Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change

BillMcKibben%28photocreditSteveLiptay%29-lowres[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against Climate Change, by giving governments full wartime powers to seize private property and coerce businesses into supporting the effort, and with strict government control of the economy.

A WORLD at WAR

We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.
BY BILL MCKIBBEN
August 15, 2016

In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”

World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.

To make the Stanford plan work, you would need to build a hell of a lot of factories to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, and wind turbines the length of football fields, and millions and millions of electric cars and buses. But here again, experts have already begun to crunch the numbers. Tom Solomon, a retired engineer who oversaw the construction of one of the largest factories built in recent years—Intel’s mammoth Rio Rancho semiconductor plant in New Mexico—took Jacobson’s research and calculated how much clean energy America would need to produce by 2050 to completely replace fossil fuels. The answer: 6,448 gigawatts.

“It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,” says Wilson. “And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.” The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to “robust profit controls,” which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons. In many cases, federal authorities purposely set up competition between public operations and private factories: The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard built submarines, but so did Electric Boat of Groton, Connecticut. “They were both quite impressive and productive,” Wilson says.

“Usually, when people from different worlds are dealing with each other, they get into conflicts and then dig in their heels deeper,” Berk says. “But because the stakes are so high and it’s moving so fast, no one doubts that if you don’t get a handle on this battle in the Atlantic, then the immediate consequences will be really grave. So they’re willing to do this kind of pragmatic trial and error. They start to see that ‘I can’t dig in my heels–I need this other person to learn from.’” In the face of a common enemy, Americans worked together in a way they never had before.

Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii

The McKibben post is well worth reading in full, amongst other things it contains interesting reflections about the climate policies of current US presidential candidates.

Leaving aside the question of whether renewables can replace fossil fuels (according to top Google engineers, they can’t), think about what a grim world McKibben wants to create.

The government would have unconstrained power to seize private property, and direct business people to work for the government for whatever “profit” the government decided was fair, on pain of having their assets forcibly removed and handed to someone else.

McKibben handily skirts around how he would deal with non business people, political opponents who object to or obstruct his war on climate, but it seems pretty obvious what would happen, if wartime history is any guide. A government willing to seize property and treat productive people as slaves simply wouldn’t tolerate opposition. At the very least public opposition to government policy would lead to long term internment – incarceration without due process.

Worst of all, McKibben’s war would never end. McKibben actually laments that control of the economy was handed back to private individuals after WW2.

That attitude quickly reset after the war, of course; solidarity gave way to the biggest boom in personal consumption the world had ever seen, as car-packed suburbs sprawled from every city and women were retired to the kitchen. Business, eager to redeem its isolationist image and shake off New Deal restrictions, sold itself as the hero of the war effort, patriotic industrialists who had overcome mountains of government red tape to get the job done. And the modest “operations researchers,” who had entered and learned from the real world when they managed radar development during the war, retreated to their ivory towers and became much grander “systems analysts” once the conflict ended. Robert McNamara, a former Ford executive, brought an entire wing of the Rand Corporation to the Defense Department during the Kennedy administration, where the think-tank experts promptly privatized most of the government shipyards and plane factories, and used their out-of-touch computer models to screw up government programs like Model Cities, the ambitious attempt at urban rehabilitation during the War on Poverty. “The systems analysts completely took over,” Berk says, “and the program largely failed for that reason.”

Read more: Same link as above

If I had written a post anywhere near as outrageous as McKibben’s jingoistic demand for a war on climate, his demand for wholesale surrender of liberty and property rights to government, I would be called a fascist. But because McKibben is a green, he gets a free pass from mainstream media to demand the unthinkable.

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change

      • Bill Johnson, he sort of looks like Achmed the Dead Terrorist too…I wonder who the ventriloquist is that makes ol Kibben “talk”…

    • Now, now. He is not saying anything unlawful. In that light, he gets to say what he likes and we get to say what we want. And no one goes to jail. That’s how i like it. These things go back and forth, after all.

    • Free speech means you get to say even outrageous things.
      Anyone who wants to ban speech like McKibben’s, is as bad as McKibben.

      • It is the forum and the reach of the masses that is the point. Here, as we react to McKibben’s words we have the potential to reach those within the sphere of WUWT’s influence (though relatively large for a science website, it probably amounts to less than the press releases and re-reporting in various media of McKibben’s statements). That he espouses control of economic production and the use of energy sources, along with the venue and method of promulgation that make his statements more ‘alarming’ to those with a more Capitalistic viewpoint. McKibben is espousing Fascism, by description:

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

        Very difficult to see this otherwise; although I am open to opposing opinions…

        Regards,

        MCR

      • And again, this is the crowd that has come to prominence, forcing agenda-item after agenda-item, always riding on the protections of free speech, and now that their own doctrine has become mainstream, the first thing they want to do is criminalize dissent to their own belief system. Church Lady circa 2016.

    • This is the way the “Brown Shirts” acted in 1932 when Hitler was an “Up and Coming”Nazi,before WW2.History is repeating itself,sadly.
      The new fascism of the left is filled with violence and hate.

      • In my experience, the true nature of the left comes out whenever they get power.
        The desire to use government to silence all disagreement is part of the left wing DNA.

  1. Perhaps he is right. This is a World War and once again free people everywhere will have to rise up and unite to defeat the proposed tyranny of fascists like Bil McKibben.

    • As I often say, “When I want a top scientist “go to” person about climate my first thought is Bill McKibben an English major from Harvard.” Or I could go to another Harvard scientist, Barack Hussein Obama. Or that fabulous Harvard alchemist, Al Gore who has been able to turn CO2 into gold. A bit of an educational pattern developing in those who’ve profited from the AGW scam don’t you think?

    • OH THE IRONY-

      “To make the Stanford plan work, you would need to build a hell of a lot of factories to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, and wind turbines the length of football fields, and millions and millions of electric cars and buses.”

