Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary:  The advocates for a massive public policy response to climate change have overwhelming political power, far greater than that of conservatives and skeptics opposing them. Temporary factors have prevented their victory, but weather or politics could change the situation quickly and soon. The illusion of winning keeps skeptics disorganized and ineffective. Skeptics have the ability to influence the debate now, and should use it while they have it.

Who is winning? That determines your strategy.

The histories of politics and war have many sad examples of people believing that their side had won — before a shattering defeat. In June 1863 many in the Confederacy believed they were winning the war; then came their defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg. In May 1942 the Japanese believed they were winning WWII; then came Midway. In 1952 the French believed they were winning the Vietnam War; then came Dien Bien Phu. In 1967 Americans believed they were winning; then came the Tet Offensive (a devastating 4GW attack against US morale at home). In all these cases events revealed that the “correlation of forces” was against them.

False belief in a superior position leads to sloppy planning, weak organization, and failure to aggressively seek allies. It turns a weak position into a losing one. As it has done with the skeptics in the debate over America’s public policy response to climate change. The skeptics have almost every imaginable positional weakness, yet most believe they are winning.

The world’s major institutions of all kinds oppose them, seeking policy action. Almost every science institution. Major governments, as seen in their dedicated websites: Canada, Australia, the European Union, and the United States (the EPA, NASA, DoE, and many more Federal, State, and local units). The major international agencies, such as the UN (and its many agencies) and the World Bank. The major news media, such as the New York Times and The Guardian — and alternative media (e.g., Take Part. A large fraction of the West’s non-governmental organizations push for climate policy actions such as environmentalists (e.g., the WWF, the EDF, and Greenpeace) and science-related institutions (e.g., science museums, such as the American Museum of National History). Many of the world’s churches, such as Roman Catholic Church.

It’s an endless list, source of the massive flow of funds advocating climate policy action.

Relative to this the skeptics have a trickle of funding from conservative think tanks and foundations plus corporations (who tend to financially support both sides, as they do both parties, although unequally).  The skeptics’ websites look (and are) amateurish, supported by advertising and donations — unlike those of activists (glossy, well-staffed, often professionally written). They’re astonishingly effective (especially Anthony Watts’) despite the lack of funding, but they reach only the tiny sliver of the public closely following this issue.

Where have the vast sums gone supposedly funding the skeptics’ movement? The most visible evidence (and perhaps the best use of the funds) are the Climate Depot website (daily links) and conferences to plan and coordinate their work (e.g., those by the Heartland Institute).

Why has the US taken so little action to fight climate change?

The obvious answer: because there is little public support for such intrusive and costly programs. While a slim majority of the public says they “worry” about climate change — polls show that they consistently rank it near or at the bottom of their policy concerns (also see this asking about “concerns about national problems”, and this asking about the “most important problem”).

Many factors have contributed to this failure in one of the most intensive and longest (28 years, dating from James Hansen’s famous Senate testimony) political campaigns in modern America. Americans are properly skeptical, having been consistently lied to about major policy issues (see these about foreign affairs). Our confidence in America’s institutions has been falling for 40 years. The Republicans have controlled some combination of the Presidency and one or both houses of Congress. The public policy campaign has been conducted incompetently, marked by exaggerations and misrepresentations beyond that supported by science (e.g., using RCP 8.5 to predict nightmares). — allied with doomsters who have a near-perfect record of being wrong.

Probably the most important factor: the weather has supported the skeptics during the past decade. The rate of warming has slowed since roughly 1998. Also, most kinds of extreme weather have diminished in frequency or intensity — or both (see the IPCC’s AR5, this by Prof Botkin, and testimony to Congress).

Public opinion can change quickly

The big battalions pushing for policy action have a slow but relentless effect, as shown in the latest Gallup poll (following a record warm wet winter in the US). The somewhat contradictory data shows a confused public, with the skeptics’ support slowly eroding. The key third graph suggests that it might be eroding fast. The climate policy debate might not remain deadlocked forever.




What might decisively change public opinion?

Skeptics fail to understand the first rule of insurgency: defenders of the status quo need to win every day while insurgents only need win once. Public policy measures are difficult to enact but are also difficult to reverse. What might defeat the skeptics?

First, we might get one or more major extreme weather events (not just a fraction of a degree rise over several years in the global average temperature). For example, a few large hurricanes hitting cities on the US East Coast, or East Asia — of course attributed to CO2 (whether scientists’ analysis eventually concurs is politically irrelevant). It could stampede public opinion into supporting new laws and regulations.

A second scenario of a decisive political change is a realignment election in the US that put the Democrats in power. This could happen in November, with major public policy action on climate change following in 2017.

What skeptics could do while they still have strength

Skeptics should use their political strength while they still have it. The 2016 campaign provides an opportunity that might not come again.

Their political supporters have only weak answers when asked about climate change. They give half-understood technobabble (any technical reply is babble to the general public), mumble about a conspiracy of scientists, and wave the uncertainty flag. Senator Inhofe tossed a snowball on the Senate floor to show that the Earth is not warming. These are pitifully weak rebuttals to the well-polished arguments of those advocating climate change.

There are clear, powerful answers that skeptics could give their political allies. For example, they could advocate for a fair test of the climate models (models are the basis for the predictions of climate catastrophe). This would force their opponents to explain to the public why the models should not be tested. Here is a description of such a test; this explains why it is needed under the norms of science and by the words of major scientists.

Or they can continue on their present course, and probably lose.

Effects of skeptics’ defeat after bouts of extreme weather

Political defeat following an election might change little for the skeptics. Defeat following weather-related disasters — billions in damages, perhaps deaths — might change skeptics’ lives for the worse. The insults and demonization from their foes that they experience today are like Spring rains compared to the thunderstorms of massive public blame and condemnation.

The damage might extend to conservatives and the Republican Party. That possibility is worth avoiding.

Who is right about the public policy response to climate change?

It’s an irrelevant question when forecasting near-term political events. We have no way to answer that now, and my experience suggests that both sides in the policy war are confident and intransigent — and so uninterested in research to answer it. It will become an important question for future generations of historians and political scientists.

This question will only become politically important if we force it into the debate. Congress can require NOAA or the NSF to test the models with independent oversight (i.e., a neutral multi-disciplinary team of experts). The results would tell us much.

Or we can wait for the weather or politics to decide the policy debate.


This is my 350th post about climate, ending this long series (as usual) with a prediction and recommendation. This post goes on my Forecasts page, and will eventually move to the list of hits or list of misses. My success rate is quite high, and I am confident this will add to that list.

My thanks to those who reposted these articles, especially Anthony Watts and Professor Judith Curry, and to the many climate scientists who generously assisted me — especially Professor Roger Pielke Sr.

Other posts about the climate policy debate

This post is a summary of the information and conclusions from these posts, which discuss these matters in greater detail.

  1. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
  2. My proposal: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
  3. We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
  4. There will be little public policy action by the US to fight climate change – until the weather decides the debate.
  5. How climate change can help the GOP win in 2016.

290 thoughts on “Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate

    • Actually HAVING a debate would be a good start wouldn’t it?
      I think we’ll actually know where the American public stands after the 2016 election.
      Regardless of public ‘opinion’, reality is still very much on our sides and that will become glaringly apparent over time. The more the alarmists ante up, the more they will lose.

      • A good place to start demanding model verificaiton is in the tropics. This is where the majority of the heat comes into the system and where were supposed to see mid-tropo “hot-spot” that was to be a key finger-print of global warming.
        Note the TOTAL lack of volcanic cooling in reality and how it is just about the onely definable feature of model output apart from a slow AGW rise.
        It has also long been established that there very little evidence of the famous “hot-spot”.
        If you can’t model the tropics, you can’t model climate. It is that simple. The scatter-gun of output of ludicrous papers of the style “Rise in facial hair in old ladies shown to be linked to climate change” is just an avoidance of one central question:do models accurately reflect past, known climate change in the tropics.
        Answer: not at all.
        The volcanic cooling in the tropics has been exaggerated , probably by factor of ten. This counter-balanced the exaggerated CO2 warming… while both were present.
        Now they have a divergence problem because the volcanic excuse for pumping AGW has been missing since 1994.

      • “I think we’ll actually know where the American public stands after the 2016 election.”
        The only thing we will know after the general election is who the more noxious felon is.

    • With the political established UNFCCC the whole science base for the climate science debate was effectively politicized. The debate was over the day the political UNFCCC was established.

      • Real skeptics: those of us who told the entire world, it was all wrong, from the very first word, to the very last one – were immediately run out of the hijacking of climate sciences through the media savvy of those who staked their limited intellectual reputations it was real.
        They were wrong, it’s not real. It’s proven,
        With the advent of everything from the entire coterie of leadership who were purporting being exposed having manufactured every single tenth degree warming starting in 1998,
        to others going online to show people the claim of there being ”Runaway Green House Effect” on Venus is nothing more nor less than absolute fabrication from letter one to letter last by simply and swiftly calculating the temps: of Venus, then Earth, then Mars – showing people the standard gas equations, verifying temperatures, fractions of gas species and pressures with instrument banks we now have on three separate planets.
        Repeatedly the men who stormed science and covered the entire world with alarmism and the false science backing it have destroyed the actual skeptic movement by insisting that if you don’t believe with ‘most’ people it’s an evidence you’re likely wrong; and that’s simply not the case in science.
        It’s why people hide extension chords. They think the science would say, that if they push them behind things, they won’t be torn through kicking, or cause people to trip, so it’s safer. But the actual science is that when people hide them, they get nicked, get worse and worse, they burn the place down.
        Everyone who has a major presence in natural sciences media today, stopped telling the truth, said it’s plain the science backing it up is ‘sound’. But it wasn’t. And now those supposedly ”leading” the ”skeptic” movement,
        are believers whose own scientific credibility is as ridiculously proven worthless as those they helped drive real science, out of science, in exchange for relevance, or media presence, or – simply alarmism traffic.
        There is no real skeptics movement of any power because those who are really skeptical were driven away in hordes. In hordes, people telling the truth, were name-called and had their reputations trashed by monkeys with meters they weren’t qualified to turn on.

    • ” Skeptics have the ability to influence the debate now, and should use it while they have it.” As the current el Nino wears out, coming DATA will no doubt influence the debate; however, as with religion, it will be believe systems against data. Depending on the quality of the education or maturity of the audience, the debate will be tilting to I hope the rational side.

    • That’s right. Because the believers in it took over and drove all the real skeptics out, and then pretended there was a debate about the end of the world due to it, so that was scientific debate.
      That end of the world bullsh** was political debate.
      Non scientists took to the internet like bedbugs and infiltrated every single millimeter of discourse space, driving out real scientists and injecting lunacy built on ignorance and driven by shameless self promotion and fame seeking.
      Is there anyone who is in the climate debate on the scientists’ sides – the real ones, the ones driven out of even discussion of atmospheric chemistry – who actually is scientifically literate and told everyone this was a hoax from the beginning? No.
      So called ‘scientific’ discussion is run as a circus, not like one. As a circus, designed to simply incite stampedes to click-bait any adult sees clearly is nothing but popcorn passed off as steak.
      The price however is the complete dismantling of the natural sciences by such unscientific pseudo-skeptics and their professional politics ”theory generators.”
      There are no scientists around the climate movement not because the scientists didn’t feel they were right: but because of the STORM of character assassination and media manipulation to turn the public on the scientists everyone sees now,
      were right,
      are right, and could have never lost the long term truth argument. The fact is not even the most basic premises of AGW are based in qualified science that can pass experimental test from stage to stage.
      It’s why the modern scientific media doesn’t do experiments and discuss them. It’s why there are long lists of words, people are not allowed to say, or they simply aren’t allowed to participate in so called ”scientific” discourse.
      Yet those very words ARE the laws of thermodynamics. You can talk of science but not refer to the laws of scientific method, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics. You MUST assert you believe ”the basic science is sound” regarding this or you’re simply not allowed to talk here, and if we can seek you out, we’re going to follow and character assassinate you anywhere we find you. This is about the public perception and that’s much more important than your ”laws of thermodynamics.”
      What kind of
      ”science” movement
      has long lists of rules of science people aren’t allowed to mention because they derail the talk between those who agree it’s all real and there aren’t major errors?
      The kind run by believers
      passing themelves off as skeptics and the intellectual equals of scientists who corrected them.

      Eric Barnes
      March 22, 2016 at 5:58 am
      They’re losing the debate because there never actually has been a debate.

  1. All it will take is the seizure of the Presidency by Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
    Both will exert their every effort to legitimize the fake science for reasons of control and political expediency.
    Obama would’ve liked to have done more on Climate Alarmism but spent the majority of his political capital forcing National Health care upon the Nation. Plus he lost his allies in Congress after the 2010 elections.
    It’s quite likely that if Hillary wins, she will push for devastating climate rules that will reduce the American economy to a shadow of it’s former self. And if she wins she likely will have at least one half of Congress with her.
    Your vote in the Presidential election will determine the future of your children and their children and possibly the future of the world.
    Don’t be fooled by concerns about the GOP elite. Yes they’re not conservative but for other reasons many do not see the necessity or advisability of more climate alarmism regulations.

  2. I wonder what effect the Brussels terrorist attacks will have on that “slim majority of the public says they “worry” about climate change”.

    • I notice that the monuments of other European cities are being lit up as a show of solidarity with Brussels.
      I highly poignant gesture and effective show of strength. (sarc)
      But it’s a good thing that this symbolic lighting things up did not coincide with Earth Hour.
      The European liberal elite would have found themselves beset by a significant moral dilemma…

      • indefatigablefrog
        March 22, 2016 at 12:56 pm
        I notice that the monuments of other European cities are being lit up as a show of solidarity with Brussels.
        I highly poignant gesture and effective show of strength. (sarc)
        But it’s a good thing that this symbolic lighting things up did not coincide with Earth Hour.
        The European liberal elite would have found themselves beset by a significant moral dilemma…

        No moral dilemma, Gia is in pain. Less people is good. Therefore ISIS is good. No moral dilemma here at all.

        • Unfortunately, when ISIS take over they are planning on having about 14 children per wife.
          And as many wives as they can afford.
          At the new bargain knock down rate that wives will fetch when most of the men have been decapitated.
          That’s their dream.
          And Angela Merkel is the woman who can make it a reality…

  3. ..The question should have been ” Do you believe ” Man Made Global Warming ” will have catastrophic consequences ? “

    • Historic Catastrophic climate change the last 500 million years is the reason we humans are here today.

    • I agree. I worry about Global Warming all the time but my worry is that the politicians will try to take action to mitigate the catastrophic AGW farce and destroy the world economy. In Canada the pro AGW faction seem to have won.

