that Khrushchev did NOT say that than there is that he did. So its a petty point to argue.
As per every foreign relation between parties that do not speak the other’s language, Benson and Khrushchev had interpreters with them. Here are two photos taken during that visit. You have to insert the http(s) in front of them as I didn’t want to bomb the thread with their size. Benson is wearing thick glasses, Khrushchev is in the light colored suit, and his well known interpreter (who also speaks English) Viktor Sukhodrev, is leaning over Krushchev’s right shoulder between him and Benson in the 2nd image. He’s separated from him in the first photo by the tall man on Khruschchev’s right, who blocks the view of Sukhodrev directly behind him.
://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/20111110-OC-AMW-0013_-_Flickr_-_USDAgov.jpg
://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/88047808-surrounded-by-aides-and-journalists-soviet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXrSx%2BqBZlSbpTSYguLglZpVZqs5JAm5PTofPn94h%2Fg4hmP7GmT626c26vsAW%2FRRf%2BdheGBUfu1dBB7lJAnUPGZY%3D

Reply to  dbstealey
February 17, 2016 2:59 pm

Dbstealey, that is NOT a direct quote from Khrushchev.
So now you speak Russian, David?

Bryan
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2016 1:32 am

DB
Why on earth did you want to include what can best be described as a very dodgy second or third generation mangled misquote .
I don’t know who you are but you must understand that this can only undermine whatever point you are trying to make.
There must be thousands of real quotes about how the Soviet Union failed to keep up with the decentralised western economy e.g. computers software microelectronics.
So much so that Soviet Union and China dropped the centralised model and adopted capitalist economies.
Aphan
If you trace the fake quote back it has double inverted commas “……….” indicating a direct quote.
Even DBS was not stupid enough to copy them.

Reply to  Bryan
February 18, 2016 8:34 am

Bryan says:
…what can best be described as a very dodgy second or third generation mangled misquote.
Wrong, Bryan. It is Benson’s first hand report of a comment by Nikita Krushchev. And what would make it “very dodgy”, other than your spin?
You’re just deflecting. I challenged you to produce evidence that Secretary of Agriculture Benson is a liar.
You failed. Anyone watching his videos can see he’s a stand-up guy.
So your assertion is simply your baseless opinion. But to be fair, my challenge remains open: produce evidence that Benson is a liar, and I’ll retract. Otherwise, you lose this mini-debate.
I might add that Aphan has completely demolished your point in her comment above.

Reply to  Bryan
February 18, 2016 10:59 am

“Double inverted commas”? Those are called quotation marks.
And since the original quote, as far as I can find, was SPOKEN during a speech in which the person speaking specifically QUALIFIED the fact that he was not directly or exactly quoting Khrushchev by saying “he arrogantly declared, in substance:” (ie- he paraphrased-” to express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.”)
(You might be unaware of the fact that translating Russian into perfect English, and vice versa, is impossible, so even the translator had to adjust/ transition between what Khrushchev actually said and it’s closest English equivalent. We all remember Hillary’s “reset button” fiasco right? So we tend to be more forgiving of statements made that one has to adjust for clarity in another language ANYWAY.)
“I don’t know who you are but you must understand that this can only undermine whatever point you are trying to make.”
Now, if we go BACK to the point in which dbstealey used that quote for the first time in this thread, you’ll note that it’s at the very bottom of a very long list of quotes that he prefaced by saying-
“Don’t kid yourself, there are plenty others just like Malm. Some of them are even more radical:”
A rational human being would therefore accept that dbstealey was proving his point by providing evidence to support his claim. That fact that YOU got all hopped up on the murky origin of a statement made by Khrushchev, that can be totally and completely DELETED from his comment without affecting the truth/logical conclusion of his comment at ALL, indicates that your motives are not logical, but personal. You keep attacking “the man” (dbstealey) rather than his argument. The quote from Khrushchev was a PREMISE of his argument, NOT the conclusion of it, and since he has EIGHT other premises in that reply, losing one of them does NOT undermine the point he was trying to make at all.
So, how about the next time you want to come across as Captain Logic and reason, you behave in a logical and reasonable manner towards the person you are criticizing. Something like “db-just as an fyi, you may not be aware that the origin of the quote attributed to Khrushchev is murky at best.” would have been appropriate.
How you chose to respond instead was-
“Could you give a link to this quote? I dont think you can!”
AND
“Read this, you have posted a fake quote http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=63995
You chose to act in the same manner you consistently have here, and went after “the person” rather than “the argument” despite pretending you weren’t. You posted a link to a discussion thread at Snopes as if it “proves” YOU right and db wrong, and that is hilarious as well as irrational/illogical. Again, you have no more proof that the statement was NEVER made, than db has that it WAS made. But feel free to continue to “undermine whatever point it is that you are trying to make!”