      Ok Bill….since we currently do NOT HAVE the kind of technology in place in which “a hell of a lot of factories” could be built that run COMPLETELY and EFFICIENTLY on renewable energy sources, what you are saying is that in order to even BUILD that “hell of a lot of factories” we would have to burn even more than a hell of a lot of FOSSIL FUELS, let alone what it would take to build all of the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars and buses that you want to have PRODUCED by that hell of a lot of factories.

      I’ve long given up any hope that these people realize how idiotic, insane, and completely hypocritical they sound to rational, logical human beings. But I will continue to point it out. For example:

      Somebody tell McFibben-from nsidc themselves-
      “As of August 14, Arctic sea ice extent was 5.61 million square kilometers (2.17 million square miles). This is the third lowest extent in the satellite record for this date and slightly below the two standard deviation range”

      In 2012, the Maximum Winter Ice Extent in May was the highest it’s been in YEARS, right up against the 1981-2010 average, and then it dropped like a lead balloon, completely out of the 2 standard deviation range by a long shot. May of 2016 shows maximum ice extent BELOW the 1981-2010 2 standard deviation range for that time of year, and yet our end of summer melt is right now just “slightly” below the two standard deviation range. 4 years ago, a hell of a lot of ice, ended the season with very little ice (if you can consider anything measured in millions of square kilometers as very little of anything). This year, not so much ice ended the season with just below average ice. Shut up Bill.

      • Aphan,
        a) Haven’t caught one of your comments in a while, you been away or have I not been paying attention?

        b) You wrote:

        Ok Bill….since we currently do NOT HAVE the kind of technology in place in which “a hell of a lot of factories” could be built that run COMPLETELY and EFFICIENTLY on renewable energy sources, what you are saying is that in order to even BUILD that “hell of a lot of factories” we would have to burn even more than a hell of a lot of FOSSIL FUELS, let alone what it would take to build all of the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars and buses that you want to have PRODUCED by that hell of a lot of factories.”

        Bill knows and ignores that. He’s a paid propagandist and recruiter. Bill was preaching to people who don’t think; they respond to the emotion of what was said. It’s his job to whip the masses into a frenzy. For all the money that’s been paid to him to do that job, sometimes I think his employers should examine the return on their investment. Hmm… I guess they are satisfied ’cause they keep paying him.

      • H.R.
        Did you miss me? Or were you enjoying my silence? Lol

        Been reading WUWT every day, but started a new job and have been working my butt off, so not much posting time. :)

      • What? you mean the ice isn’t gone. But Big Al said it would be gone by 2009. I read it on the internet so bit must be true. LOL

      • We lack a modern day Albert Speer to make the Stanford plan work, irrespective of whether it’s needed or not.

      • We also lack a modern day Hitler, his boss, to send anyone who complained about losing their freedoms to the concentration camps.

      • “We would have to burn even more than a hell of a lot of FOSSIL FUELS, let alone what it would take to build all of the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars and buses that you want to have PRODUCED by that hell of a lot of factories.”

        For a while, probably for decades, yes we will.

    • The way I see it is this is an act of desperation, since by now even this knuckledragging drooling envirofascist.,must realize that the bushel full of warmists predictions are not happening.

      Sea Level not accelerating. Arctic ice is still there are the end of another summer..Antarctica sea ice are record highs in recent years.Warming trend per decade well below the IPCC projected rate.The missing Hotspot is still missing.Landfalling Hurricane drought,No long term trend changes to drought index.No increase in Hurricane or Tornado rate per year,on and on the marching failures that McKibben can’t continue to ignore.

      When La Nina comes in,reducing the temperature,he will go into shock again with more babbling bullcrap.

  2. These are the Globalist and representatives of the entrenched political class that Wikileaks warned us about. These well funded activist while few in numbers are very vocal and supported by a corrupt media that Wiki also informed us about. Its is high time these people be shouted down and rejected. WUWT is doing a good job at that.

  3. These are some seriously deluded people. The more evidence pointing to natural variability in our climate the more shrill their rants become. Hopefully they will implode soon before more damage is done to humanity.

  4. No surprise to me. I understand these people. Anthony thinks Bill M. is a good guy but slightly misguided. I consider him to be evil – he knows exactly what he is doing and for what purpose and it is not for the prosperity of humanity.

    Do not treat these scum like members of your family – they will sacrifice you and your entire family for their agenda. They are 100% INtolerant. Just review the 20th century for intolerant ideology for the wonderful results.

    • He probably is a good guy. And he doesn’t “know exactly what he is doing” – \I would call that the Omniscience Fallacy. But you don’t need that form of explanation to justify your conclusions, which I concur with.

  5. “… used their out-of-touch computer models to screw up government programs…”

    Anyone else see the irony here…?

    • Yes, EricH, that quote alone needs a whole load more publicity. I just hope that anyine in the future debating McKibben will remind him of his words.

    • And the trouble with him is he has admitted that he doesn’t understand the science, why should he? He’s a writer, not a scientist, he doesn’t have science degree. But this is a scientific topic not a political one. when I live in Vermont I saw many people like Bill. They have political goals they and global warming is a way to achieve their political goals. I has not whatsoever to do with the facts.

  6. Scientific mysticism with its unbridled reach in time and space has replaced the limited domain of science.

    People who presume to act as mortal gods (e.g. monopoly formation) are historically first-order causes of catastrophic anthropogenic evolutionary dysfunction, including causing unprecedented collateral damage (e.g. mass a-bortion).

  7. “But because McKibben is a green, he gets a free pass from mainstream media to demand the unthinkable.”

    Mainstream media doesn’t even know he exists, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, politicians do, which is a very bad, just awful, can’t get any worse thing.

  8. Same ol, same ol. No price tag for Jacobson’s plan (my estimate is at least $23 trillion). Declaring war on things has a really bad record. We declared war on poverty. And lost. We declared war on cancer. And lost. Etc.

    Notice the art work in McKibben’s piece at NR. Kinda remind you of something? All we need are blond, healthy peasants in the field…

    I’m willing to help fight the effects of global warming, although I’d feel a bit more enthusiastic if we could actually pin down those effects. But we should phase our efforts in with the least expensive first.