      • Dave Wallace: “In Canada the pro AGW faction seem to have won.” No. The handouts generation elected some governments (provincially, municipally and federally that have been supported by BIG GREEN and with our system, they only need 1/3 of the votes to do that. But in the not too distant future, the failures of their policies will add up, there will be new elections and a new course will be charted. The government is not in control. Lessons learned from the many guerrilla wars around the world in the last few centuries. As long as a silent majority agree, and a few skeptics act, things will change. It is inevitable. But likely costly. Still change will come.
        I am an eternal optimist.

      • Many Ontario residents are already in energy poverty and more will be there if Ontario continues on its present course.
        Who knows when those affected by Ontario energy policies will wake up?
        This is driven by opportunities to make money and not science.
        Some in Canada think the country can be made into another “Saudi Arabia” by furnishing the U.S. with energy.

  4. A prescient warning and excellent advice. I have had the opportunity to follow the “global warming” issue from its first public mention until now (I will be 56 years old this year). Observing how the entire scheme has unfolded and has been presented to the public has led me to the conclusion that it has never been about climate, weather, concern for humanity, or saving the planet for the next generation. The entire scheme has always been about political power.
    Reading histories of great civilizations reveals a discernible pattern of ascendance to individual liberty and then a descent to tyranny. It appears that the “global warming” crisis has been just another tool to help speed us along the path to tyranny. Perhaps if the debate was argued in these terms more folks would be jolted from their apathy and become willing to actually do something to preserve what liberty we have left tor the next generation.
    History has also proven that liberty is not preserved by winning an argument. The price is high, but the liberty we enjoy today was paid forward by those who willingly paid that price. Mr. Kummer is correct in exhorting us to defend the truth in the debate, but we should also be prepared to defend the liberty which grants us the opportunity to speak the truth. William Cullen Bryant’s poem, “The Battlefield,” reminds us: “Truth crushed to earth shall rise again; the eternal years of God are hers. But error, wounded, writhes in pain, and dies among his worshipers.”
    Esto paratus!

    • A very good article.
      J. Keith, you captured my thoughts too.
      Concomitant with the globul warming political scheme, are constant attempts by the forces of evil (the UN, liberals in general, and various other enemies of the good ‘ol USA) to remove citizen rights to own firearms. Confiscation of our firearms fully opens the door to tyranny.

    • If men claim their rights and defend them, they automatically win the only debate that matters.
      because submission is the only thing being negotiated.
      it’s dressed in calico patches of terror and its middle name is policy, but its true name is tyranny.
      you can not reason with it.
      when you stop feeding this beast, it dies and you win.
      fighting and winning are completely different things
      latest example can be found in venezuela.
      nobody fought. it died when it starved.

    • Agree “Domination of Nature” is just one of many Tools to unenlighten the Western World.

  5. Public support for AGW may wax and wane, but that support remains shallow. Ask the public if they would be willing to pay $6/gal for gasoline or give up their cars and suburban houses altogether, and you will see a resounding rejection.

      • “…solar panels can keep us moving without using fossil fuels”
        Hardly Luke. It’s true that you can offset your own electrical usage by using PV AND the grid. It’s a pretty tall order to provide for those same electrical needs without the reliance on the grid. Until you can eliminate the grid from the above case, fossil fuels will need to exist. That is, unless we embrace nuclear. If you have a solution, I’m all ears.

      • Actually, the implementation of solar panels to power electric cars will get people walking a lot faster that the dumb carbon taxes ever will.

      • Solar & wind power will never replace fossil fuels at current levels of energy use. Laws of physics.
        Even replacing half our energy with wind/solar would cause untold habitat and ecological destruction, and would make electrical power far more unreliable.

      • Most idiotic claim ever, sure, everyone can afford 100k for a Tesla car their taxes already paid for.
        You clown
        Solar.. b a h a h a h a h a

      • What powers electric cars? (Hint – it is not a battery, that is only a storage device.)
        What are electric cars made of? (When’s the last time you saw a steel mill powered by solar panels? Or a plastics plant run by wind turbines?)
        Re suburbs; have you heard of the UN’s Agenda 21?

      • I’ve never spent more than the equivalent of $800 on any vehicle.
        And I’ve had years of cheap trouble free motoring.
        We (me and my partner) have kept two vehicles on the road and have never broken down during a journey in over 16 years of driving.
        Plus my car does over 50 mpg.
        And most repairs that I have had to carry out have been minor fixes done by myself.
        Let me know when Tesla can meet my expectations/requirements for cost and reliability.
        Ha ha…

      • It’s 8:30AM here (Oz) at the moment and my 5KW solar system is pumping out 145W, not even enough to run the toaster so that I can get started i the morning.
        Dispatchable power is necessary, otherwise I will have to wait for the clouds to part before I can run anything.

      • moving very….very slowly….and just to the next charging station….which is powered by what? 2013 Luke…and it was just an “idea”…wasn’t actually tried or realized according to the article.

      • Simon,
        Tesla 3 will be revealed/ announced and pre-orders will begin at the end of March. It doesn’t even go into production until late in 2017! It is not being “released” this month. And while estimates have it at around $35,000…how many are ordered will pretty much determine the price of the actual manufactured cars.
        Still WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY out of the average person’s price range for a car you have to charge every 200 miles.

      • Hey Luke – you forgot to include electric airplanes that can keep us moving without using fossil fuels!

      • India (Dehli) is planning to build 800,000 tuk-tuks that are solar powered, along with mains charged batteries. In the unit I saw, it was fitted with 4 fairly large batteries the type of which I could not determine. It also had just one PV panel on the roof, not sure of it’s rating. That’s 3.2 million batteries that will be charged, largely, by coal fired mains power. The following questions were not answered. How many charging stations would be required throughout the city? How long would the queues be to charge? What is supplying the charging station?

      • @Noaaprogramer…At least those solar powered planes in their circumnavigation of the globe have the good sense to break down in Hawaii for an extended period. Who cares if it takes more than a year to cover 26,000 miles!

    • Tom in Denver wrote:

      Ask the public if they would be willing to pay $6/gal for gasoline or give up their cars and suburban houses altogether, and you will see a resounding rejection.

      Good point, Tom in Denver. It’s all about how the questions are presented.
      On a scale of “Not worried at all” to “Terrified of CAGW and thinking of killing myself and my children,” most people would answer somewhere in the middle or towards the alarmed side just due to the constant bombardment of apocalyptic doom from various media.
      But ask if they think CAGW is so important on a scale of 1-10 that they will give up travel, adequate heat, cable, their 2nd refrigerator, and their smart phone and I believe you’ll get laughter or 1s or 2s.
      Now, Ted Kaczynski practiced an admirably minimalist lifestyle but he did have a nasty habit of trying to blow people up. I suppose true believers would just consider that as offsetting penalties, though.

      • Maybe this is the answer to WIN the debate. The GOP need to propose draconian austerity measures, food and energy rationing, restricted travel, housing restrictions, etc to the level AGW people advocate as being required. Then place this to a public vote, the Dem’s would have no option but to support it, the public would have no option but to reject it.
        Reminds me of the book “Ender’s Game” where the main character beats the unbeatable aliens by taking untold unorthodox risks as he believes it is only a video game simulation. If Ender new he was dealing in real lives he would have not taken the same risks and lost the war. The minute the public see’s what is at stake, the risks, they would not pursue the same course of action.

      • that’s the most bizarre magick i’ve seen recently.
        i have lots of 2$ and will sell them all to you at a bargain rate of $5.50 – that’s 10% off.
        If you don’t mind buying them, I won’t mind selling.

      • i have lots of 2$ and will sell them all to you at a bargain rate of $5.50 – that’s 10% off.
        That was a bit evilish, gnomish :o))

  6. I dont have a problem with global warming. It’s happening, but it’s slow, subtle, and hard to predict. My main concern is over the suggested actions, most of which I think are impractical. I do see a benefit if there’s action to enhance energy security, so as to reduce dependence on nations which finance terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia.

  7. The republican party is just a clone of the democratic party with different platitudes. Thinking of them as allies anywhere where you oppose the democrats is a mistake. Trump and Cruz are only on the skeptics’ side because they are anti-establishment candidates riding an anti-establishment wave. The republican establishment might jump on the skeptic bandwagon if they see you winning but don’t make the mistake of expecting them to help you win.

  8. The climate movement is self limiting. People only put up with parasites and hardship for so long, after a while the whole show collapses, one way or another.

    • Yup. Ultimately, when there are no bodies, no real damage, and nothing we spend changes anything, the public will turn against alarmism just as quickly… which is not unlike what we see now.

    • That assumes the warming will stop. If the evidence is in front of them, they will have little option.

      • If “disaster” will be a FUTURE consequence from CURRENT minimal warming (groan!), then this game will continue indefinitely EVEN IF COOLING COMMENCES, because IF people trust scientists about the future, they will trust them when they inevitably say that “the cooling is just a blip and the disaster WILL continue, later, in the future, which we scientists TOTALLY know. Totally. 97% confidence…..Yup.”

  9. A parallel to climate models which may or may not work in successfully giving usable predictions or projections are traffic forecasting models. In Australia we have had four or five disasters (for the shareholders and banks) with regard to grossly excessive traffic forecasts on which road tunnels have been given the go ahead.
    GHD has produced a very interesting report on some of the forecasts, some badly wrong and some pretty good. It looks at the theoretical basis for the forecasting, and as such should be interesting to sceptics as an informative instrument for considering the validation of climate models. Mod – if there is a better blog into which it should be placed – please shift it to there!

  10. Facts rarely matter in public “debates”. The only things holding back massive “climate” legislation are supposedly more pressing issues – immigration and Middle East turmoil. Neither of these pose a significant threat either. The US government is committed to “rule by crisis”. Each crisis is created by a small number of people who intend to benefit from “emergency action”.
    A real issue like the 19 trillion dollar national debt that will cripple our children and grandchildren gets ignored because every crisis requires more money to be spent.
    The only thing that will prevent carbon taxes and shutting down fracking will be to distract the politicians with a new shiny object. The attention span of politicians is two years for congressmen and six years for senators.

    • Bob, you and others keep telling me that me and my children own this 19 trillion dollar debt that politicians lent out because they could not even balance a budget. Screw that.
      Make the politicians own the debt to their fifth generation and let them pay off their debt.
      If a family is rich like Hillary clintons from a life in politics take everything from them to pay this debt.
      If you give the schmucks who brought us this debt to deal with it we would never see a national debt again as personal responsibility will fall on those who do stupid things like spending money we do not have.

  11. The headline has changed from
    “Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate”
    “Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate”.
    The reasoning seems very thin, based on a little blip in one opinion poll. There are plenty of opinion polls showing concern about climate change in decline.
    On the policy side, what’s been the news in the last few days?
    The Ivanpah solar facility is in trouble for producing too little, too expensive power and using fossil fuels.
    Tesla has apparently given up on its 10kwh battery.
    Also recently there’s been concern about rising levels of air pollution from diesel fumes, a direct consequence of climate policy as tax breaks were introduced to favour diesel cars with lower CO2.
    And increasing concern about the daft policy of cutting down trees in the US to make woodchips to burn in the UK because it counts as “renewable”.
    So on the policy side, the skeptics are increasingly being shown to be correct.
    IMHO any talk of winning or losing is unwise. Nobody’s going to win or lose any time soon.

    • As soon as I saw the article title I knew who wrote it. It’s not a contest to true sceptics. It’s not about winning or policies. It’s about science, facts, what is or is not happening. Politics and knee jerk, agenda driven policies are the problem with almost everything today.

      • Aphan,
        “It’s not a contest to true sceptics.”
        Are you ruling as King or ex cathedra?
        “It’s not about winning or policies.”
        For many people the public policy response is important. If too little, the effects of climate change might be painful. If too large (up to unnecessary), we’ve wasted resources and suffered opportunity cost.

        • FM: “For many people the public policy response is important. If too little, the effects of climate change might be painful. If too large (up to unnecessary), we’ve wasted resources and suffered opportunity cost.”
          Everything is a false dichotomy to you isn’t it? I’m either ruling “as King or ex cathedra.” It’s either “too little public response”, or “to large”. It’s either your way (demand a retest of the models) or “Or they can continue on their present course, and probably lose.” You keep presenting things as if humanity must pick A, or something from category A or else they will automatically get B or something in category B…win or lose. Succeed or fail. Victory! Or defeat. Your world must be painfully dull because you don’t see all of the other options between A and Z.
          For many people the public policy response is unimportant, and for most, they are completely oblivious. Natural disasters happen. Always have. Always will. They are only relevant to humans, because humans build crap in areas where natural disasters happen. And keep rebuilding after they happen repeatedly. It’s painful because life is painful. You cannot legislate pain away. Or loss. Or death.
          The US government wastes resources every stinking day. They spend money on the most inane, idiotic, useless, and corrupt things possible. Climate change is just the entree du jour. And you can write 4 million articles telling people what they “should” or “should not” be doing if it makes you feel better…like you are doing something. But you can’t change people who don’t read them, who don’t agree with you, who don’t care, who simply resent being told what to do, who think for themselves, who have better ideas, who see more options, who have more pressing things to worry about today, and tomorrow, and maybe for the rest of their lives.
          You need to open up your mind to the possibility that there is not another person on this planet that thinks exactly like you do. Sees the world exactly like you do. Or that will embrace the exact ideas and ideals that you do with the same degree of dedication or interest. Of course, you can keep talking and lecturing and writing as if there is some massive group of individuals out here that YOUR personal opinions will appeal to, and they will rise up and follow your suggestions to success and I will predict that you will most likely be very disappointed in the end. My success rate is quite high, and I am confident that I will add you to that list.

      • Being easily frightened (or perhaps enjoying trying to frighten others) seems to be a common trait amongst the True Believers. Claiming to be on the side of “Saving the World” just covers up the fear and the projection.

      • Which link would that be Luke, you haven’t posted one.
        But rest assured, if you had, I (and I suspect, many others) certainly wouldn’t waste time on it.

      • “Don’t waste your time on this link.”
        Monte Carlo simulations are a CONSENSUS method of modelling.
        Get over it, dopey !!

  12. Next la Nina winter will be brutal. Anyone with faith that Global Warming is going to make NYC warm will vanish like fog at sunrise.

  13. Polls show consistently that large portions of the US population will regurgitate media propaganda on Global Warming. HOWEVER, when pollsters ask about support for carbon taxes to “combat and reverse” global warming, the tables are reversed and a decisive majority (like 65%) OPPOSE these measures.
    Depending on who the candidates are, Carbon Taxes can become a decisive issue in the 2016 election. That’s the decisive vulnerability of the warmunistas. Also the looming specter of blackouts and brownouts in the EU Green Economy will also be rather decisive in my opinion.

    • Polls often say that people are happy to pay more tax for things like healthcare. Until the election.