Bryan
Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2016 11:16 am

DBS
Are you trying to bring this site into disrepute!
A sceptic should have solid reliable evidence to back up his position.
To needlessly copy what is generally thought of as an invented quote leaves the reader to think that anything else you say is worthless.
Surely you can look into Kruschev’s official published writings and find some real quotes!
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2008/11/13/bogus-khrushchev-quote-makes-the-rounds-again.htm
Heres another source of fake quotes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-faces-calls-to-quit-over-fake-quotes-scandal-10466068.html
Of course you will believe every word he says unless someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that IDS is a liar

Reply to  Bryan
February 18, 2016 12:16 pm

Bryan,
I suggest you read Aphan’s first comment above. You’ve picked an argument that you can’t win. Not too smart. You’re trying to make folks prove a negative; an illogical argument for sure.
You’re presuming that Mr. Benson was being deliberately dishonest, without a shred of evidence. You’re jaded because current politics is ethics-free. We have a President who lies like a child, and you assume public figures were always like they are now. But Benson was a religious man, in a time when ethics and basic honesty were valued for their own sake.
Furthermore, why would he lie about a minor comment like that? It was only a very small part in the video. If he did lie, that would mean he’s a liar. Liars lie, it’s what they do. So there would be plenty of other examples to prove Benson was a liar — if he was.
But you can’t produce anything except baseless opinions claiming what he said was fabricated, with zero evidence to support those opinions. That’s no argument at all, because it’s a completely baseless assertion. I could say exactly the same thing about you, and be just as credible. Do you think that would make what I said credible?
Whatever you choose to believe, it’s only your personal belief. You have no facts to support it.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2016 12:40 pm

It’s like watching a fly repeatedly hit a window because it doesn’t understand what glass is. He’ll stop buzzing eventually, but his little legs are going to kick madly until he dies. 🙂

Reply to  Bryan
February 18, 2016 12:33 pm

Bryan-
“DBS-Are you trying to bring this site into disrepute!”
lol-Three logical fallacies in one sentence? Argument from motives (that db could want to “bring disrepute”) red herring-distracting the conversation with something completely irrelevant to it, and poisoning the well (WUWT might suffer from the mere association with dbstealey!)
The boldness with which you demonstrate your incompetence is both breathtaking and disturbing at the same time.
“A sceptic should have solid reliable evidence to back up his position.”
Really? Just a sceptic? So someone like you, who is skeptical of a quote dbstealey used should have solid, reliable evidence to back up YOUR position! How are you not getting that point? dbstealey’s position on Soviet Russia had PLENTY of solid, reliable quotes to back up his position on it even without Khrushchev’s quote. Period. YOU however have NEVER attacked dbstealey’s POSITION, you keep merely attacking one of his premises and YOU cannot provide ANY solid, reliable evidence that the quote was never said because there were only three men who COULD provide that evidence and they are all dead!
So once again…if you think you can undermine/rebut dbstealey’s conclusion/position….of which the quote in question was merely one of 9 PREMISES (the only one here who is calling it a position/argument/conclusion is YOU…idiot) then do that. Attack/rebut his conclusion if you think you can. But your repeated illogical distractions about one of his PREMISES here are only making you look determined to prove how foolish you are.

Reply to  Aphan
February 18, 2016 5:58 pm

Petty comes to mind.
Despair also.
I learn so much watching bottom feeders self destruct. I also learn lessons watching how others don’t allow themselves to be baited.
I wish I was exposed to this site when I was a young person. It offers so many lessons.

Reply to  knutesea
February 18, 2016 6:03 pm

I’ve missed you knute. You’re one of the people I’ve learned the most from. 🙂 Good to see you.

Reply to  Aphan
February 18, 2016 9:19 pm

Simple kindness can make a man glow.
Tomorrow is a hard day for me so thanks for the respite.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 18, 2016 1:32 pm

Bryan,
You make this too easy. I’m used to more competent opponents. Don’t forget that you started it, and for reasons I still don’t understand. Maybe you’re jealous of knutsea’s comment? Or maybe you’re a Soviet fanboy? You started it with this comment:
Could you give a link to this quote? I dont think you can!
So I gave you links. That should have been the end of it, but you insisted on digging your hole deeper.
In your last link you attempted to tar Mr. Benson with that brush, but you failed again. There is no comparison: your politician pal admitted fabricating the quotes. How are the two comparable?
They’re not, you’re just getting desperate. And now you’re presuming to speak for me:
Of course you will believe every word he says unless someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that IDS is a liar.
There’s a night and day difference: Smith admitted to fabricating quotes. But only a real lowlife would imply that another person is lying based on that false comparison. If you were a stand-up guy, you’d retract. We’ll see.
Finally, you never answered my question: should I assume you are lying, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you’re not? Answer that simple question, please. A ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will do fine; no need for any tap-dancing, parsing, or long-winded explanations.
Just remember that whatever your answer is, it applies to Benson, too.