    Start with a revenue neutral carbon tax with all monies returned via rebates on social security. All the political independents and conservatives who are about to tell me that you can’t trust the government with this money–that’s the only reason you independents and conservatives have for existing on this planet (just kidding…). Go make sure that doesn’t happen.

    • A “revenue neutral carbon tax” is not exactly harmless: It will raise the cost of producing (and hence the price of) everything and will be a major inducement for production to go offshore to a less insane government. As a result, a great many local jobs will be lost, and the newly jobless people won’t even be able to afford the cheaper imported products, much less the artificially inflated local products that (somehow — probably due to government subsidy) still survive.

      Those who support the idea of a “revenue neutral tax” don’t understand anything about how an economy works, because they are mostly socialists who think that things are produced magically somehow and will never go away no matter what you do to the producers.

      They are also, apparently, too dim to take any lessons from the experience of socialist nations, such as Venezuela.

      • Bob Cormack:
        ” … and will be a major inducement for production to go offshore to a less insane government.”

        No they won’t. Hillary has proposed an “EXIT TAX” to prevent it. And we know she is an expert on such things. (And I suspect she will win but what an awful 4 years is in the offing.)

    • thomaswfuller2

      […] Notice the art work in McKibben’s piece at NR. Kinda remind you of something? All we need are blond, healthy peasants in the field […]

      Probably the very first thing I noticed.

      Looks so much more innocuous when one uses wind turbines though.

    • thomaswfuller2

      How do you get from your first paragraph to your last paragraph? I am amazed by the transition.

      Poverty and cancer are real and you say throwing money at them didn’t work. You don’t even know what effects (if any) global warming is having yet you advocate throwing money at “those effects”.

      So pass a tax that you can’t give a good reason for passing? A tax with no designated specific purpose except vague promises to fight global warming effects that can’t even be named? — And then you dis people who suggest that new money stream will be ill used?

      In your own way you are as crazy as McKibbles. Not all your Bits are there.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      PS — “Kibbles ‘n Bits” is a dog food.

      • Cancer survival rates are way, way up. Many cancers that used to be incurable, are now curable. I wouldn’t say that throwing money at cancer research has been a total waste.
        Has there been waste and fraud in cancer research. Quite possibly, but that’s far from saying it has had no value.
        On the other hand, despite the trillions spent fighting poverty, poverty is as bad, if not worse than it was in the 50’s and 60’s.

      • “On the other hand, despite the trillions spent fighting poverty, poverty is as bad, if not worse than it was in the 50’s and 60’s.”

        Not exactly accurate MarkW

        From The National Poverty Center-http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
        *******
        “How has poverty changed over time?”

        “In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

        For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.8 in 2004. The poverty rate continued to increase, peaking at 15.1 percent in 2010, the highest poverty rate since 1993. The poverty rate has remained relatively stable for the past 4 years.

        Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate.”
        ******

      • Eugene WR Gallun

        I am amazed by the transition.

        Poverty and cancer are real and you say throwing money at them didn’t work. You don’t even know what effects (if any) global warming is having yet you advocate throwing money at “those effects”.

        (I don’t claim to speak for Thomas) …

        Poverty is maintained by denying those in it, any kind of way out like using their own resources eg Coal to get themselves out.

        Here is a country that was a complete hell hole not too long ago …

        https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiVj9uD4dXOAhUCnBoKHU6BBkQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationaltravellermag.com%2Fideal-itinerary-for-48-hours-in-shanghai%2F&bvm=bv.129759880,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNFXi701AcBfO9HasitDjZqe6HzZ6g&ust=1471980550907774

    • thomaswfuller2
      Do you even understand what “revenue neutral tax” means?

      Revenue Neutrality-
      “A condition of fiscal policymaking in which any increase or decrease in tax revenues be achieved with a commensurate increase or decrease in tax revenues. For example, a proposal to decrease taxes for one economic group must include a mechanism to increase tax revenues from another source in order to offset the revenue decrease.”

      1-
      If you create a “carbon tax”, you create a new tax that does not now exist. That’s an INCREASE. You then MUST, by very definition of the term “revenue neutral”, offset that increase by DECREASING tax revenues somewhere else, immediately. You cannot create an increase that at some future point will decrease when it’s withdrawn as SS rebates. The decrease must happen at the same time, and at the same rate, that the new increase takes place. How do you propose to accomplish this?
      2-
      How the crap would you determine exactly how much “carbon” each and every individual person on social security “used/uses” in order to “rebate” them all equally and fairly? Because for every person that dies without being able to use their “rebate”, you get an automatic “increase” in a system that is supposed to be revenue neutral.
      3-
      People who are drawing on their social security will STILL be creating a “carbon footprint”, how do you make sure their lifelong carbon output equals their lifetime’s carbon rebate?

      Oh, and the reason independents and conservatives exist, it because progressives and liberals must be kept in check. It’s a natural balance created by the universe to keep idiotic and irrational people from believing that we’re going to capsize Guam with too many troops, or that Neil Armstrong planted a flag on Mars in 1969 (thank you Hank Johnson (D) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D) ).

  9. Ok it’s official, McKibbon is a waste of good skin that is breathing my air.

    What a freaking crackpot. I think the piece of sky that fell on his head smashed what was already broken into itty bitty pieces.

  10. i think McKibben is basically an authoritarian personality who would latch on to any holy cause, and does not much care what cause. What he finds attractive about climate change is not the scientific merits, but the opportunity to coerce the proletariat.
    Interesting, though, how people avocating an authoritarian system always see themselves as the authority.

    • Tom

      You have just beautifully stated the modus operandi of our power-hunting so-called-elites.

      They would sell their souls to control other people.

    • Tom Halla

      No, a man who wants to live under the boot is a masochist. McKibben is begging for a boot to kiss.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  11. Two observations.

    1 – Mckinney’s plan has been tried before for a different cause. It’s caused communism. It didn’t and won’t work for a number of reasons but mostly because communism’s basic tenants contradict natural selection.