    • Depending on who the candidates are, Carbon Taxes can become a decisive issue in the 2016 election.

      Or not …
      Canada is being dragged toward carbon taxes and there is not much opposition. link
      The trick is to confuse the public about what’s really happening.

      The best euphemism in the government’s cap-and-trade discussion paper is “carbon leakage.” Perhaps this sounds like some kind of accidental carbon emission. In fact, it is a sanitized term for job losses. “Carbon leakage” is when a company relocates out of Ontario and into another jurisdiction where production is more affordable. Try telling the people of southwestern Ontario, one of the regions hardest hit by manufacturing job losses, that their unemployment is “carbon leakage.”

      • “Canada is being dragged toward carbon taxes and there is not much opposition.”
        Yes, but that’s because people can’t feel it yet.
        Every day on Facebook I see people I KNOW voted for the Liberals (both federally and provincially here in Ontario where energy costs are skyrocketing due to “green” policies) complaining about how much things are costing NOW. Yes, it will get worse.
        The only question is, like the frog sitting in the water being heated, will they jump before they are boiled?
        Prime Minister Zoolander will eventually run out of photo ops to distract people, and actually have to do some, you know, governing and all that hard stuff.

      • CaligulaJones says:
        March 22, 2016 at 12:39 pm
        … The only question is, like the frog sitting in the water being heated, will they jump before they are boiled?

        My thoughts exactly.

        Prime Minister Zoolander …

        People will love him as long as he keeps spending like a drunken sailor.

      • And today they bringing out a budget that is already a disaster, 20 billion for “green” infrastructure ( that would be 200 billion in a US budget) and that is just the beginning.

      • Much depends on the 2016 Presidential elections. If Trump is a candidate the Carbon Tax WILL be a very big issue. Just ask people to multiple their fuel and electricity bills by a factor of 3.
        That won’t be ignored unless it’s drowned out by side-bar distractions. But no candidate will win on a platform of jacking up prices for a phony war of Co2.
        By contrast, healthcare insurance is a legitimate concern. Obama presented a plan which was better that the status quo and won on that platform. He’ll continue to win since no coherent opposition has been articulated.

      • Also they are the hardest hit by the forest of 200m tall windmills that have sprouted up practically in their backyards. I wonder what premier Winnie would say if a windfarm appeared 550m from her house?

      • Ontario residents are not even being allowed to know who and what’s going to be affected by the new cap-and-trade. All done behind closed doors.
        How can people object to something they don’t even know about until it’s too late?

    • Polls show consistently that large portions of the US population will regurgitate media propaganda on Global Warming.
      Because they don’t want some rabid, mentally-unhinged enviro-crazies trying to destroy their lives or attack them.

  14. ” The skeptics have almost every imaginable positional weakness, yet most believe they are winning.” You can see that here. I think it is because they do not actually go outside the echo chamber to see what is happening elesewhere.
    There seems to be a dearth of actual predictions that are against the “IPCC approved” ones.
    One was here from your pages:
    “.2.“Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year – still rallying“, Anthony Watts, posted at his blog Watt’s Up with That?, 15 October 2008 — This years data may mark an inflection point in arctic cooling.”
    In fact it was followed by an even lower minimum in 2012. No real sign of a change in direction, so that is a failed prediction.
    There are several predictions based on solar cycles that say we are going to start cooling any time now. If that cooling fails to materialise, then there don’t seem to be many left on the table.
    GWPF recently published a paper by prof. Mills with predictions – these have already been disproved.
    There is no point saying that this was due to El Nino. El Nino’s were part of the data that Prof. Mills used to create his predictions.
    The fact is, “the pause” was a powerful message, and I believe it was effective in disarming the public. Now that has gone, only actual cooling is likely to win the public over to your side.
    Once the battle over actual AGW has been lost, there will of course remain the battle over whether or not anything should be done about it.

    • It’s easy to pick a snap shot in time that happens to be during the decay of a major El Nino and say “the pause is over” but that’s short sighted and ignorant. That’s been claimed before in 2007 and 2010, but after each event the pause continued and lengthened.

      • I am referring to the pause as defined by Monckton and referred to here at WUWT frequently in posts such as “The pause lengthens again” to 18 years and 8 months. The pause is over. If it comes back in the future then it will be re-born. It was really a stastistical fiddle to avoid the accusation of cherry picking a start date around the 97/98 El Nino. It was argued that it was not cherry picking because it went back however far it went from today, and today is not a random cherry picked date. It took another big El Nino to end the pause, and that is just a reflection that these events cause big blips in the temperature record. It makes no less sense to say that the current El Nino ended the pause than it does to say the 97/98 El Nino was the reason for the pause.
        The pause bythis definition has ended. Any other definition of the pause is just a cherry picked segment.

      • seaice1-
        “I am referring to the pause as defined by Monckton and referred to here at WUWT frequently in posts such as “The pause lengthens again” to 18 years and 8 months. The pause is over. If it comes back in the future then it will be re-born. ”
        The climate is not static. It changes, moves, gets warmer, colder, really colder, really warmer etc. A “pause” in warming happens just like a pause in cooling. The only constant in climate is change.
        Let’s put your logic to work here. The Earth’s overall trend has been cooling for roughly 50 million years. We have a LONG, really freaking long, way to go before we can talk about global warming today being anything longer than a commercial break in Earth’s regularly scheduled telethon. How about we all just agree that for the past 11,000 years or so, Earth’s climate has been amazingly, stable? I mean, looking at the chart I’ve included, the “human influence” on it’s climate isn’t even one whole line if you push the Holocene Epoch back into proportion with the chart! Planet Earth has been experiencing (more or less) an 11,000 year PAUSE or plateau if you like. When that is over, and it’s chaotic, abrupt, natural state of rapid changes comes back in the future, then we can all say (with you) that it’s been “re-born”. Right? 🙂

      • Like I said, the exact same claim was made during 2007 and 2010, how’d those proclamations of the pause being over work out? Your logic fails when you insist on looking at a single month (single datum for this purpose) and call the pause over. Look at the 13-month running average, the pause is statistically intact and will be continue for some time considering that a La Nina is very likely developing.

      • seaice1,
        Why don’t you write? Why don’t you call?
        What if the paws has actually ended? Not in the dumbass statistical sense. In the real sense of what has happened in the past.
        Wanna pick cherries? Start picking at the PETM. Better yet start picking at the Triassic Thermal Maximum (hereafter TTM). Roughly equal but ~150 million years earlier
        What are a few ridiculous ups and downs between friends?
        Either choice, nothing but down, dude.

      • Aphan, you are just trying to change the subject. The pause is well defined – how else could it be said to be for example 18 years and 8 months? It refers to a very specific set of data. Monckton said onone occasion “The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.” I am following Lord Monckton’s definition The pause as defined in this way can flit into and out of existence. That is why I do not think it is a meaningful measure of anything.
        If you mean a meaningful definition – that the longer term (multi decadal) trend has ceased to rise, then that has not happened. There is not evidence for such a pause. There is just fluctuation about a rising trend.
        If you mean a pause in the multi million yr trend, then perhaps you are right, but that has very little to do with current climate issues. The sea levels were hundreds of feet higher or lower at times in distant history. That does not mean a sudden change of 20 feet would not have significant effects today. And no, I am not saying the sea level will rise 20ft tomorrow. I am using this to demonstrate the vacuity of your argument. I did not see Monckton or anybody else claim that the pause has now lasted 4 million years and 8 months. Reference to these ancient temperatures is not relevant to discussion of the pause.
        “Like I said, the exact same claim was made during 2007 and 2010, how’d those proclamations of the pause being over work out?” Well, they worked out eventually by the pause being over. I am not sure to which claims you refer could you provide a reference perhaps?
        The definition of the pause was very useful, becasue it effectively eliminated consideration of data before the last big El Nino without appearing to be cherry picking. The flip side of that is when that pause disappears, it has gone.

      • Seaice1,
        Since you did not actually quote Monckton, it is impossible to know where your approximation of what he said ends, and your own words begin. So- were YOU saying that “the pause” would be “reborn” if it comes back, or were you insinuating that Monckton thinks, claims, believes that? And then define “reborn” for me from your point of view.
        The pause as I define it, is simply a point in time where there is little change (not zero change) in global surface temps. Temps fluctuate vastly every day, and every week, and every month. But when comparing year after year of averaged GST, there was a sub zero trend for 18 years and 2 months. It is specific and meaningful in it’s specificity. There have been numerous such pauses of varying lengths in the past 135 years.
        So if you want to talk multi-decadal trends, let’s do that. How many decades per trend? 2? 4? 8? 7? If you aren’t specific, your term is meaningless and not useful.

      • Aphan. The quote from Monckton is the part within the quotation marks. I did not think this was a contentious quote, as he has made very many similar ones. I got it from The lord Monckton Foundation website here
        The quote in context to remove to remove all doubt about who said it:
        “Onward marches the Great Pause
        Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 2 months
        By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
        Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 1 month to 18 years 2 months (indeed, very nearly 18 years 3 months). Will this devastating chart be displayed anywhere at the Lima conference? Don’t bet on it. [Figure 1]. The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.”
        So yes, the parts I did not include in the quotation marks are my own. That is how it works. They are a logical conclusion from the definition of the pause as used by Lord Monckton.
        “But when comparing year after year of averaged GST, there was a sub zero trend for 18 years and 2 months.”
        Yes, but why should we look at that particular segment of graph? If you extend either backwards or forwards there is a positive trend. The fact that it is flat for this period is interesting – it indicates something about the distribution of heat within the Earth system. What it does not necessarily mean is that warming stopped for that period. We can only tell that by looking at longer trends.

    • The pause still exists in several data sets: The UAH Satellite temperature data set and the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (weather balloons).
      The pause has been adjusted out of existence in the various surface station data sets.

      • Pete, which UAH dataset do you mean? There have been more than 10 such datasets since 1992, with different adjustments each time. Don’t get me wrong, if the CAGW crowd want to hoodwink the public with adjustments it’s only fair that seekers after Truth like John and Roy should fight back against the GREEN BLOB in this way.
        By the way, I think I must have been hoodwinked by Tamin0, who showed raidosonde data (RATPAC) showing an increase similar to the TOTALLY DISCREDITED surface data measurements by people like the BEST turncoats. Do you have a reference for the TRUE radiosonde data? I’d be grateful for it.

      • Pete,
        When we put human “history” into the proper perspective (like the chart above), it hasn’t even registered as the blink of an eye to this planet. Talking about the climate and how it’s changed since 1950, or even 1880, is like talking about how many individual hair strands each angel dancing on the head of a pin has. 🙂

    • “You can see that here. I think it is because they do not actually go outside the echo chamber to see what is happening elesewhere.”
      There is certainly a great deal of truth to that statement IMO. I don’t see a lot of intelligently argued skeptic viewpoints at places like Quora, for example (Although Richard Muller is quite active there). And there is quite a lot of sniping about “D*****S” with no rebuttal.
      Discussing the subject here accomplishes nothing, but I don’t see those who have the requisite knowledge to discuss it engaging outside of here and on a few newspaper forums.

    • Once we get the next La Nina, I expect a multiyear flat linear trend will be restored in the satellite-measured lower troposphere according to RSS v.3.4 and UAH v.6.
      But then the skeptics may again claim the pause started in 1997, while there are multiple reasons for saying the pause started in early 2001 to late 2003 according to analysis of RSS v.3.4 and UAH v.6.

  15. Larry, is it really about climate or control in the end?
    Does anyone remember the POTUS sponsoring a climate denier March madness contest last year? The president of the USA denigrating his own citizens? Why?

  16. Sorry, but the debate is over and we lost.
    Despite the crushing blows to the alarmist science that we are all familiar with, the world stumbles forward signing treaties and investing in green projects. Most of the countries in the world have signed onto Paris, there’s already deals in place between the US and China, EPA is going to put coal mining out of business barring a miracle ruling from the US courts, the science journals are against us, the science societies are against us. Public opinion may be tepid, but Obama and his allies march forward as if they were winning the debate. Since nobody is stopping them, one can only conclude that they have indeed one.
    What will turn the tables is time, and the selfishness of nations. Most of the agreements don’t really call for anything other than business as usual until 2030. Most countries will drag their feet, kicking the can down the road one year at a time, continually delaying serious implementation of their own mitigation schemes. In the meantime China and India and other countries will be building coal capacity as fast as they can so that they can claim it as the peak they will then decline from starting in 2030.
    But by 2030 we’ll have 15 more years of data, not to mention another 30 to 40 ppm of CO2 in the air. The logarithmic nature of CO2 will become increasingly evident, and the likes of India, China, Russia and many others will find one excuse or another to renege on their agreements.
    A lot of money will get wasted between then and now and stupidity, but the whole charade will fall apart under its own weight. We may have lost the debate for the current generation or so, but time will turn the tide. Sad that it will take so long, but it will.

    • “Sorry, but the debate is over and we lost.”
      Hmmm..maybe elsewhere but certainly not in the US as here it tends to be a political party issue. When a Republican president becomes elected, all trashed, then with a Democrat, reinstated. And since recent history has shown that presidents in office tend to oscillate every 8 years (with some exceptions) this will probably continue for some time. The problem being when they sneak payments out the door like Obama did for AGW.

    • Time, yes. Especially since the pause/cooling disconnect with models is likely to extend into the 2030s. National selfishness, yes. Already evident in COP21. But IMO there is a third major factor, abject failure of the proposed solutions. UK goes dark. Ivanpah goes bankrupt. CPP declared unconstititional. Big visible failures can (and will) provide countermomentum to massive, institutionalized CAGW funding. The ultimate counter is the growing disconnect to reality.

    • Just to add to your excellent post: Big money is not on our (skeptics) side as evidenced by the huge amounts of dollars spent on the mass media to brainwash the U.S. population and “pay off” the politicians.

    • Heh, good stuff, dgh, and I agree. But it means we’ve won the debate; all we need to do now is declare victory.
      Double heh heh, we can’t declare victory until the future.
      But rest assured, the debate is won. ‘Tis fated.

    • “Sorry, but the debate is over and we lost.”
      Well, perhaps not yet. CAGW is just a tool to help bring in Agenda 21/2030. So far, many of you guys are fighting the hammer while paying little attention to the blacksmith. Those who shy away from notions of con$-piracy have lost the battle in advance, because defeating the CAGW monster will only see the rise of another deception of even greater strength. The sheeple must be kept in a state of alarm until such time as:
      “…that, if it were possible, they should deceive the very elect.” Matt 24:24.

      • Slacko commented : “….Those who shy away from notions of con$-piracy have lost the battle in advance, because defeating the CAGW monster will only see the rise of another deception of even greater strength….”
        +1 The perpetrators of the scam know well that hiding behind claims of conspiracy theory is a tried and true method of quieting the dissenters. Just one of their many propaganda ruses.

