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.
Conclusions
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.
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- My proposal: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
- There will be little public policy action by the US to fight climate change – until the weather decides the debate.
- How climate change can help the GOP win in 2016.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
Cheers
Benben
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 😉
Benben, wrong question.
“What if they are wrong?”
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!
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_disease
PDF of an interesting War College paper: “UNDERSTANDING THE “VICTORY DISEASE,” FROM THE LITTLE BIGHORN, TO MOGADISHU, TO THE FUTURE.”
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….
I don’t think the people who opposed the European Witch Craze were that well funded …
When they’re done with destroying the economy over a trace gas maybe they could move those damn deer signs.
Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate—during El Nino years
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.
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?
Cheers
Benben
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.
Post a video on YouTube.
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.
And we all know and respect Putin’s reputation for uprightness and honesty.
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.’
Sin.
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.
… 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
http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/
What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/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?
http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/
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?
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.
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.
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.
Remind us what reality you live in?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I believe it’s called “natural selection” in the scientific community. 🙂
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? 🙂
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.
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.
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.
through not trough. Dang spellchecker.
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.
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.
Are you losing the argument?
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.
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.
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.
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.
==========
‘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.
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.
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.
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.