    2- If the left is serious about winning their climate war they have to be prepared to use any and all weapons, including nuclear. Since they are not willing to go nuclear they either aren’t serious about the problem or solution or they are prepared for millions of people to die.

    • Since they are not willing to go nuclear

      I would not be so sure. Perhaps the reason they have not gone full nuke is that they have not had the chance yet.
      After all, this guy does liken the situation to WW III, and we all know what that means. Further, two recent posts here detail some arguments that humans are a plague on the planet and need to be exterminated.
      I think it is best to keep in mind, at all times, that we are dealing with some seriously mentally ill people here.

      • I believe dam1953’s comment was a clever reference to nuclear *power*, not nuclear weapons. indeed, nuclear power is a far better solution to efficient, high-availability low-carbon electricity than any so-called renewable.

        I’ve long admired Socolow and Pacala’s willingness to go where the data leads and include nuclear in their famous “wedges” paper, despite the resulting storm of ignorant criticism. Replacing a lot of coal power with nuclear is an intelligent “no regrets” concept, especially considering the paucity of tsunamis in the US states generating the most coal power.

      • Bulldust — “Putting the mental into environmental” Got to love it — Eugene WR Gallun

      • Thanks .. I must admit I was rather pleased with it myself. One must endeavour to find ways to amuse oneself, no?

  12. L-U-N-A-T-I-C

    The full moon was on Aug 18th. So good ole Bill the wacko was a bit premature.

  13. It seems to me that so many of the greenies (Guy Mcpherson, McKibben, et al) merely pay lip service preaching the standard sermon about CAGW and then go on driving cars, flying, using electricity, heating their homes, etc. They seem to have an attitude that they are doing good work by telling the little people to stop using energy, and so they themselves are off the hook and free to use energy because they are getting the good word out, telling others not to use energy. I wonder how they justify it in their minds.

  14. That guy is a flat out communist! Anyone that uses unapproved things like air conditioning, would get people tossed out of their home and the place seized is really really insane.

  15. ..All the watermelons are showing their true colors…it must be getting worse for them then we thought !

    • For them, it’s as though National Socialism and Communism never existed. Forget warming, we really will be in trouble if they ever get their way.

  16. There’s many reasons why Bill McKibben’s plan won’t work, but the biggest two reasons are: China and Russia.

  17. I’ve been following this Extinction Level Event nonsense for 16 or more years now. I have heard “We must act now or we will all die” Sooooooo many times that I forget the full catalogue of doom that we are now supposed to be enduring, since it so vast.

    I am sure Anthony has a running list of Doom Dates and we’ve past them… (not the UN -revised to keep it going list) … so what bee got in McKibben’s bonnet on Aug 15th?

      • I was dissolved by acid rain in the 1990s. Fortunately, I had already suffocated because “we” cut down the rainforests. Prior to suffocation (or was it after?), I was burnt to a crisp by the sun because the ozone layer was destroyed by too much Aquanet.

        If only I had listened to my betters and denounced my parents while demanding they send all their money to the doomsayers. If only my parents had protected me by not having me…

        …I would not be around to notice that just about every doom and gloom prophecy made in the last few decades has not been fulfilled. Or that all those different “problems” have the exact same proposed solution, which will not actually “solve” the “problem”, but will cause new ones. Or that the solution enriches the doomsayers. Or that the doomsayers are not actually subject to their proposed changes. Or…

  18. Meanwhile, Hilliary flies 20 miles and back from Nantucket to Martha’s Vineyard, on a private jet of course, for a $100,000 a head fundraiser.

  19. “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

    A Benito Award for McKibben.

  20. … “FDR ordered many of them seized.” ????

    What alternative history does McKibbles believe in. Wartime powers don’t give the Federal Government the right to sieze private property, at best it enables expedited due process. But it’s still, legally, a “taking” and requires fair market compensation. During WWII most corporations were more than happy to do their patriotic duty, it was good business. Ford Motor, General Dynamics, (Electric Boat), and North American Aviation, (Rockwell Aerospace), all grew at enormous rates during WWII. And it was the war, more than anything from the New Deal that finally pulled the U.S. out of depression.

    The other problem with McKibbles idea is that war time efforts are aimed at “making stuff”, not “not making stuff.” There;s a big difference.

    • This administration regularly violates the Constitution’s Takings Clause via EPA judgements against private use of private land and via any and all bureaucratic means available through other agencies, most commonly, the Bureau of Land Management. In fairness, it isn’t just within this administration’s guidance that the various bureaucracies subvert Constitutional processes, although the current admin. has exaerbated and refined unconstitutional government action through a long series of Executive orders.

    • Repeat after me: Wars do not cure depressions. It is NEVER good economics to blow up perfectly serviceable capital and people.

      • Indeed. The war employed people, but goods were rationed, and it could in no way have been called prosperity. When it ended, the economy sank back down. Fortunately, many of the crackpot New Deal policies had been suspended for the war, and Truman was unable to get them reinstituted. Once his “Fair Deal” was soundly defeated, the economy started back up again, this time for real.

    • It wasn’t the war so much as it was FDR abandoning the thousands of pages of regulations that had been put in place in order to “solve” the Great Depression, that got the US out of the Great Depression.
      It was necessary to dump these regulations in order to free up businesses so that they could make the stuff needed to win the war.

    • Correction: It was productivity instead of New Deal meddling that eliminated the Depression. You can’t make prosperity by building weapons, you only protect it with them.

      Richard Salsman and others have chronicled how government policies created the Great Depression and prolonged it. Read Breaking the Banks regarding government forcing of credit (which also caused the Recession of 2008) and The Capitalist Manifesto for a broad look at what individual freedom supported by defense and justice systems does for humans.
      McKibben is of course the opposite, a collectivist heavily of the Marxist flavour.

  21. Bill McKibben is a Groucho Marxist.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/19/climate-philosopher-demands-a-tax-on-children/comment-page-1/#comment-2281977

    Marxists come in many packages with many labels – for example:
    Trotskyites, Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Shachtmanites, etc.

    When I was at McGill in the 1960’s. there were about a dozen different Marxist groups – so many that their group names were extremely long – just to differentiate them.