        • Does the (sometimes unfairly) ridiculed left hesitate to talk about the big bucks made by Big Pharma esp. the vaccine scam?
          No they don’t.
          Does the mainstream left hesitate to talk about the big bucks made by Big Oil?
          No they don’t.
          So it’s definitely OK to talk about money and corruption money!

  17. I wonder how much these graphs of US opinion on climate change correlate with recent US weather.

    • Do you also wonder how graphs of every other country’s opinion on climate change correlates with recent weather in those countries?

  18. A slow, but progressive drip erodes each generation, in each civilization, until a de facto outcome is reached. Only an organized conspiracy funded through redistributive change and debt, and spread through indoctrination, is capable of sustaining this plodding effort. And so a new orthodoxy evolves from conception to birth to maturity, and becomes progressive with suppressed and reduced competing interests.

  19. Part of the problem is the tendency for some American skeptics to indulge in “left bashing”.
    I sometimes wonder if that is their main reason to post on skeptic sites.
    This of course plays right into the warmist agenda.
    So a left winger after reading some comments might think that he or she cannot be a climate skeptic
    The climate issue is a question of science fact and not a right versus left bun fight.
    From a European perspective both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing parties.
    If we highlight the loss of industrial jobs and the poorest being the main victims of rising fuel prices then a left- right alliance to force a reexamination of the scientific evidence behind climate alarm should be possible.

    • Bryan said:”Part of the problem is the tendency for some American skeptics to indulge in “left bashing”.
      I sometimes wonder if that is their main reason to post on skeptic sites.
      This of course plays right into the warmist agenda.
      So a left winger after reading some comments might think that he or she cannot be a climate skeptic”
      ANYTHING can play into an agenda if the agenda is warped enough. Letting the expectations or agendas of others control or modify what you think or say is just as stupid, bad, dangerous as letting them silence you altogether! If a “left winger”, or a “right winger” or a “centrist” is too stupid to know the difference between someone’s personal opinion, which they are entitled to have and speak whenever they want to, and scientific facts and data, then they aren’t going to be a very good climate skeptic anyway!
      Those on the pro AGW side of the debate tend to be “left wingers”. Here’s an article discussing an article in which a “left wing alarmist” even admits that “during the recent two decades, the climate worries have become increasingly confined to an intellectually sterile environment of brainwashed and stubborn people whose ideology strongly influences their very perception, something that Dembicki calls the “left-wing ghetto”. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/07/salon-agw-cause-confined-to-left-wing.html
      Most people are happy to bash “stupid” no matter what it’s political ideology might just happen to be.
      Brian:”If we highlight the loss of industrial jobs and the poorest being the main victims of rising fuel prices then a left- right alliance to force a reexamination of the scientific evidence behind climate alarm should be possible.”
      That’s a nice opinion, but everything you just said is nothing more than your opinion. It’s not scientific evidence we can examine. People’s reasons for posting anywhere online, including skeptic sites, is not scientific evidence that we can examine or come to an agreement on. And you’ve provided no evidence to back up your altruistic view that a “left-right alliance” of any kind is possible.

      • Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever and Dr Judith Curry should just back the alarmist viewpoint because they are too left wing for you!
        You want to continue to post anti-left wing rants on a climate science blog.
        Explain how this helps the point of the present post.

      • Bryan,
        Do not attempt to speak for me. Ever.
        I want people to be able to speak their minds freely, even if I don’t agree with everything…or anything they say. I’m an adult capable of thinking and reasoning for myself and I expect others to have the same abilities.
        YOU, however seem to imply that “a left winger” might think they cannot be a climate skeptic because they read someone’s opinion on a blog! A left winger could read that as saying that left wingers are so fragile and naive that we must monitor our words so we don’t scare them off! I find that idea far more offensive than almost any “left wing bashing” I’ve seen.
        As far as helping the point of the present post…with FM, I’m never quite sure what his point actually is! And even if I do, no one here is obligated to agree with, support, or “help” that point. We discuss things here by presenting our own opinions and views as they relate to the topic. This is not an echo chamber. We are not clones.

  20. No doubt that the recent warming spike has put the wind in the AGW sails for the moment. But the trouble with spikes is they don’t tend to last. Because the recent warmth in the US maybe about to come to a end. ln the NE Pacific low pressure has been the common weather pattern during the winter. But over the next week that’s about to change as high pressure begins to build there instead. Now if this pressure pattern set up lasts into the spring/summer then the recent warming in North America will be coming to a rapid end. Also its looking less rosy for the AGW crowd in europe as well. There are signs that high pressure may well form over Greenland/northern europe during the spring. With it comes the risk of late frosts plus cool wet cloudy weather in southern europe.
    So if this spike in temps ends as quickly as it started then we need to ask the AGW movement “does this now mean there is a risk of runaway climate cooling” ?. lf they say no! then ask “why then should it have been seen as a sign of runaway warming”. Also am not sure that Arctic warming should be taken as been “good for the cause” by the AGW crowd . Because one of the best ways of removing heat from the climate system is sending it into the Arctic.

      • seaice1
        l have noticed that the Hudson Bay has not been joining in with this record warming.
        So lets just wait and see if the pause in rising temps is well and truly over.

      • I can’t speak for others. The statistical fact that you could extrapolate backwards from a particular date in certain data sets and get a zero trend was, I believe, acknowledged by everyone. I did not think it had much significance, and I did not believe it represented a stopping of global warming. It was a relatively short term phenomenon, and I expected the temperatures to return to the long term trend, as they appear to have done. Whether or not it did exist, it does not exist now.

      • Anthony for one, has always been clear to point out that the debate has never been about whether or not the earth has been recently warming but whether human influence is a significant contributor to a pretty clear warming trend that has been going on since the early 1700s. In the initial discussions we were led to believe that human influence became apparent sometime around the 1950s with a dramatic increase in the warming rate for a brief period around the 1980s. As the evidence grew stronger that there is a clear warming trend starting well before the 50s, the AGW side, whether it was supported by science or not, began to and continues to routinely refer to the human influence extending back to well before the models suggest that there could have been human influence. So while the pause was a convenient rhetorical tool for the skeptical side allowing them to point out that current warming was clearly not greater than background because there was no warming at all, the fact remains that for human influence to be measurable, it has to be discernible above other factors which are causing warming. With or without a pause, the warming rate in the last 20 years is completely unremarkable in terms of natural warming trends and completely unconcerning if it is the worst that AGW has to offer.. But the way you once again poked a stick in the eye of the skeptics and got them off-topic was nicely done.

      • “I can’t speak for others. The statistical fact that you could extrapolate backwards from a particular date in certain data sets and get a zero trend was, I believe, acknowledged by everyone. I did not think it had much significance, and I did not believe it represented a stopping of global warming.”
        I don’t know anyone who stated a belief that it represented a stopping of global warming. Do you? Since you obviously cannot speak for others, if you do know of someone, please provide a link to their words.
        You also can’t insinuate or assume for others either, like Lord Monckton, or readers here. I assume temperatures will continue in the long term trend as well! We agree! And if they do, even with all that increased CO2 in the air, a lot of people are going to have to go back to the old science drawing board.

      • Aphan “I don’t know anyone who stated a belief that it represented a stopping of global warming. Do you?”
        Yes. dbstealey for one. He has said many times that global warming has stopped.

      • seaice,
        The IPCC and many others have posted their explanations of why global warming stopped for so many years. Even you acknowledged it above when you posted “True. Like pauses.”
        Currently there are about sixty explanations of why global warming stopped. Go argue with them, or argue with yourself.
        The only thing that’s changed is the new talking point: “Global warming never stopped.”
        If it weren’t for prevarication, the alarmist crowd would be silent.

      • Seaice1,
        Are you really so bored or small minded that you’ll argue illogical semantics? dbstealey may say that global warming has “stopped”, because it’s a synonym for the word “paused”! So are the words ceased, halted, discontinued etc. Does that mean he can never use words like start, resumed, continues etc again?
        If I told you that I was driving and I stopped at a red light, would you seriously attempt to argue that by using the word “stopped” I implied that my car would never “start” to move again after that? No. Because that would be idiotic. Right?

    • It’s already ended on the other side of the Atlantic. So far March has been colder than January or February.

  21. Well, if my provincial government doesn’t want me to warm my home with fossil fuel during the cold months, I have 150 trees surrounding my home that I can cut down and burn in my fireplace, at least for a few years.
    Honestly though, were will the energy to replace fossil fuels in B.C. come from? Heating homes in winter is mostly via Natural Gas, transportation with gasoline and diesel. Solar won’t work in winter and the many, many cloudy days throughout the year. Hydro-electric power? That isn’t considered renewable in most greeny circles for some reason, though site-c damn is now being constructed that will supply electricity (but not heating and transportation) for an additional 400,000 soles, 9 years from now.
    Wind turbines? In tourism dependent B.C. ? Several million hectares of trees burn on average every fire season in Canada, I guess we could burn those trees in our factories instead of having them burn naturally.

    • “I have 150 trees surrounding my home that I can cut down and burn in my fireplace, at least for a few years.”
      My parents are in their 80s and live in Ontario. They have no company pension, some savings, and live off government pensions.
      As the Auditor General has pointed out, people in Ontario have paid $37 BILLION more on energy in the last 6 years than we should have.
      The government announced that Ontarians could apply to get a rebate for what they pay for energy. Despite their tight income (see above) my parents were DENIED. They apparently make too much money.
      The !@$@$ hilarious thing is that the government is also trying to bring in a provincial pension. Why? Because there are apparently people LIKE MY PARENTS who have a tight income.
      In other words, they would be used a poster children for the pension, but are denied a rebate for their energy costs. Too rich for one government hand, too poor for the other.
      Oh, but they have 97 acres of trees. So there goes the carbon budget. They are simply burning more wood.

  22. Maybe I am too trusting but I was always amazed why pro-AGW persons got all giddy when there is a major weather event. It’s not that they are sadistic but it is their hope this could be the next policy tipping point.

  23. I think the Ancient Greeks were familiar with the concept of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They called it Hubris with Nemesis following on its heels. often at the nadir of opposing side.

  24. Yes, too often I have heard things like:
    “this is the last nail in the AGW coffin”
    ” AGW is collapsing”
    “We have them on the run NOW”
    “just wait until the next election”
    “No one except fanatics believe AGW”
    “Science has proven AGW false”
    This obviously ignores the enormity of the powers (and treasure) which is determined to remake the planet into a brave new world. The power of propaganda does not rely on the accuracy of facts! Nor does world governance depend on the participation of the governed masses.
    We (skeptics) ARE fighting a losing battle, but it is a battle that must be fought. People should speak out – before no one can speak freely again. There isn’t much time left for dissent and the world is blissfully asleep, while their closed eyes, crust and scale over. Weep for humanity. GK

    • To most people here, AGW is a theory/hypothesis that is dying, collapsing because the planet is not cooperating with it. The powers that be probably hoped that their tactics would work faster and further than they have, and figured they’d have everything in place before the cooling starts so they could claim to have saved us all (and the planet) making their next moves more appealing. “Since we were right about THAT….you should trust us on….”
      It’s an age old cycle that we can’t seem to shake, no matter how enlightened or advanced we become.
      “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
      There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
      That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
      And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
      And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
      When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
      As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
      The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! ”

    • Pretty well spot on! The fact that Global Warming cannot be plausibly separated into its natural and anthropogenic components is lost in what passes for debate. For this reason, if the planet can be shown to be warming, the impetus will return to the warmist campaign. All that is needed is a couple of unusually hot summers and a couple of not-very-cold winters. The public has an attention span comparable to that of a goldfish, so if people believe that they can feel the trend then it will seem real.
      The only thing likely to save the sceptic case is a demonstrable cooling trend. The science is largely irrelevant and is used mainly to bolster opinions already held.
      I’m still amazed at the traction obtained by “carbon pollution”, the lack of understanding of underlying phenomena and the cavalier dismissal of solar influences.

  25. We may win the scientific debate hands down but we are always at risk of losing the political war even if 99% of the population do not believe in AGW.
    We only need to look at the Wall Street and Big Bank bailouts that occurred during the Mortgage Meltdown. Letters from Main Street to Congress were running over 95% against the bailout. The politicians overruled their constituents and went ahead against their wishes.

    • The problem being, that it’s a long, hard, vicious slog back from the failure of all things to a place where logic rules. Every time.

      • yes and yes.
        morality is the science of choice based on a standard of values and it requires reason and understanding.
        ignorant and immoral men act for their survival only when they have no choice.
        when men rediscover the nature of values = renaissance.

    • So that apply in a world where billions of people base their lives on beliefs that must be wrong, i.e., conflicting religious beliefs? The capacity of people to believe in nonsense is almost limitless. The ability to discern the truth is not an important survival trait compared to the advantages of belonging to an identifiable group. The power of the group far outweighs the power of logic in terms of its immediate effect on survival and well being. While the skeptics limp along on donations, the AGW believers continue to live off the fat of the land. I guess the operative word is “fails”. When AGW fails to achieve anything of use on a scale that becomes embarrassingly stupid (like Y2K), then logic will prevail. Cold comfort.

  26. Given the state of our bureaucracies and those who hold elected offices, we lost a few decades ago, probably with the “temporary” personal income tax.
    CAGW/CC are just extensions of the Big Lie that a well established government of thieves by thieves (Kleptocracy) must sell.
    No sale means no easy living at other peoples expense.
    The creation,promotion and continued protection of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Meme, has been a work of our kleptocracy.
    The Guild Of Parasites are now so well established they consider their theft to be normal, business as usual and the right of all those born to the elite.
    Freeloaders heaven that is the vision of the UN control of CO2.
    Taxing air.
    Being so gullible or mendacious enough to promote such a scheme, is a sign.
    One every tax payer should heed, the mark of one too stupid to hold any office.

  27. Figueres already admitted openly that she wants to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist bureaucracy.
    Because socialist economics are great right? ROFL
    These nuts essentially want to micromanage humanity because they “know best”

  28. Certainly, one method toward “victory” is to keep safe havens pure. Definitely cannot have informed alternate views undermining the collective will. Appears that St0kes is the latest to be silently 86ed … I suspect M0sher may be next. Hausfather better watch his step.
    … on to the justification.

  29. The goal in politics is to make your opponents look silly. To overerextend the term, “politics” covers all human interactions. Science is a human interaction. Consider how Freudians are now regarded in psychology–vaguely silly when not ignored.
    CAGW is a mass movement, like fascism. The trolls on this site should try to read up on the politics of the early 1900’s on eugenics and the intersection with politics. The green movement has a similar political force associated with it, and has been used a a talking point by most Western political parties (Damn you, Nixon and Thatcher).
    The problem is how to do a good propaganda/sales job to counter this mass movement before the inevitable collapse it’s policies will cause take effect.

