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.
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.
=====================
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.
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.
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!
The side that wins in the long term will be the side that speaks the truth. It will be Nature that decides the truth.
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-
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-congressional-review-act
The EPA is also bound by Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-executive-order-13132-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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
etc.
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).
‘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.
“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.
Speaking for myself, I haven’t lost until I surrender.
And I am a long way from that…
Right there with you all the way!
Lost in translation. Comment #2713614. Inadvertent I’m sure.
That link makes no more sense than you do. Keep preaching your politics, because you lost the science debate long ago.
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…
“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!.