    In general, we observed that they fit into two groups:
    1. The make-love-not-war, dope-smoking Harpo Marxists,
    and
    2. The nasty, angry, violent Groucho Marxists.

    Most climate alarmists have embraced a Harpo Marxist approach and a few are Groucho Marxists – they just do not realize it – they think they are “Progressives”.

    Regards, Allan :-)

    • GOOD COP/BAD COP

      Environmental NGOs and Their Strategies Toward Business

      Chapter 2: “Who Is Part Of the Environmental Movement”

      This Chapter is about how the Environmental Movement is involved in business affairs/company affairs.

      Has diagrams of environmental networks. Such information as interlocking boards and foundations.

      Helps to explain how this whole affair works and who’s involved.

      http://www.erb.umich.edu/Research/Faculty-Research/2010goodcop_badcop_hoffman.pdf

      Well worth reading.

      • SAGE journals

        “The Varied Work of Challenger Movements: Identifying Challenger Roles in the U.S. Environmental Movement”

        Abstract:
        “Adopting a mixed method approach, we explore the heterogeneous nature of the work undertaken by challengers in the U.S. environmental movement.”

        Article is pay-walled.

        http://www.sagepub.com or internet search using article title.

        Canadians are involved in this as well and there is more information on this subject on the internet.

        “Challengers” must be the new name for this kind of activity.

    • Allan MacRae —

      Groucho Marxists and Harpo Marxists!!!!!!! I missed that. Thank you for repeating it. I will keep that close to my funny bone.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  22. Bill McKibben is another of the climate darlings which NPR (gov’t. radio) regularly interviews or references as an expert on climate matters, along with such notable voices as George Monbiot and Gavin Schmidt.

  23. The guy really is a fruitcake. He reminds me of Rasputin.

    What I don’t understand is how he’s managed to control the Rockefeller heirs. They really ought to know better.

    • One does not become more wise and enlightened by becoming ever more deeply embedded into the elite classes. Instead, one becomes more distant from the wider range of human thought and condition. The dark lenses through which the born elites gaze, become ever darker, mirrored, reflecting only their own thinking and that which they perceive will continue and maintain their wealth and control, as well as their status and acceptance within their peerage.

      The elite classes recognize McKibben for what he is and have pegged him as useful. Thus, he is given a public voice and touted as an expert, prompting this conversation.

    • The heirs often take their good fortune for granted, and have no idea how to generate wealth. Rags to riches to rags in the third generation is the standard formulation. Perhaps the Rockefeller fortune was so immense, its heirs have made it to the fourth.

    • Check out Steven C. Rockefeller & Bill McKibben. Maybe more Rockefeller than McKibben. Then checkout Rockefeller & Maurice Strong.

    • The guy really is a fruitcake. He reminds me of Rasputin.
      What I don’t understand is how he’s managed to control the Rockefeller heirs.
      _______________________________

      The same way that Rasputin got into and controlled the Romanovs. He told them what they wanted to hear (especially the regina), and he said it so convincingly she thought he was a mystic or prophet.

      R

  24. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/15/paul-krugman-explains-how-to-break-the-climate-policy-deadlock/comment-page-1/#comment-2279509
    [excerpt]

    The global warming alarmists have been consistently wrong, since none of their scary predictions have materialized. The warmists have perfect negative credibility to date.

    Furthermore, that is ample evidence of unethical conduct by the warmists in the Climategate emails, the Mann hockey stick fiasco, the temperature data revisions, etc.

    The climate skeptics have a much better predictive track record – below is our example from 2002. Our predictions were certainly “surprising” for that time and certainly “high-risk” – our co-author Dr. Sallie Baliunas was forced out of Harvard, allegedly by the current US President’s Chief Scientific Advisor and others – a shameful act and a great loss to the scientific community.

    Regards to all, Allan MacRae, P. Eng.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/12/the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels/comment-page-1/#comment-2277431
    [excerpt]

    IN SUMMARY:
    All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.

  25. As the son of a WWII veteran and the nephew of 5 WWII veterans I am appalled at how this loon compares his belief that he can wage war against the climate to all the sacrifices and suffering from WWII.

    Complete lunacy.

    Does he not realize that building all of the infrastructure to replace all of the carbon based energy would require massive use of even more carbon based energy ?

    Concrete and rebar require massive amounts of energy to produce, you could not possibly install enough “carbon free” energy fast enough to even produce all the needed materials to make more “carbon free” factories.

    The Solar City factory in Buffalo is powered by the electrical grid. It cannot even power itself.

    With loons like this fighting this “war” we may as well declare victory already and pat each other on the back and call it a day.

    There is no need for this “war on climate”, and it most certainly cannot be won, even if we shoot all the disbelievers and force the survivors to do “exactly as McKibben” says.

    Somebody should look into some mental health care for Mr. McKibben, seems he has a bad case of Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    Cheers, KevinK

  26. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/21/the-economic-impact-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-2220950
    [excerpt]

    Fossil fuels have delivered humanity from the worst forms of poverty and slavery.

    Now, warmist scoundrels and imbeciles want to deny the benefits of cheap fossil fuel energy to the poorest of humankind, and drive the rest of us backwards into energy poverty. What the warmists are advocating is not only wrong, it is harmful and it is evil.

    Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple!

    Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

  27. The first casualty of war is truth. Somehow, truth became a casualty long before this war was declared.

  28. Whew! “Weepy” Bill looks sure looks different in that picture. Oh! He shaved off the ‘toothbrush’ mustache. That’s what it is.

  29. Elites believe in rule by the enlightened, like them. Free markets, true free expression, and personal freedom are always considered suspect by them. Fascism and socialism share a lot with feudalism. Kings and Lords are now politicians, and the new clergy are the technology elites–but both have abandoned the scientific, economic and governmental principles that created the modern world. Now, the gradual move toward more equality and shared prosperity 4will be replaced by a desire to impose their “enlightened” vision.

  30. McKibben is really just an anachronism, he would have fit in perfectly about 90 years ago as say a trusted political advisor … for Stalin.