    • this is so wrong on so many levels…
      the goal of politics is to take your stuff by force or fraud.
      cagw is just another boojum to hold your attention while the hand you don’t see is picking your pocket.
      the problem is not to convince anybody of anything.
      you just have to keep your stuff.
      if you lose the plot, you will lose your stuff until you no longer own anything- not your body, not your mind, not that which you produce – nothing.
      if you believe anything else matters, you will simply submit, by degrees, as you relinquish all claim to your own humanity – until you, yourself, know that you are not worthy of the life you have affronted by the utter abdication of everything you were born with and endowed by nature.
      The failure does not entitle you to any honor by virtue of your victimhood.
      Instead, it damns you for the monstrosity of allowing yourself to twist and deform your own mind.
      Persuading others is really a desperate evasion of responsibility by blaming others and a psychopathological method of persuading the remnants of your self.

      • Gnomish, I am a small “l” libertarian, not an anarchist. Government is a necessary evil, and politics is how people relate in anything past small groups. Sure, there are some times when violence, indeed organized violence is required as an ultimate response to some behavior to others, but I was trying to describe what happens before it becomes a resonable option.
        This is still political season, and the green blob has not won yet.

      • Gnomish, “Persuading others is really a desperate evasion of responsibility by blaming others and a psychopathological method of persuading the remnants of your self.”
        Don’t be silly. It’s laudable when one displays enough patience to persuade others. If YOU’re not sure, don’t project your uncertainty on the rest of us, please.

      • I can see both sides of the persuasion argument. The problem is pretending to know the motivation of the persuaded. There is a big difference between being able to teach/inform others, and trying to manipulate people as a means to an end not revealed to them.
        The word persuade is not defined as something evil in and of itself, and people can be persuaded to do both good and evil, or even benign things.
        I think Finnish objected to the same sentence I did…using a “good propaganda/sales job to counter this movement …”. Both terms repulse me and make me want another shower today.

        • What I meant by “good propaganda/sales job” is trying to keep a very serious issue politics, not civil war. Equally silly propositions like eugenics have led to tyranny.

  30. The illusion of winning keeps skeptics disorganized and ineffective.
    Lack of any explanation for the state of the climate will necessarily lead to disorganization. Skeptics think ABC – – anything but co2 – – – is an organizing principal.
    [Mosher, please stop your broad brush generalizing, not all skeptics think like that. I sure as hell don’t, and your drive by potshots like this belie your own lack of understanding – Anthony]

    • Ready, willing, and able to take on CO2 as an effective GHG based in its quantum properties. Basically it is too good. It’s fundamental bending mode extinguishes earthlight within a kilometer of the surface in a range of transitions encompassing 90% of its potential radiative energy.
      Modtran would have these bands magically reappearing at about 5km by spontaneous regeneration. In the words of the HEDGE: dogshoot wrapped in cowshoot (loosely rendered).
      Both of these graphics, the first based on a 1995 LBLRTM and the second based on measurements by nasa on a Learjet mounted spectrophotometer, clearly show a radiation gap in the fundamental bending mode region of the CO2 spectrum. If you zoom in you can see his region at the bottom demonstrated by Hitran interpretation of the 667.4 fundament and the weaker constructive and destructive rotational harmonics to the right and left, respectively.
      This region DEFINES zero transmission to the tropopause.
      Not just naysaying. Naysaying with reason.

  31. The war is lost, and public education is one big reason. Consider the “young adults”, if you can call them that, coming out of the public school system. They are scientifically illiterate, and believe CAGW theory as given fact. WHY? Simple, they have been taught CAGW as given truth since their earliest days. They know nothing else. Worse, they are the enlightened ones, and so think of unbelievers as knuckledraggers and uneducated rubes. Therefor, they cannot be reached. They occupy a position of moral superiority and do not have the scientific ability to evaluate even the simplest facts. Now going on two generations, people in this group constitute a sizable, and growing fraction of the adult population. And They Vote.
    In response to all this, we have a call to “Test the Models”. Again. As a strategic move to win the war. Given the situation on the ground, I can not think of a more useless proposal. Testing the models is not even useless, it is irrelevant. People don’t know and don’t care about “models”. The models have been tested and failed. It did not make any difference then, it wont make any difference now.

    • And just see how fast those Millennial sheltered ones crank up the thermostat in their “safe spaces” next winter when La Nina gangs up with the solar minimum. One thing universal about “elites,” they don’t do discomfort I assure you!

  32. You cannot win a religious or politically motivated movement by arguing complex facts. The majority of people do not have the time, will, interest and in some cases capacity to come to their own fact based conclusions – so they rely on their feelings about a subject. Their feelings are easily manipulated by people possessing charisma – like actors, politicians, and in the last 50 years activist leaders.
    What is so depressing about this is that many people who claim to be scientists – and who are competent in their own fields – allow themselves to be sweep forward based on how they feel about climate change instead of investing time and energy to actually understand the facts. Those that eventually take the time generally become skeptics, which is to say they don’t agree that global warming is Cataclysmic.
    Meanwhile, I find it repugnant to even suggest that skeptics employ the same tactics. Winning people to a cause through manipulating their feelings just isn’t being truthful.
    Skeptics would have to start by changing an education system that doesn’t teach many (maybe most) graduates how to think for themselves – and the really sad part is they don’t even know the difference. Having an opinion is not the same as being informed. Agreeing with a charismatic person is not the same as thinking for oneself. Group-think is much easier than thinking.

    • I like to think my politics are middle-of-the-road, and in my book “activist” has lately become synonymous with “arsehole.” I doubt I’m alone . . .

    • Not only are they not taught to think for themselves, they are taught that by adhering to the party line they ARE thinking for themselves, and that those who haven’t been similarly indoctrinated are stupid or ignorant fools who aren’t capable of thought.
      And they won’t listen to any argument to the contrary.

  33. News flash we have lost. The horse is so far out of the barn right and wrong dont matter to people in control.
    You have to fight simply for finding the truth as far as the answer at hand. If you think you are going to turn around a train that is not even being driven on what the actual answer is, the IMO you are focused on the wrong thing. I have long abandoned the idea that if I am right about the global temperature, it would make a difference in something that none of created ( the mentality that is the AGW movement, intersecting with so many different motivations but ending with one, an elitist attempt at control) nor we can control. The sad fact is the question we should be concerned about, how much does man contribute and is it a detriment to his progress( my answer, immeasurably small, and no its not harmful to the advance of mankind) has very little to do with what our opponents consider when pushing this
    That does not mean you quit though. It means you are realistic about your motivation to fight

    • I look at these words all the time when considering this matter:
      “I do the very best I can, I mean to keep going. If the end brings me out all right, then what is said against me won’t matter. If I’m wrong, ten angels swearing I was right won’t make a difference.”
      ― Abraham Lincoln

      • That’s depressing, but Lincoln’s quote is inspiring, all the same. Thanks.
        As someone pointed out above, two generations of school indoctrination are going to be hard to overcome. The obvious place to start is in the schools. Any teachers here?
        /Mr Lynn

    • Joe,
      “News flash we have lost. ”
      What is your basis for saying that? The US has taken almost no large-scale public policy measures to fight climate change.
      The only measure of any size is Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which was justified largely on traditional air quality grounds (correctly imo, given how much dirtier coal is than alternatives such as nat gas). And that might not survive court challenge — and estimates are that it would have a trivial effect.

  34. CAGW alarmists are currently basking in a number of recent lucky breaks: 1) KARL(2015)’s erroneous “pause bustier” “adjustments” were immediately added to raw temp datasets to make the lines go up, 2) a strong El Niño cycle caused a spike in global temps, 3) The 2015 “The Blob” kept Northern Pacific ocean temps, and contributed to a spike in global temps in 2015, 4) the California drought got a lot of MSM coverage, 5) the Paris Climate Leftfest was perceived as a major victory for CAGW 6) the Northern Hemisphere enjoyed a mild winter from the El Niño/”The Blob” temp spike.
    With the exception of KARL(2015), all these lucky breaks have already ended and will be replaced by: 1) a 2017/18 La Niña event, 2) the PDO 30-yr cool cycle, 3) the AMO will start its 30-yr cool cycle from around 2020, 4) The Arctic Ice extent has been recovering since 2007 and will continue to do so as the AMO 30-yr cool cycle approaches, 4) NASA formally announced in October 2015 that Antarctic land ice is growing at 100 billion tons per year since 1992, 5) the sun is in its weakest solar cycle since 1906, 6) the next solar cycle starting around 2022 will be the weakest since 1790, 7) there is growing evidence a Grand Solar Minimum event will start from 2035.
    All these cooling events are converging together, so it’s only a matter of time before “The Pause” returns and there will soon be 25 years without a significant global warming trend, leading to a growing disparity between CAGW projections vs. reality that will soon exceed 3 standard deviations.
    As the disparity between satellite/radiosonde temp data and land-base data widens, eventually the Karl(2015) “adjustments”‘ will have to be discarded. I also think the Congressional FOIA request on NOAA’s KARL(2015) internal e-mails is going to discredit the paper, but there is a chance all damaging e-mails have already been purged..
    Anyway, courage, boys….
    “Truth is the daughter of time”.

  35. To paraphrase one of the biggest offenders of all – our ‘humble’ president and the very definition of hypocrisy: ‘The other side doesn’t play quite fair.’

  36. How many times do we have to say that this has nothing at ALL to do with the science? It is all about POLITICS, which means it is ALL about power, specifically the power of one group to impose its will on other groups.

    • WWS,
      Great point! I’ve been writing about the public policy debate about climate change for years — and a majority of the comments are usually “I know the science and it says XX”. As if that makes a difference.
      The “science” (broadly defined) is just one input into the public policy machine.

  37. An emphasis should be put on forth generation nuclear. The lackluster performance of wind and solar also needs to be spotlighted. Don’t let them get away with larding their figures with hydro and biomass. Whenever you hear the phrase “renewables like wind and solar”, about 30% is going to be dams and burning stuff, which is nothing like wind or solar.
    Of course maybe Lockheed Martin’s fusion will pan out and make the whole thing moot.

  38. Also, keep in mind that in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.
    It would be an interesting discussion to see – if only hypothetically – if one could accept that AGW needs to be dealt with (just in case there isn’t a MASSIVE conspiracy involving almost everyone in the world, and AGW is actually a real thing), but that the current UN-treaty/government based approach should be replaced with something the average right wing American would be more comfortable with.
    What would that be?

    • What needs to be dealt with ben? The lack of tornadoes? the lack of hurricanes? The trees being able to withstand drought better due to CO2? Rising crop production? What?

      • hypotheticals! Come on, it’s the bedrock of science. What if you’re wrong? It’s an interesting thought experiment. Wrong crowd I guess 😉

      • I’d say we have a good volume of work on the very pages of this blog discussing that event, right?

    • benben, a good question.
      One way to avoid this sort of “tragedy of the commons” is through ownership of the resource. The common only gets over-grazed because nobody owns it. If a farmer owned it he would charge for its use, and ensure that there was not over-grazing to maintain his property.
      So, I suggest an auction for ownership of the atmosphere. The winner must pay everyone on Earth a sum for the rights, and then can charge for the use of the atmosphere. The owner will be liable for preventable damage caused by the atmosphere. I think a prudent owner would charge a fee for dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a hedge against future claims of damage caused by global warming. This would effectively be a carbon tax.
      This is of course totally impractical, but illustrates what I think a market solution acceptable to American citizens would be to the problem.

    • benben,
      I’ll play.
      Let’s say AGW is a real thing. How much of the warming since 1950 can be scientifically and measurably be attributed to human CO2?
      (Even in a hypothetical discussion, there have to be established parameters upon which to base the discussion, or you might as well invite us all to smoke weed and then discuss Dogs playing Poker as if that scenario was actually a real thing.)
      We have estimates for approximately how much CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since then. And we have measurements for approximately how much global temperatures have increased since then. But I don’t know of any official decree for how much the world would have warmed without any influence from “A”, so we’ll need that information for our discussion.
      You see, in order for logical, rational beings to have a hypothetical discussion, you must first hypothesize a scenario that does not currently exist, in as much depth as you want the discussion to be, so that all may formulate their responses based on your “what if” scenario. So you’re going to have to do some work before such a discussion can take place.
      You seem to think that the “average right wing American” is responsible for the hold up (as opposed to no actual, feasible solutions existing at this point) so let’s talk about how most right wing Americans think and live. This will help you formulate your “what if” hypothetical situation for us.
      1. doesn’t like to create frivolous laws/treaties/regulations or act upon “what it’s” unless they are given facts and data that prove that a “what if” is actually more of a certainty.
      2. Problem must not only be pretty much certain to occur, but it must also be mighty darn scarey too, because simply risky hasn’t stopped humans from bungee jumping, skydiving, flying in airplanes, riding motorcycles, driving, climbing ladders, using power tools-explosives-guns-poisons, having babies, having sex, doing drugs etc…all things that involve life altering or life ending risks that can actually be quantified statistically and affect “their children and future generations” too.
      3. Upon irrefutable proof that Houston does indeed have a problem, any proposed solutions must be evidence based, make perfect sense, cause no counter situation-problem to arise, and be affordable and easy to implement and ENFORCE (upon everyone equally) without causing undo hardship on the general population.
      Oh…oops….I think #3 might just be the actual answer to the question “What would right wing Americans be more comfortable with.” But feel free to design something along those lines, hypothetically, and post it here for discussion. I suspect if you do it well, there just might be a Nobel Prize in it for you!

  39. The article brings up several points. Climate skepticism and temperature are closely linked. When temperature rises skepticism falls and vice versa. That the warmists still have influence after an 18 year pause shows how difficult it is for poorly funded skeptics to win . Another point is how complete has been the infiltration of important global institutions by warmists one can only assume that this has not been by accident and that powers that want to control our lives have set out to control the institutions that control our lives. Just look at how extensive the network is? The president of the US. Academic institutions, media, European leaders, global leaders, government institutions, the judiciary, regulatory authorities,the pope and other religious leaders, schools,scientific organisations, scientific journals, big business, The list goes on. The odds are firmly stacked and it will be interesting to see how the crucial US politics plays out over the next year or two. I don’t see any real game changer in favour of the skeptics unless there is a republican in the White House.

    • David,
      All important points! It’s not just the potential strength of the alarmists, however (potential because they’ve exploited their advantages incompetently — which could change).
      Skeptics have amassed a strong position, in part due to favorable weather (e.g., the pause, few bouts of extreme weather). But imo they have got the “victory disease”, creating complacency and premature certainty of victory.