Bryan
Reply to  dbstealey
February 19, 2016 2:36 am

DBS
I’m from the UK where there is no right wing/left wing split among the climate change sceptics.
It appears that this is not the case in the USA.
Whether increased atmospheric CO2 causes a significant atmospheric temperature change is purely a science question and one day it will be settled.
If you are a climate sceptic just because you are right wing what will you do if the alarmists turn out to be correct.
Will you then become left wing?
There is a psychologist of very doubtful reputation called Professor Stephan Lewandowsky.
His theory is that all climate sceptics are right wing whackos who also believe that the Moon landings were faked, that JFK was really a Communist,that the Earth is really flat and so on.
Up till now I have never encountered this
You can if you like, continue to needlessly use fake quotes to back up your viewpoint but you will create a very bad impression of yourself to any rational person .
I’m afraid I dont have the time or inclination to continue this dialog.

Reply to  Bryan
February 19, 2016 9:51 am

Bryan,
You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel, trying to argue your way out of your out of your original comment where you said I couldn’t produce links to support my own comment. But I posted plenty of them. Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, you deflected onto other subjects.
I argue based on facts, not on politics (although I’m happy to point out how politics has poisoned the well. Your Lewandowsky insinuations are a good example). The CAGW crowd argues based on politics, because science does not support their conjecture. Therefore you’re wrong when you try to label me a “climate skeptic”. I am a Feynman-type scientific skeptic; if the facts change I’ll change with them, and all the facts must be considered, not just those that you like.
But so far, there are no credible facts to support the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. After many decades of searching, no one has ever been able to quantify AGW with measurements. So it is no more than a belief. A conjecture. An opinion.
The problem is that politics has intruded because the science is bogus. That is entirely the fault of the climate alarmist crowd. They lost the scientific argument, so now they argue politics. Tell us, how do the words “climate change” fit into science discussions?
As for Right/Left, tell it to Richard Courtney, a genuine leftist who knows the AGW scare is bunkum. Since all it takes is one example to falsify your conjecture, that does it. But of course, there are many more on the left who know CAGW is nonsense.
Finally, you already lost your “fake quote” argument. I had hoped you would man-up and admit it, but like most alarmists you keep digging your hole deeper. You started this with an accusation and a challenge — which I met in spades — but you still can’t verify anything you allege yourself. There is zero proof, and zero evidence of any kind, that Mr. Benson did anything but report what he was told. If it weren’t for bearing false witness and character assassination of someone long gone, you wouldn’t have anything to say.
You finally tuck tail:
I’m afraid I dont have the time or inclination to continue this dialog.
Good. Kindly get lost, and don’t come back. This is a science site.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 19, 2016 10:06 am

Well said. They do these same things on every statist social policy. That’s one good indicator we’re on the right side of the fence. True unfettered capitalism is the only system that can bring about real civility and prosperity to the majority in a society. Getting those who are feeding off the public treasury is our greatest threat.

Reply to  H Skip Robinson
February 19, 2016 10:34 am

H Skip,
Did you post on the wrong thread? Your comment doesn’t have anything to do with what’s being discussed here.

emsnews
Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 2:23 pm

I used to farm with an ox team. They were oxen of Austrian Alpine heritage, all black with white muzzles. Sweet boys, you talk to them to get them to do stuff!

Reply to  emsnews
February 15, 2016 2:33 pm

I used to farm with an ox team… Sweet boys, you talk to them to get them to do stuff!
I’ll still take a fossil fuel burning, CO2 emitting tractor…

Reply to  emsnews
February 15, 2016 4:33 pm

ems,
… and if they weren’t in the mood for your sweet talk did you take the day off, hit ’em with a stick, or buy a tractor?

Louis
Reply to  dbstealey
February 15, 2016 3:28 pm

I grew up in a small farming town. The farmers with the most land were using tractors at the time. But I remember seeing my grandfather still using a team of horses to plow his fields and haul hay in the early 60s. I also remember seeing a farmer down the road plowing his field with his teen-aged daughters hooked up to his plow. How many wives and daughters of these modern-day communists and environmental wackos would be willing to go back to those days, based solely on an unconfirmed climate forecast? Not only is the climate-change forecast unconfirmed but so is the belief that a few degrees of warming will be disastrous rather than net beneficial to the inhabitants of the planet. This book is just one more piece of evidence that climate change was invented as a means to an end, and these people really don’t care how many human beings have to die to achieve it.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 3:39 am

Hang on a mo, the woman on the right looks like my Nan!

Barbara
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 16, 2016 5:42 pm

Women did what they had to do or there would be nothing to eat. Oxen and horses cost money just like tractors cost money.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 7:34 pm

Get ready for the future
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-model-s

Reply to  Simon
February 18, 2016 9:29 am

Simon, if some folks get their way, the future is in the 3 livestock pics above. Teslas will be available – to Party card holders – and paid for by the proles.
Neither you, me, nor anyone else reading this will possess a Party card. Not even those who promote the new order will be part of that In crowd. You’ll be used, then discarded.
So you’re either for that kind of change, or against it. There’s no fence-sitting on this particular debate.