  31. “It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,” says it all: ‘renewables’ will never fulfill the task and will never pay of.

    A costly burden.

  32. The general delusion here is that FDR’s wartime controls were absolute – they were not, and the hilarious claim that govt run production was efficient. It was those govt folks who designed the worst weapons we built during the war – the Sherman tank was a disaster and the bazooka, amongst other weapons from govt labs, was also a disaster. Warplanes, on trhe other hand, were designed and built by airplane manufacturers, not govt beaurocrats, and they dominated the skies within a few years, despite the giant lead the Japanese and Germans had in building planes. And the torpedoes from those folks at the Groton works were terrible. The biggest advantage our ground troops had was their mobility – provided by trucks and jeeps, which didn’t require any help from FDR or his incompetent wartime folks. Actually, FDR’s govt did little aside from decreeing which articles were to be produced. These decrees were not seen as
    “controlling” an economy but rather as a temporary necessity, and the public widely supported such alterations in the products produced. Of course, such changes would have become much less popular if the war had lasted longer, since an enormous number of consumer goods was unavailable or in short during the war – everything from gasoline to auto parts, cars were not available, nor stoves nor refridgerators, nor much in the way of consumer hardware.
    But, of course, McKibben’s biggest idiocy is his idea of what is required – windmills and solar panels are a really dopey method of producing low carbon power. Nuclear power, especially with the imminent production of molten salt reactors, capable of being built in factories and quickly deployed and costing a fraction of current nuclear power and a very small fraction of wind power, would be the method chosen by those without the enormous ignorance of a McKibben. McKibben is criticized for being a fraud with respect to climate change, but he’s a bigger fool when it comes to his proposed
    solutions.

    • “Nuclear power, especially with the imminent production of molten salt reactors…”
      ———————-
      Still vaporgear, at this point.

      • Alan, remarkably it’s only “vaporgear” because the technology has been blocked by politicians.

        Study the Galena Alaska project, a 10mW “nuclear battery” that should have become operational 3 years ago, but was sidelined for unspecified regulatory reasons. Gen IV technology is ready to deploy. Now.

    • How idiotic of him to claim that “out-of-touch computer models … screw up government programs” and not realize what is going on now. How much more out-of-touch can climate models be?

  33. And all the “deniers” need to be put into concentration camps. Again just like WWII. What is wrong with these nutballs. If anything disproves the liberal fallacy that poverty and education is the problem,it is people like this.

    • “…And all the deniers need to be put into concentration camps.”

      I’m surprised McKibbon isn’t calling for deniers to be burned at the stake.

      Oh wait…massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Never mind.

  34. Typical progressive/leftist rant – “People won’t do what I want, so the government should force them to!”

  35. Bill seriously needs to stop guzzling the Greenie Koolade, and chillax. I mean, he could give himself a heart attack or stroke or something, and die.
    Then who would we laugh at?

  36. “At the very least public opposition to government policy would lead to long term internment – incarceration without due process.”

    In Canada I envisioned this scenario and named it Suzukulag, after big green supporter David Suzuki, a supposed scientist who lies for the CBC propaganda mill and who has a history of scaring children with terrifying tales of a “man caused” global warming apocalypse. This embarrassment wants to jail global warming dissenters while he maintains several multi-million dollar properties.

    The Green Reaper is sharpening it’s scythe. The ban on DDT, and the consequential death of 50 million or so, is nothing but a warm up act.

    • Screwzuki’s parents or grandparents were interned during WW2, I think, so he’s just trying to get his revenge on western white man’s society.

      • it should be allowed in the US for bed bug control — an epidemic already. In Portland, Or. one fears to ride the trolley or sit in the public library for fear of picking them up. It has gotten that bad.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • It’s true that after DDT was banned as too dangerous to use in America, it was still available for export. What a wonderful ad for both the product and the US. “America won’t use that poison on themselves, but they’ll ship it here to kill you!”

      • skorrent1: It was available for export, however US foreign aid was often made contingent on the country receiving the aid, banning DDT.

  37. Take a good look at McKibben there, voters

    That is your tax dollars at work. Courtesy of the EPA and a few other agencies along with leftist foundations that keep McKibben well funded.

    Want more of your money going to McKibben and other anti-American fascists? Vote Democrat.

    Want to see if McKibben and his kind plan on a “night of the long knives”? Vote Democrat.
    McKibben is hyper-activist fervent enough to fill the hobnail shoes of historical downright zealous fascists.

  38. I am compelled to respond, however briefly, to the New Republic article of August 15, 2016 by Bill McKibben of 350.org , titled: A World at War. It includes the header line: “We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WW II” (emphasis mine).

    Let’s be clear; this article is an emotional recruitment or rallying speech, not a rational appeal or a scientific argument. If anything it is fund-raising stump speech or a cannon-fodder recruitment drive: the closing footer enjoins readers to “join the fight against climate change”.

    One of the challenges for volunteers countering these types of articles is the sheer volume of nonsense being churned out by the likes of McKibben and 350.org . From rationalwiki.org , and attributed to Alberto Brandolini: “The amount of energy necessary to refute b…t is is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”. Consequently, this cannot be a point-by-point rebuttal, merely a short vent on some selected gems.

    The WW II Analog is Flawed and Offensive
    Yes, WW II involved a truly admirable and immense commitment and mobilization, leading to hardship and sacrifice made willingly by an Allied populace who, to their everlasting credit, understood the dangers and accepted the challenges. No, sir, we are not in WW III, and suggesting simplistic parallels to WW II is a disgusting insult to the millions of soldiers and victims of that atrocity. Interestingly, the author makes a statement germane to the real challenge becoming increasingly clear to citizens: “In the face of a common enemy, Americans worked together in a way they never had before”. The common enemy is not global warming, but ignorance of real science and belief in carbon dioxide as some form of control knob. The citizens of several nations are now recognizing the folly of nonsensical arguments such as this, and beginning to work together to counter the “common enemy”, much to the chagrin of its high priests..