      • FM-
        I’m always amused by the vast number of assumptions that you must make in order for you to make such declarative statements. For example, what exactly IS the “potential strength of the alarmists” and what evidence do you have to support the claim that “they’ve exploited their advantages incompetently…which could change”? Do you attend alarmist meetings in which they discuss these things? Do they have flow charts and diagrams in which it is demonstrated where they have “exploited” “advantages” “incompetently” in the past and discussed ways in which they can optimize their strength in the future? Or are you just in possession of secret information which you are confident makes your statements true?
        Such as your position that “skeptics have amassed a strong position, in part due to favorable weather.” Really? What evidence do you have of this “strong position”? How big is that “part”? 10%? 50%? How much of it is constantly speaking the truth? How much is teaching people real, actual science? How much of it is because the alarmists “exploited their advantages incompetently?” How much of it is because alarmism is just repulsive and idiotic to people with common sense? What methodologies did you use to formulate your hypothesis, eliminate all other possibilities and arrive at such firm conclusions?
        You referenced a very specific (former military) term-“victory disease”, that relies on a very different construct than the one that exists in reality as far as “skeptics” and “alarmists” goes. We are not armies, or organized troops, or even members of an after-school club. We don’t have “leaders” or “commanders”. We don’t strategize. We don’t have a play book. We don’t have secret handshakes, uniforms, or even a motto! There is no “authorized” or “approved” definition of engagements or tactics or rules. There’s no battle schedule or plan. How on earth does one suffer from a “victory disease” when the only “enemy” to fight is an idea? A hypothesis? A theory? And when there’s no clear idea about what a “victory” or a “defeat” even IS?
        It’s clear from your articles that you’ve studied many things-ideas, movements, military stuff, sales and marketing, etc. You’re the man with his fingers on the “pulse” of what you think is happening. But it’s obvious that you don’t understand people….human beings. It’s like you don’t understand that there is a difference between studying psychology….and studying people. Of having general knowledge about engines, but no specific knowledge about every single part of one. You think you know what to “say”, but in reality you do not really understand the depth, breadth and diversity of your audience.

      • Aphan,
        All of these things are explained in the post. I could do a line-by-line to your comment, but will give two examples.
        “they’ve exploited their advantages incompetently”
        In the post this is stated with a link to How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
        “What evidence do you have of this “strong position”? ”
        For the reason I stated: because despite the immense strength of the opposition, the skeptics have prevailed in the US public policy debate. After 28 years of pressure there has been no substantial public US policy action to prevent or mitigate climate change.
        The largest take is Obama’s Clean Power Plan — which would have small effects on CO2 emissions, faces an uncertain fate in the courts, and was largely justified on traditional air quality grounds (imo correctly, given that coal is so much dirtier than alternatives such as natural gas).

      • “What evidence do you have of this “strong position”? ”
        FM:”For the reason I stated: because despite the immense strength of the opposition, the skeptics have prevailed in the US public policy debate. After 28 years of pressure there has been no substantial public US policy action to prevent or mitigate climate change.”
        That is not EVIDENCE! That is your assumption! You are saying “There has been no substantial public US policy action to prevent or mitigate climate change”…..so it must be because skeptics have a strong position. Maybe it’s because all policies so far, suck. Maybe it’s because they are not feasible. Maybe it’s because people are getting paid under the table. Maybe it’s because of checks and balances built into the US government. Maybe it’s because no one wants to be stuck with the tab when it all goes wrong. But no….no….according to you…it’s because skeptics have a “strong position”.
        So you keep posting “ideas” and presenting you opinions for what should be done, but you conclude your article on your website with-
        “I agree with McNutt: the public policy debate has ended. Climate science as an institution is broken, the larger science community applauds its dysfunctionality, and a critical mass of the US public has lost confidence in it. As a result, the US will take no substantial steps to prepare for possible future climate change, not even preparing for re-occurrence of past extreme weather.”
        So which is it? You can’t seem to make up your mind….

  40. When they’re done with destroying the economy over a trace gas maybe they could move those damn deer signs.

    • Resource Guy,
      After 2 years of publicity about the super monster Godzilla El Nino, it’s heresy to point out that it’s not the only weather cycle — or the master controller of all weather.
      Random chance could bring one or two large hurricanes onto metro areas on the East Coast and East Asia — fodder for the climate change industry to create a panic sufficient to push thru laws and regulations.
      They need win only once.

  41. Also, keep in mind that in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.
    It would be an interesting discussion to see – if only hypothetically – if one could accept that AGW needs to be dealt with, but that the current UN-treaty/government based approach should be replaced with something the average right wing American would be more comfortable with.
    What would that be?

    • Benben,
      That’s important to keep in mind! A US political change to implement large-scale public policy measures to fight climate change would move us closer to the policies of our allies.
      I don’t understand why, but there is a tendency for political cycles in western nations to move together.

    • Not the rest of the world, the rest of the West. Most of the major non-Western countries aren’t buying into it. One leader (Putin) is even on record calling it a fraud.

    • The American public lead the world in awareness of what happened because we invented free press. We’re used to uncovering what a scam like your church’s looks like: claim of some substance like pot or plant food being the devil, assassination of industry and reputation that disagrees with the faked pseudo-science, creation of another wave of ”good” government employees, and ”bad” citizens who are to be siphoned for income – presents for the government employess’ kids, and demonization of the innocent to finance it.
      The Americans spearheaded this understanding of what official misconduct and crime look like; and it’s their scientists who invented a great deal of it. So Americans know more.
      Michael Mann the faux Nobel Prize winner – sued a man for calling him a liar and lied in the filing that he was a Nobel Laureate therefore the guy was defaming one,
      James ‘Heating Supplies are Death Trains to Auschwitz’ Hansen with his never ending bombast
      including your church’s kookiest doctrine: that there is a runaway green house gas effect on Venus. There are people on the internet showing everybody it’s simple as pie to calculate the temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars – without any Green House Gas Effect at all. Standard gas equations in atmospheric thermodynamics don’t have any ”green house gas effect” for calculating temperature of gas.
      You’re as delusional as that description of ya sounds: you think the laws of thermodynamics don’t work on Venus because a man who screamed that heating supplies were death trains, told you. Hansen is also the one who said he would retire in a rowboat because New York would be under water because the end of the world had come, and all the ice on it was going to melt and ‘destroy mankind for his sins against nature.’
      Destroy mankind.
      For using fire to make the sky hot.
      When fire can’t make the sky hot, the energy escapes rapidly. That’s why there’s no blip on any temperature records denoting WWII when the worldwide hobby became setting everything in sight on fire from one’s neighbors to very, VERY large chunks of metal.

      March 22, 2016 at 11:49 am
      Also, keep in mind that in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.
      It would be an interesting discussion to see – if only hypothetically – if one could accept that AGW needs to be dealt with, but that the current UN-treaty/government based approach should be replaced with something the average right wing American would be more comfortable with.
      What would that be?

    • … in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.
      The rest of the world is steeped in ignorance and controlled by a media that does not allow them to think otherwise.
      They’re not all ignorant. But too many are.

    • Supporting evidence for benben’s point from survey’s by Pew Research, published Nov 2015
      Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions
      What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts

      • From the Pew Research study you linked to.
        The UK, US and Australia all ranked at 8.7. Only Poland and Israel were lower. Now, Pew decided to pounce on the correlation (weak as it is) that the “countries that are the highest emitters are the least concerned”, but just a glance told me there’s another correlation I find much more interesting. The poorest countries in the world, and the ones in which the citizens have the LEAST exposure to press, media, higher education, data, facts etc-ranked the highest in their concerns. Pew can insinuate that “high emitters” just don’t care, but by the same token, I can also insinuate that the more educated and informed people are, the LESS concerned they are about it. Right?
        And when you ask people to rank their “concerns” from highest to lowest, climate change always ends up at the very bottom. I suggest to you the outrageous idea that NO ONE is going to get the whole world on board about “climate change” UNTIL they’ve solved all, or most, of the things that REALLY concern the world’s citizens, like jobs, healthcare, corruption, education, violence etc. Who has time to worry about what the future MIGHT bring climate wise when they are dealing with the day to day FACTS of things that are just far more worrisome?

      • Aphan,
        Those are all valid points. I was only showing that available data supports benben’s simple statement “that in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.”
        Also, the higher level of concern about climate change in other nations might help explain the stronger policy actions others have taken.
        Going beyond the survey data is problematic in the US, where we have deep understanding of the local culture. Doing so on a global basis is far more so, and imo we gain little from it.

        • “that in the rest of the world AGW consistently scores much higher in public concern than in the US.”
          The rest of the world doesn’t call it AGW either.
          “Also, the higher level of concern about climate change in other nations might help explain the stronger policy actions others have taken.”
          Name the ones they have taken and not dropped over time. Or that other nations LOVE that their governments have enacted.
          “Going beyond the survey data is problematic in the US, where we have deep understanding of the local culture. Doing so on a global basis is far more so, and imo we gain little from it.”
          SO…you introduce survey data, as support for benben’s statement, I show you survey data that contradicts his, or at least shines light on a different angle, and suddenly, discussing HOW the survey data was used or what it reveals “is problematic and we gain little from it.” Do you understand that how surveys are conducted and stacked and reported often makes them tools for propaganda and agendas? Like pretending that they support someone’s statement perhaps?

  42. It is extremely difficult to persuade that there is no problem, when all others say that it is the worst of all problems.

    • Svend, I just posted a link to a survey showing that climate change is at the BOTTOM of most people’s lists when it comes to problems.

    • Svend,
      People routinely believe there are problems, when there aren’t. Superstition is a big part of human nature. Those who believe there is a ‘big problem’ due to the rise in CO2 by one part in 10,000 — over a century — are being superstitious.
      Why? Because there is zero global damage, or harm, resulting from (harmless, beneficial) CO2. More is better.
      Try to overcome your superstition. You’ll sleep better.

  43. The climate change debate would never survive competent cross examination in a court of law because the data revisions, logical fallacies, model weaknesses, political statements, and lack of scientific credibility would crush the global warming argument. All of these distortions and outright lies have been discussed in the articles that have appeared on this site.
    But science skeptics will never win the debate because this is NOT about science; most of the people that need to be enlightened are superstitious and ignorant of even the most basic science (or even what science is supposed to be); and the objectives of the global warming advocates are centered on political control.
    Thus, if skeptics really want to win, they have to do a better job of marketing their ideas. The science discussed on this blog is only useful as a argumentative tool in the debate. If skeptics really wish to win the debate, they must unite in an appeal to the selfish best interest of the public, particularly in western Europe and the United States.

  44. The skeptic movement was over when believers labeling themselves as skeptics, invaded science and ran every single real scientifically literate personality out of the discourse.
    Non scientists who can’t read a thermometer right
    took over scientific discourse and drove it into the ground through systematic outing and ruining of the reputations of actual scientifically literate men and women who told the truth
    while putting forward the most lunatic assortment of non atmospheric chemists and radiation experts that can be imagined.
    Now they’ve dragged all the real scientists out in the street and insulted, and kicked, and sullied their reputations,
    they wonder why they don’t have friends on the scientific side,
    and don’t have many friends, on the non scientific side.
    The modern skeptical movement is nothing less or more than the Vichy regime of the WWII era: complete surrender and agreement to implement the idiocy of the invaders,
    then wondering why everyone isn’t clapping and waving flags when they go by in the same parades with the invaders of science.
    Name some prominant self labeling ”skeptics” who don’t insist ”the basic science is sound” about the debacle that led them ALL: to not even be able to analyze a thermometer. That led them all to BAN discussion of the laws of atmospheric thermodynamics.
    That’s who has a death grip around the throat of the scientific skepticism movement. Believers who willingly drove all the real scientists out, so they could have their share of the alarmism fame pie.

  45. “The advocates for a massive public policy response to climate change have overwhelming political power, far greater than that of conservatives and skeptics opposing them. Temporary factors have prevented their victory….”
    I wonder what those temporary factors might be? One that springs to mind is fear that to do so would prove massively expensive, costing thousands of jobs, pushing up the cost of energy and hence the cost of everything else. Would any democratically elected government dare to take such a risk? I think not, and that is why in the end this will be defeated. They may sign up to promises, but when delivery will result in the collapse of the economy they will draw back. Most politicians are sane. There are only a few climate change fanatics in power. The rest will pay lip service to this, as long as it keeps their jobs, but when it starts to become a disaster they will quietly drop it.

  46. I feel good about the coming take down of the green machine – reality is a great comedown, the western world is changing due to terror – mass immigration – lack of resources to fight it and a gigantic short fall of money – the world is running out of the ability to finance a luxury like CO2 tax /Global warming green fanatics. Time and public interest is already waning.

  47. Look folks LAWRENCE N. (Larry) KUMMER is a player, he’s some sort of investment consultant although he’s not currently registered with FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority see FINRA Broker Check CRD# 1752708).
    On his Linkedin page he proudly states he supports the IPCC.
    IMO his articles here, while invariably obscure and hard to pin down, are intended as a form of demoralisation as demonstrated by the original title of his piece (on his website) “Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate”, the “…will lose …” changed to “… could lose …” for WUWT consumption.
    The contents remain the same.

    • Mr Kummer’s background is interesting, but the article should be evaluated as it stands. It broadly makes sense and has certainly stimulated some interesting responses. To throw in personal stuff smacks of playing the man rather than the ball.

      • Guest contributions to WUWT are usually tailed with the writer’s qualifications and affiliations.
        The climate policy debate is all about the allocation of resources i.e. dollars, billions of them.
        IMO a contributor with skin in the game should disclose it — that’s all.

  48. Sometimes the only way to fix stupid (and I do mean genocidal-magnitude-stupid) is to just let it happen.
    Then after all the idiots are gone, those of us left will have a chance to make the world a better place.
    Admittedly, in the process it won’t be fun for those who are that stupid.

      • True, but the acumen of “scientists” being generated by our educational system probably isn’t sufficient to understand that, Aphan.

        • Which, to me, only makes it more entertaining. Bad days are coming. But with them, small moments of hilarity, for example-when the economy crashes long before Gaia could possibly “burst into flames”, and all that glorious scientific funding (and lush trips across the globe to worry together with catered fare) go bye bye. Like Mr Coyote standing in the road rubbing his hands together in evil glee while the shadow of the anvil the Roadrunner shoved off the cliff above him grows larger around his feet…completely unnoticed. Or people who lecture about only having one or two children being left alone to starve while communities with large families ban together and defend each other successfully.
          It’s the little things, ya know? 🙂

  49. Media won’t have anything to do with the skeptics’ message. My local newspaper went on record saying printing anti AGW articles was a waste of time, anti science, and anyone who did not believe in AGW was ignorant of the facts. Even the obvious AGW prediction failures aren’t touched by the MSM. People still believe polar bears are becoming extinct because of AGW and the animal is still used as the AGW mascot. Ideology controls the narrative and big money supports the ideology. It will take several degrees drop of global temperature with concurrent global problems that MSM cannot ignore before they even think of covering the possibility that AGW isn’t real. Only an administration change in the US could stop the runaway AGW train.