    The Truth Will Out: Rhetoric vs Reality
    Doom, drowning, collapse, biological weapons, psychological terror, lay waste, uprooting and killing, crisis, global emergency, propaganda. Given the title, you might believe these words are used by the author in reference to his WW II analog. Sorry, no, these are references to McKibben’s imaginary WW III. A few links in the article are an effort to lend an air of science to a socio-political editorial. Please note that claims of increased drought, flood, fire, coral bleaching, and other references are rebutted in multiple papers by true scientists and readily available. Perhaps someone better than I can post a few links, as we have seen many times.

    Over the top rhetoric such as this article has no place in a scientific debate to decide social and economic policy. We can only hope that the fervency of this article is simply a sign of desperation as the catastrophic climate zealots metaphorically drown in the doomsday cesspool of their own hot-fevered imaginations. Even now we can observe a planet which has not warmed to the extent predicted by the alarmist models, a fact which should be sufficient to put a stake in the heart of the theory.

    Countering statements such as: “a truly global mobilization to defeat climate change wouldn’t wreck our economy or throw coal miners out of work” should be like shooting fish in a barrel (or killing birds with a wind farm, if you prefer). Simply read the news: Economies are being wrecked and coal miners are being deliberately put out of work; these are exactly the consequences (by design and by folly) of the CAGW crowd and their useful idiots.

    Yes Please to Science, Evidence and Reality
    Sadly, we are in a war: the war is on truth and science and yes we must fight that battle every day. When the author asks: “can we actually defeat an enemy as powerful and inexorable as the laws of physics?”, this is a deliciously ironic flourish and an ideal opening to say no, exactly, this is about real physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc, not about religious fervor and political posturing disguised as science. To quote a fictional character, Homer Simpson, who has as much scientific credibility as the author: “In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics”. The climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years (billions?) and will continue to change in the face of voodoo science, which can only impede truth and progress, it cannot stop it. Finally, when he refers to the Stanford group work under Jacobson, perhaps again someone can insert a few links to rebuttals of that fantasy plan.

    • “can we actually defeat an enemy as powerful and inexorable as the laws of physics?”

      No Bill McKibben, we cannot! That you understand this concept, but you, and your teenie, greenie, army still want to launch an all out offensive against it, defies all logic and reason. It’s like saying “We can never defeat death….but I’m going to DIE trying.”
      Good luck with that.

    • RAPearce. “The citizens of several nations are now recognizing the folly of nonsensical arguments such as this, and beginning to work together to counter the “common enemy”, much to the chagrin of its high priests..”

      After studying much about WW2, I have come to believe that if the US had delayed entry into the war much longer there would have been no stopping the Axis powers. I think if we don’t stop the CAGW crazies soon there may be no stopping them.

  39. The warmers are starting to sound like messianic prophets.

    This is how Charles Manson wound up murdering people. He had to keep raising the temperature (the violence) of his rhetoric to keep his followers. Then, there was Jonestown. But, there have been many others.

    Please note. Just because these people are unhinged does not make them harmless. In fact, it makes them ore dangerous.

    • BM and others on the Green side have long taken an apocalyptic approach. Let us remember that Jim Jones moved his flock to San Francisco where he block voted them gaining a position in city government.

      We need to dub the video of him instructing his followers to drink the kool aid with similar green admonitions.

    • …. You mean a “North Korea Greenie”

      Don’t insult all Korean people. They are a quite intelligent and industrious folk. And even poor North Koreans had just bad luck that a brutal dictatorship of Stalinists took over by help of the former communist block.

      But back to McKibben. Some days ago I wrote here in another thread:

      “… If anything we might see a full blown eco-dictatorship rather soon and then it’s really questionable if mankind will ever get the chance to learn the truth about this mad ideology (= CAGW) ”

      Well – isn’t it shocking and sad how realistic my seemingly pessimistic outlook already looks? Because McKibben belongs not an exotic fringe group of the greens, he is just a typical green mainstream person…

  40. Let’s get simple:
    1) Bill – show us your proof for CAGW? (No land based temp data allowed unless you agree to get NCDC/NOAA/NASA/HadCRUT/AUSSIE BOM to show us why and how they’ve “altered their data”).
    2) Give us proof of CO2 “positive feedback” and a value that can be scientifically reproduced.

    As Bill can nor would encourage either 1 or 2 above. He’s simply a “political scientist” and a shrill one at that.

  41. “…and used their out-of-touch computer models to screw up government programs…”

    Thats a little Fraudian, don`t you think. ;)

  42. I re-read McKibben’s article.
    He sounds like Hitler and Stalin in their speeches to the “masses”.

    Someone above said he was a “Groucho Marxist”, I’d change that to a “Strictly Totaltalatarianist”.
    Or in brief: We can create a new drink: A “Grouchy Marxist” with a squeeze of “Adolph’s Meat Tenderizer”.

  43. McKibben is clearly well past his best before date and should be moved into a home where every day is a happy, foggy day and the climate is controlled.

    • Wow, my personal troll is trying to expand it’s horizons.
      I’m so proud of you.

      Apparently the worst sin it the world is saying something that RKP doesn’t want to believe.

  44. “If I had written a post anywhere near as outrageous as McKibben’s jingoistic demand for a war on climate, his demand for wholesale surrender of liberty and property rights to government, I would be called a fascist.”

    McKibben NOT a fascist? (!) Why would you think that? Environmentalism has a long well documented history of fascist – Nazi roots.

    There is, in fact, utterly no contradiction between environmentalism and fascism or Nazism,. They are fully complementary and supporting ideologies. It may not exactly be well known, it’s no secret either.

    Anyone who cares to look into it – and I consider it germane to the warming/environmentalist discussion – will benefit from a brief but careful analysis of it. And for that I cannot too highly recommend Martin Durkin’s essay, “Nazi Greens.” It is the last of a three part series of that traces the roots of German environmentalism from pre-industrial times to the 1930s. This is not new, it’s what Santayana meant about being doomed to repeat the history you don’t know.

    It is at http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history. Take a look.