  50. they could advocate for a fair test of the climate models (models are the basis for the predictions of climate catastrophe). This would force their opponents to explain to the public why the models should not be tested

    Unfortunately computational models made for a single run of a unique physical entity can never be tested properly. That’s a fact. And although it is somewhat technical, it is fairly close to common sense, so even the general public should be able to comprehend it.
    Terrestrial climate is an irreproducible quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic system. A system is reproducible if for any pair of macrostates (A;B) A either always evolves to B or never. However, the climate system is chaotic, so microstates belonging to the same macrostate can evolve into different macrostates in a short time due to the butterfly effect, therefore it is irreproducible.
    This simple uncontroversial proposition has enormous consequences.
    First of all, Jaynes entropy can’t even be defined for such systems, so frankly, we do not have a clue what theoretical framework is supposed to describe their behavior. As computational climate models attempt to describe the behavior of a system, which belongs to a class lacking a physical theory, they clearly belong to pseudoscience, and that’s it. There is neither need to refute them nor devices to test them. That’s what has to be made crystal clear to the general public.
    Fortunately all is not lost for science. Although the climate system would never fit into a lab and we can’t manufacture replica earthes, other members of this particular class would fit into a lab setup happily.
    Therefore irreproducible quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems can and should be studied experimentally. As soon as a proper theoretical understanding is achieved, we can return to climate models, but not sooner.
    The irreproducibility of the system implies, that there will be statistical fluctuations among individual experimental runs, but with enough experimentation their statistical behavior can be measured. That’s something we can never attain with the terrestrial climate system, because there is only a single run called history.
    There are tantalizing clues, that there is indeed some as yet unknown underlying physics, for e.g. the annual average albedo of the two hemispheres is the same within measurement error, in spite of the fact, that their clear sky albedoes are vastly different (naked surface of the Southern hemisphere is much darker due to prevalence of oceans there). This symmetry is not replicated by current computational climate models, of course.

  51. You neglect one key factor. The US is bankrupt. Stark symptoms are starting to appear. The Social Security Disability Insurance Fund will be depleted within two years. There is very little public tolerance for any broad based tax increases like a carbon tax. Indeed Obama couldn’t push a carbon tax trough the Congress in 2009 and ’10. I doubt that Hillary will have as much leverage as Obama did, since the theme of her campaign will be Trump is a bigger crook than I am.

  52. This is an excellent advice from Larry Kummer of Fabius Maximus, The struggle between Pro and Anti CAGW philosophies is an asymmetric war like the war against Muslim Terrorism. One side may think that it is winning, but can lose the war in an instant. The upcoming US Presidential election is one such watershed. The election of Clinton or Sanders could see skeptics lose the US climate policy debate even more decisively than was risked under Obama.

  53. Sounds like political change alarmism to me. Everybody loves a scary story, that’s all the answers to those softballs show. Ask this, “Are you willing to accept a twenty-five percent or more decrease in your standard of living over the next ten years to fight climate change?” I predict that the answers will be most unsurprising.

    • Ask us in November. But remember, if the side that thinks the ends justify the means, and that lying and subverting the US Constitution are fine, then we all lose.

    • If down the road tens of millions drop into poverty as economies crash, hundreds of millions begin to die of starvation or freezing to death in winter world-wide and the Elite are still buying up coastal properties, then it would be fairly certain we lost.

  54. From the article: The histories of politics and war have many sad examples of people believing that their side had won — before a shattering defeat. In June 1863 many in the Confederacy believed they were winning the war; then came their defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg. In May 1942 the Japanese believed they were winning WWII; then came Midway. In 1952 the French believed they were winning the Vietnam War; then came Dien Bien Phu. In 1967 Americans believed they were winning; then came the Tet Offensive (a devastating 4GW attack against US morale at home). In all these cases events revealed that the “correlation of forces” was against them.”
    The one big difference between the Amerian Vietnam war and your other examples, is the Americans actually were winning the Vietnam war militarily, and eventually, after the Tet Offensive (which was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong), did win the Vietnam war militarily.
    North Vietnam’s supreme military commader, General Giap, in an interview after the war, said in response to a question, that, yes, the American military won all the battles, but it didn’t matter, because the North Vietnamese had the anti-war American Left on their side. He was exactly right.
    And that speaks to your point about the Tet Offensive harming Amercan morale. Had the truth about the 1968, Tet Offensive been told to the American people, that it was a huge military defeat for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, then morale would have been boosted, but the anti-war Left controlled ALL the national news media at the time, and they told a lie and said we were losing badly, and should just give up and get out. The mantra of the anti-war Left. Cut and run. Like Obama did in Iraq.
    So the American military won the Vietnam war, and the anti-war, American Left ran away and abandoned South Vietnam as quickly as they could, even though the U.S. had legal and moral obligations to defend South Vietnam if North Vietnam ever attacked them again.
    American military combat forces left South Vietnam in Oct. 1973. The North Vietnamese attacked South Vietnam in early 1975, and even though the U.S. was obligated to go to their aid, and had the military hardware in place to really do some serious damage to the North Vietnamese invading forces (B-52’s), the Liberal Democrats in congress refused to allow it, and threw South Vietnam to the communist wolves.
    Now, in Iraq, history repeats itself. We win the war and then Obama throws Iraq to the Islamic Nazi terrorists. The lesson? Never put Liberal Democrats in charge of defending the nation’s interests. They won’t do it. They run away as fast as they can.

  55. From the article: “Relative to this the skeptics have a trickle of funding from conservative think tanks and foundations plus corporations (who tend to financially support both sides, as they do both parties, although unequally). The skeptics’ websites look (and are) amateurish, supported by advertising and donations — unlike those of activists (glossy, well-staffed, often professionally written). They’re astonishingly effective (especially Anthony Watts’) despite the lack of funding, but they reach only the tiny sliver of the public closely following this issue.”
    Skeptics don’t need funding, all they need is a lack of facts. The proponents of human-caused global warming/climate change cannot prove their assertions. What more do you need to be a skeptic?
    Skepticism ought to be the default position someone takes. About anything.

  56. I could buy this argument if the Paris climate agreement had turned out to be binding, but since it’s strictly voluntary with no sanctions or penalties for nations that miss their targets, I can’t see how the alarmists are winning. In addition, when I hear of China, India, Japan, and S. Korea continuing to build coal plants and the International Energy Agency, which advocates action to combat climate change, predict that fossil fuels will continue to provide 75% of global energy by 2040, I’m again skeptical about who’s winning the debate. Then when you consider that consumer attitudes regarding making major lifestyle changes are largely negative, it’s another strike against the AGW argument. So maybe the battle is further from being over than pessimists believe.

    • Ah, yes, Paris: Where there was unanimous agreement to say anything and do nothing.
      I remember laughing about ‘The Masque of Paris Nigh’ in the weeks running up to that charade.

  57. ‘Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate’
    Everything ‘Guest Author’ says is correct, except the title should read ‘have lost’ rather than ‘could lose’.
    Many of the posts here prove it. People are attempting to argue ‘the science’ but it was NEVER about the science. It is about government grants and jobs; it is about making money from selling books and dvds; it is about naive juveniles and older greenies, who respond to simple concepts and messages and are drawn to certain causes with which they can socially advertise their virtue; it is about self-loathing leftists who simply want to destroy everything of value to mainstream society; it is about the newly wealthy who want to advertise their high opinion of themselves by allying themselves with causes that are contrary to the beliefs and interests of ‘ordinary’ people; it is about bureaucrats who want to entrench and expand their power; and it is about celebrities and others who have convinced themselves that they are eminently qualified to rule the world.
    It is not about science; it is about people. It has become a battleground between conservatives and the sometimes hateful, sometimes narcissistic, sometimes self-loathing, sometimes ignorant, sometimes greedy and unprincipled gaggle of people that we loosely refer to as the Left (liberals, if you are from the US).
    And, as in every area of politics, it is the Left who win because conservative politicians are either too scared to stare them down or are too ignorant to understand the true nature of the enemies of society.

  58. I believe we skeptics are going to lose and to science that has been (not in all cases) greatly exaggerated and fabricated.
    To make matters worse, the left-wing policy makers are targeting their message to the same people whose collective stupidity was leveraged to pass obamacare (according to the architect of obamacare, Jonathan Gruber). Their collective stupidity explains (in addition to Lenin’s useful idiots comment) why they don’t see the issues with climate science.

  59. Part of the problem is that skeptic web sites are too chicken to speak up against corruption of climate records by entrenched “climate scientists” controlling what the public should know about temperature. Here is an example. There was a hiatus in the eighties and nineties that lasted from 1979 to 1997. I showed it in my book “What Warming?” in 2010 as figure 15 and kept referring to it in subsequent comments. I was completely ignored. When last year Karl claimed that there was no hiatus at all I wrote an article pointing out that the there were actually two but that the first one was covered up by a fake “late twentieth century warming” by insiders. Anthony did publish my article but as soon as it came out that despicable warmist spy calling himself “Bob Tisdale” accused me of falsifying data. Not only that but he unearthed a graph showing warming in the eighties and nineties that does not exist and said it came from satellite sources. That was a complete lie as comparison with any recent monthly satellite graph from UAH shows. I complained but what do you think Anthony did about it? Nothing. That libel is still out there as part of the commentary to mislead climate workers about real temperature history.

  60. In my family we have people working in trucking, electric power, and oil and gas. I’ve seen enough to know that the skeptics have had virtually no impact on public policy. The regulatory empire trundles along on the alarmist track and has picking up speed. Whoever told you that climate skeptics were holding this back… well, he was mistaken.

  61. And then it got cold.
    No, I don’t care about pro vs con debate, let the data be what settles it, and no matter how long it takes, it will. Anything else is politics and propaganda.

    • A bitter irony; the only likely way to truly change hearts and minds will be through the societal privation of a cold spell.
      This is the same irony, but in reverse, suffered by the alarmists who rejoice at any warming or severe weather as validation of their fears of warming.
      Reversed, but greatly different in moral magnitude, for cooling truly is destructive, and warming truly is beneficial.

  62. I have never felt we are winning. I think we have won the science part; the models are clearly junk, warming levelled off 2 decades ago and the data has been tampered with. Teh proponents have run out of rope and this must undermine the self esteem of Mann’s allies, some are breaking away. This a victory of sorts.
    Unfortunately the media, politicians and general public get their information from a lazy scan of the headlines. The headlines scream every day that global warming is happening. Ask ten people in the street if GW is happening and 7 will tell you ‘yes it is’. There are things that can turn the debate around and help us win.
    1. A scandal can catch the attention of the media. EG The data has been tampered with the help of finance from big green business.
    2. Temperatures can drop
    The danger is that temperatures could start to rise again. This would be jumped on by the proponents and the media would lap it up, and we would be back to square one.

  63. The reality is that there is a vast amount of money stolen by corrupt politicians and their cronies when it is consolidated into government coffers. Any opportunity by these thieves to garner a cause for more government theft is promoted. This can be observed is the US continuous “wars” on drugs, poverty, terror, communism, etc. The war on CO2 provides an opportunity to consolidate more wealth in the government coffers where it can be easily “misappropriated, wasted or spent inefficiently”. When one asks questions like “whose bank account was that waste deposited”, then the reality hits that the warmist mantra has very little to do with science. Therefore the false diatribe of the CO2 will continue as the financial opportunity of the “climate war” can dwarf previous war expenditures.

  64. Larry, that was nicely done. I have been thinking the exact same thing recently and have decided to put together a simple climate change talk that I will be giving to the local community colleges in the area. It is clearly my experience that they are far less liberal and closed minded on this subject then four year College and University students are. I did need to do a song and dance with the administration to allow me to do it for all of the campuses but so be it.
    To this end, I believe that to have the right impact requires ensuring optimal emotional impact (i.e. Motivation) coupled with clear and understandable scientific information transfer comingled with just the right amount of directed social and political nudging. I know, I know, spoken like a true liberal. But, after a few small talks early this winter I discovered that It was CRITICAL to tailor each to the audience’s social, political, economic, age, educational level AND level of desire for this (or the actually correct info, however you wish to view it) information and the true need and type of change. Many people don’t even want to hear the truth. Their initial stance was never about the truth or the facts in the first place. Boy that was a surprise to me, idealogs masquerading as the righteous. I may be nuts but I really am attempting to quantify these parameters in such a way that I can use them to modify each presentation accordingly. I am getting there and anything anyone would care to share with me such as PowerPoints, graphs, data, categories of info/approaches, media etc. etc would be GREATLY appreciated. I would be, and will always be willing to share my stuff with others.
    I am convinced that with a little fore-knowledge of each specific group’s background we can tweak each talk so every attendee leaves with a sincere desire to pass along factual data that man-made CO2 induced climate change NEEDS BETER DEFINED and to act in a timely and perhaps even a coordinated manner. I am trying to build the proper presentation(s) which can be readily changed/augmented with respect to approach, tone, data (type, analysis, error reporting, covert as well as overt tricks and other relevant aspects) multi-media clarity and design, socio-political angle/input with just the right amount comedic interplay, high energy, and, just plain fun.
    A really good talk couples clear concise information, seriousness, satire and lots and lots of fun. And afterword, each attendee can’t wait to tell those around him or her the GOOD NEWS…, the sky may not be falling after all. Our message is simply that we all should keep our own money, the planet is NOT dying (well, not yet), stop telling me what to do and how to do it all the while justifying themselves using blatant lies. I see through your deception and excuse me if I take care of myself Thank You Very Much!

  65. The side that wins in the long term will be the side that speaks the truth. It will be Nature that decides the truth.

  66. President Obama has set a goal of achieving an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050. Putting a stiff price on carbon is the only practical means for achieving the emission reductions the President wants over the relatively short period of time that he wants them.
    A reduction of 80% in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 necessarily demands that an aggressive approach to enforcing energy conservation measures be adopted. Carbon pricing is the only method that has any chance of ever being successful in promoting those aggressive energy conservation measures — assuming that some legal and constitutional means can be found to impose a stiff price on carbon.
    Moreover, the transition away from fossil fuels into greater reliance on nuclear, wind, and solar cannot be accelerated without a public policy decision to make all fossil fuels economically uncompetitive with non-carbon energy resources.
    A historic opportunity is now emerging which could put the United States back on track in its efforts to greatly reduce its carbon emissions while at the same time greatly expanding its reliance on wind, solar, and nuclear energy. The Republicans are likely to nominate a xenophobic narcissist playboy, Donald Trump, as their 2016 presidential candidate. It is a choice which will guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton in November, probably in a landslide vote of epic proportions which puts the Democrats back in control of the US Congress.
    Reiterating the basic point, unless the Federal Government takes bold action to greatly increase the price of all carbon fuels and to impose direct restrictions on their supply and availability; the US will not be doing what is necessary to move decisively away from fossil fuels and towards the renewables, wind and solar, and towards increased reliance on nuclear power.
    But even a Congress controlled by Democrats will not take this kind of bold action. It’s too politically risky. However, President Obama and the EPA already have all the legal authority they need to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions, and to do so without needing another new word of legislation from the US Congress.
    They have had this authority since 2010 when the EPA’s Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon was successfully defended in the courts. That Endangerment Finding has been on the books for five years and could have been used as the starting point for developing a broadly-applied carbon reduction framework operating under Sections 108, 111, and 202 of the Clean Air Act.
    There is still time for President Obama to act before he leaves office. This is how it can be done:
    1) The President issues an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency and directing that all agencies of the Executive Branch cooperate with the EPA in developing an across-the-board carbon reduction plan.
    2) The President petitions the EPA to issue a Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon pollution, using the previously published Section 202 finding as the model.
    3) Working under Section 108 provisions, the EPA sets a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution, taking into account the fact that CO2 is a well-mixed gas on a worldwide scale.
    4) The EPA develops a broad-scope carbon pollution reduction plan operating under Sections 108, 111, and 202 of the Clean Air Act, a plan which applies to all of America’s carbon emission sources and which fairly and equitably distributes the burdens of regulatory compliance across all classes of carbon emitters.
    5) The EPA’s regulatory framework imposes direct limitations on America’s carbon emissions, and it includes a corresponding system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
    6) The EPA works with the state governments to enforce the carbon reduction plan and creates a strong incentive for gaining the cooperation of the state governments by assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
    When it comes to initiating truly serious action against America’s carbon emissions, President Obama and the EPA Administrator have been sitting on their hands for half a decade. For the last five years, they’ve had all the authority they need to enforce strict across-the-board reductions in America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants. But they haven’t used their authority.
    As soon as the election results are announced, President Obama can take direct advantage of the voter’s clear mandate for taking decisive action on climate change by declaring a carbon pollution emergency, which is the first step of the six-step strategy outlined above.
    He will thus have initiated the process of creating a truly comprehensive and effective carbon reduction plan for the United States while at the same time setting the bell-weather example for other nations to follow which climate activists believe is vitally necessary for enabling aggressive worldwide action against ever-increasing carbon emissions.
    That executive decision, if President Obama decides to make it, will start the work of building the kind of regulatory foundation that Hillary Clinton can use both to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions and also to place much greater emphasis on the production of wind, solar, and nuclear energy. If President Obama truly believes that climate change is a greater threat to America’s security than terrorism, he must walk the talk and start applying the full legal authority of his office in forcing significant reductions in America’s carbon emissions.

    • Beta Blocker wrote a book: “…A reduction of 80% in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 necessarily demands that an aggressive approach to enforcing energy conservation measures be adopted…..
      Moreover, the transition away from fossil fuels into greater reliance on nuclear…”
      No more Kool Aid for you. Even assuming CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming the proper approach is to have a working remedy in place before cutting the energy supply. Industry, prosperity, health, and social welfare all depend on energy and a forced reduction on the order proposed would be more catastrophic than a few degrees rise in temperature. But the assumption….and that all it is….is wrong.

      • Markl, the important point to be made here is that America’s climate activists already have a direct pathway available to them for achieving the highly ambitious carbon emission reductions they claim they want for the United States.
        The US Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has authority to regulate America’s carbon emissions, and the 2009 Endangerment Finding written under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act has the collateral effect of making the climate science contained in IPCC 2007 AR4 the law of the land for regulatory purposes.
        In a very real way, the climate change activists have already won the debate. The question remains, however, why is it that these climate change activists haven’t pressed their victory to its logical end conclusion?
        There is no obvious reason why a Section 108 Endangerment Finding could not be written and then successfully defended in the courts; i.e., a finding which extends the regulatory authority of the EPA to cover a larger spectrum of carbon emissions than the Section 202 finding now covers.
        Carbon emissions are ubiquitous throughout the American economy, and so if the Clean Air Act is to be successfully and legally employed for enforcing serious carbon reductions, all sources of carbon emissions must be regulated with equal focus and determination, not just those of the electric utility industry.
        A basic foundation is now in place for America’s climate activists to begin legally and constitutionally regulating all sources of America’s carbon emissions, and to do so without further approval from the US Congress.
        But America’s climate activists haven’t done that yet and show no signs they are about to start. The burning question remains, why haven’t America’s climate activists made full use of the authority they now have in their hands to begin enforcing an aggressive program of regulatory reductions in all of America’s GHG emissions, not just those of the electric utility industry?

      • Ya wanna know what I think is the answer to your heartfelt and pointed question, BB? They haven’t got the nerve, knowing they haven’t the case. Now, who is ‘they’?

      • Beta Blocker,
        Why? Because individual states and businesses filed suits against the EPA and President Obama’s environmental actions with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the EPA misinterpreted the Clean Air Act and restricted it’s current ability to impose greater regulations until it changes some things first.
        “For the last five years, they’ve had all the authority they need to enforce strict across-the-board reductions in America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants. But they haven’t used their authority.”
        Nope. Just because an act or directive is put in place does not automatically mean that act or directive can or will be allowed to stand uncontested, and they do not have the authority to do anything they wish to, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s ability to reign them in. Americans always have the right to appeal against such laws, and doing so causes implementation of them to be put on hold. There is much more to implementing passed laws than most people understand. The ability to regulate is also regulated.
        For example, the Congressional Review Act DOES allow congress to STOP rules from being implemented by the EPA as part of the checks and balances process-
        The EPA is also bound by Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.
        The EPA cannot enact rules on state owned power plants that would put undue financial burdens on those state and local governments. In such cases, the Federal Government would have to pay for those state and local plants to become compliant, and as a Federal rule, not a state rule, all fees or fines collected from non compliance would be Federal money, not state as well.
        Not only these things, but the House and Senate have repeatedly put forth bills to clarify and modify the EPA’s ability to declare endangerment issues etc. Those bills are usually very close in votes, even when they fail. This indicates there is an equally massive pushback on both sides, and that Congress DOES have the ability to control the EPA’s reach.
        The endangerment act did NOT introduce regulations or emission standards for CO2 of any kind, it merely paved the way for the EPA to draw up emission regulations for light duty vehicles.

  67. So, Republicans in the US control the House, Senate and are poised to gain the Presidency (both of the leading Republican nominees are Climate Realists).
    Note: Hillary will either be indicted for her crimes against State security (no one doubts she has seriously broken the law, there is debate only whether the current corrupt Administration will prematurely pardon her; in which case, the US Republic has passed and a junta of ‘elites’ has performed a soft coup where they are not beholden to the laws that the subjects are). While Bernie has no serious chance on a national level.
    Larry Kummer disappoints with disinformation yet again. What are you thinking Anthony ?

    • You are an optimist. I like that. Rose-colored glasses are comforting.
      The ‘soft coup’ has already occurred. It was made official when Bush signed a law while declaring he would not enforce it. Obama hasn’t changed the new reality of lawlessness; he has merely rubbed our noses in it, and the press approves. Apparently the people approve. They voted him a second term. Even the GOP congress approves. They fuss, while giving him everything he wants.

  68. I am a Skeptic of CAGW, but I do worry about climate change. Here in California we talk a lot about droughts, but we do little to do anything about it. There is evidence we’re actually in a wet period. Imagine what it would be like in the normal dry period. Instead, we pass a proposition authorizing $7 billion for dams, but $1.6 billion is earmarked for existing dam destruction, another billion for distressed communities – after all the earmarks are taken into consideration, we have about $2 billion for new dams, most of which will be eaten up in never ending environmental impact reports and defense of those reports when the inevitable suits start pouring in.
    Climate change is a threat. It has been going on for millions of years. It is more sure than taxes, only slightly less sure than death. We need to spend effort on mitigating the effects – when those effects are real. Maintaining levees, barriers, and dams is important, as New Orleans and Jersey Shore proved. On the other hand, changing CO2 usage is worse than a waste of effort – it is a waste of resources.

    • “Maintaining levees, barriers, and dams is important, as New Orleans and Jersey Shore proved. On the other hand, changing CO2 usage is worse than a waste of effort – it is a waste of resources.”
      Alternatively: In a hole? First, stop digging. By which I mean:
      (1) New Orleans is below sea level.
      (2) The US population buys sand bars on slivers of sand called barrier islands that form and disintegrate in storms and their flux, and then wonder why, what these mor@ns comically call “climate change”, predictably changed.
      (3) Jersey? The built on a sea front, so that’s perpetually going to happen to a sea front. You don’t have to be casino manager to figure out the odds were that the ocean was going to wipe them out, and certainly will once again (hopefully real soon, I notice is flooded there again recently in winter).
      Ah, but where are they re-building? well, on the same sites of (1), (2) and (3)!
      And then the whine like mor@ns then to do, about “climate change”, and “extreme weather”.
      Except there was nothing extreme about it, it was entirely predictable from known observations of prosaic natural events.
      But even if it were not, why didn’t ->they<- change locations, after their imaginative alleged climate-change … changed? hmm? If they really think it's "climate change", why are these mor@ns putting up new buildings and reconstructing and re-insuring in the exact same location once more?
      Is it because:
      (a) They are mor@ns?
      (b) Because rebuilding a building in the same location and committing to a useless lower rate of RISE in CO2 emissions directly addressed both the naturally observe historical hazard from the known statistical periodicity of even more powerful entirely natural weather events in those same locations? And thus fully resolves alleged CO2 powered "climate change"? … yeah … see (a).
      (c) They themselves don't actually believe for one second these events really are CO2 driven climate-change, but are simply too callow and foolish to admit they're fully grown mor@ns, who will never learn and who will continue to fabricate excuses to deflect from the obvious fact that they are fully grown mor@ns, and deserve to be treated as such.
      And if local state and federal governments even believed a fraction of their own "climate-change" BS and grandstanding, they would never have approved reconstruction in sites (1), (2) and (3).
      That's the real test of this "climate-change" excuse making factory of these fully-developed adult mor@ns.

  69. Mr. Kummer,
    What is this test you propose, and how you will make sure it is conducted fairly?
    I really don’t “believe” you are here doing anything more than trying to get some support for a rigged “test” that will give more credibility to the fake consensus, so, please convince me if you can that you are at least aware of the potential for any such “test” to be turned into a PR triumph for the alarmist clan, regardless of anything that happens in the real world.
    The notion that it never occurred to you that the CAGW pushers could just pick some compliant/complicit few people to “represent” the CAWG skeptics, and turn the whole thing into a big confirmation show, is hard for me to believe.

  70. The anti-climatism “right” (too often supporting hysterically pro-vaccine crackpot “science”) and anti-vaccinophilism “left” need to unite against “homogenized” “science”.
    The elements of pseudo-scientific fields are the same:
    – catastrophisme: we are all going to hide
    – threats
    – made up “data”
    – lack of replication (the US even refuses to test the flu vaccine against a placebo, citing ethical concerns)
    – focus on the irrelevant facts (climate changes, incidence of diseases change) without any attempt at proving the hypothesis (CO2 causes climate change, vaccination prevents diseases).
    Most of the Skeptics’s handbook applies to vaccines as well.
    Once you have accepted ANY pseudo science, even if “credible” a priori, not annoying (in your life) and not applicable to you, you have opened the door. You can’t complain when the pseudo-science comes and bite you.
    But a lot of the anti-climatism right cannot even begin to investigate the vaccine religion (for God’s sake, no baby need to be immunized against hep B!!!!), a leftist theme.
    The anti-CAGW crowd has low credibility when they support Big Pharma at the same time. They appear anti-regulation pro-business (and that’s probably what they are).

  71. ‘The skeptics have almost every imaginable positional weakness, yet most believe they are winning.’
    strange, and wrong, assumption.
    sceptics since 40 ys do know thei’ve lost.
    in the news:
    northafrican / middle east refugees learning german – paid from the workless securance.
    That says: nonincome german fund their cheap abroad competitors.
    So: sceptics, realists will never win against gooddoers – but will pay forever.

    • johann wundersamer,
      Since English isn’t your native language, maybe I misunderstand what you’re saying. But I don’t know that skeptics of the ‘dangerous AGW’ false alarm have lost.
      You folks don’t have a bit of credibility when it comes to verifiable, testable (falsifiable) science. EVERY alarming prediction you’ve ever made has been flat wrong. No exceptions.
      Your spokesmen/scientists are now terrified to debate skeptics, for the simple reason that they’ve lost every fair, public debate they ever engaged in. So now they hide out in their ivory towers and let scientifically ignorant eco-lemmings fight their battles for them.
      Making predictions is hard, especially about the future, as a famous baseball catcher once said. If you’re counting your chickens before they’ve hatched, you might consider the fact that the future is unknown — and that those of us who understand the issue will not just roll over and give up.
      Skeptics have the facts. Alarmists don’t. However it all turns out, based on the evidence — you’ve already lost.
      Maybe politics will pull your feet out of the fire. Lysenkoism lasted a long time. But one thing is certain: you do not have the truth on your side.

  72. “The illusion of winning keeps skeptics disorganized and ineffective.”
    I hate it when that happens.

    • I hate it when someone makes something up, particularly something that is impossible to prove empirically (like a shared illusion) and presents it as if it were a proven, obvious fact.

      • The link makes no sense? It’s a valid link and shows how dissenting comments often get snipped here. So, in what way does it make no sense? BTW, what did I write that was political? I suspect you just throw word salad up to obfuscate issues.
        The link is a valid URL.
        The link shows a comment that went into moderation here and never appeared – though it was directly addressing the OP.
        There was nothing ‘political’ in the comment.
        In other words, your comment was a complete non-sequitur.

        • The OP was about “Why skeptics could lost the US climate policy debate”. Your comment was a stump speech for James Hansen (off topic) and it also meets several other criteria for deletion listed on the Policy page here at WUWT-
          *Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.
          *Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted; also posts repeatedly linking to a particular blog, or attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted. Take that personally if you wish, but all deletions/snips are final. Grousing about it won’t help since deleted posts can’t be recovered. Rather than trying to deal with each comment, bulk moderation may be employed to save time.
          Or perhaps your email address wasn’t valid or you used a proxy server. There are a lot of reasons that comments get snipped here. A whole list of them. Personally attacking the site’s owner, the people who post here, and making all kinds of illogical assumptions (flame bait) all in one post might be a clue about why it got removed. Just a thought…

  73. “Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate”
    What debate?
    Leftists don’t debate.
    They ridicule, character attack and protest opposing opinions.
    They refuse to debate.
    That’s the only way they can “win” debates!.

Comments are closed.