    For a more detailed inquiry there are a number of books on the subject, including: How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich (Ecology & History),by Franz-Josef Bruggemeier and Mark Cioc, and The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany (Studies in Environment and History), by Frank Uekoetter. Amazon has them.

  45. Make me energy czar in California and CAGW will not be a problems in 4 days.

    Day one – make a list of those concerned with CAGW and mobile the national guard. Seize GOOGLE’s party jet.

    Day two – national guard goes door to door seizing supply breakers for those on the list who do not have a medical reason for electricity.

    Day three – legislature votes that CAGW is solved.

    Day four – Governor signs bill terminating war time powers. Declares victory over CAGW.

  46. I am reading Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society”. I highly recommend it. He points out that intellectuals want to be on the side of the angels, to posture for goodness, though they have little concern for the actual consequences of their favored policies. That a world that fits McKibben’s desires would be a worse world than one with more heat waves totally escapes him: he doesn’t care. The intellectual wants centralized absolute power but ignores what happens when such power exists: just look at the French Revolution. Initially idealistic, but then wave after wave of executions leading finally to Napoleon. Even the French intellectuals seem not to know (or to ignore) their own history. Also, the temptation for the despot who gains absolute control to pillage his country seems irresistable (Marcos, Chavez, and on and on).

    • Craig, you should read Ralston Saul’s ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’ (if you haven’t already) which explores the same ground.

      had to laught though at McKibben’s

      “where the think-tank experts …… used their out-of-touch computer models to screw up ”

      sounds like eco modelling groupthink to me.

      • M Seward writes: “sounds like eco modelling groupthink to me.”

        More importantly I think, it sounds like a call to round up the intellectuals. The nerds in the horn rimmed glasses making trouble. Fundamental Marxism. He repeats the theme several times, calling for incarceration, which inevitably leads to execution.

        What I find disturbing about this speech is, had it been on the subject of “black lives” mattering (had McWhatsit called for the incarceration of the BLM leaders) he would be stomped on by the Washington Post and other liberal media tools. But he wasn’t. His radical totalitarian screed is welcomed and condoned. That should scare people. It certainly scares me.

    • The intellectual wants centralized absolute power but ignores what happens when such power exists

      A very serious case of ‘be careful what you wish for’. Quite often they are the ‘first against the wall’ when ‘the revolution’ does eventually arrive.

      There are comments up and down stream (on this thread) about Marxists and Water Melons but I honestly have trouble seeing people like Bill in that light anymore. For example, modern Marxists have a major problem … ‘The Proletariat’ don’t want revolution. They are quite happy to acquire more wealth and go out shopping.

      What people like Bill hate is both the ‘top’ strata of society (‘The Rich’) and the ‘bulk’ living below (‘The Poor’) They despise both with equal intensity. What they really want is ‘Government’ of all by the ‘middle ground’ (them, obviously).

      They might seem, superficially, to be Marxists or Communists but they have just as much in common with National Socialists and Fascists. They don’t have an ‘entry pass’ to either group and so they hate both equally.

      • 3×2,

        Very astute of you.

        Most folks here make the common mistake of thinking McKibben and his co-conspirators are “Marxist,” or “communist,” or going even further astray, “Nazis,” or “fascists.”

        All of these are very badly wrong assessments of our opponents.

        The best term for them is Politically Correct Progressives. Their core belief system is a hatred of the aspects that made Normal-America great.

        Nothing to do with communism or fascism–except for its origins in the Comintern.

        Full details in a short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVPH_jCBEvA

        Their goal is to destroy Normal-America, bit by bit, or all at once. They believe that their goodness (meaning hatred of Normal-America) will be rewarded in the aftermath of the destruction.

      • They have characteristics of all past extremists. That is why they are mistaken for being one or the other.

        Truth to be told they take their ‘politics’ from both.

        They would find a temporary home among both Marxism and National Socialism. They all have the same goals in common in the short term.

        Ultimately, environmentalism (not the critter hugging types – they are foot soldiers) borrows from everything that has ever hated ‘the modern world’. Just get rid of ‘this’ and introduce a bit of ‘that’, control ‘the other’ … And everything will be ‘fine’.

  47. Climate Changers/Environmentalists:: all their demands converge on socialistic”solutions” that always give government massive powers, destroy rights and destroy prosperity. In other venues such people also demand “social justice”. They have no principles, even when they claim otherwise.

  48. So this time around, instead of people of Japanese descent being interred in camps, it would be “the deniers.” The more things change, eh?

  49. And I thought that the charge — decades ago — that climate change was a vast left wing conspiracy to grab total power was exaggerated. And here is, naked. The power lusting statists are free to pontificate with their ownership of academia and the press.

  50. Evidently the world (and Bill McKibben) did not learn the lessons of the last century on the perils of Socialism ‘for the good of the nation’. When ideologues enforce their ideologies on the unwilling simply because they believe they know what is best for everybody else, people WILL suffer.

    • http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm

      More and more, this poem by Kipling becomes prophecy:

      …”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! “

  51. ‘… if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.’

  52. I remember Anthony had a very polite meeting with this monster. Shows how much better we are on our side in terms of civility and respect. However we’re way past the niceties at this point. We’re up against people who would put wartime powers on top of the populace and who will fudge data, lie, cheat and steal to push their oligarchical power play. The climate agenda must be stopped at any cost.

    • I’d make that 1,500ppm (0.15%) which is about average for the late Phanerozoic. It produced plenty of munchies for the dinos.

      • Agreed..

        Unfortunately, even if we try our hardest, I don’t think we can push it up that high. :-(

        but 700 is twice 350, so it is chosen to annoy the 350 scam-artists and drones.

      • A recent study, in Japan IIRC, it was not an asteriod that killed the dinos, it was climate change.

      • Patrick: Except yet another study suggested it was the asteroid that initiated the climate change. No one actually knows and we won’t know until Michael J Fox gets into his DeLorean and checks it out. ;-)

  53. Even Obama and his EPA concede that the US cannot make a difference in atmospheric CO2 content. We could disappear and it would hardly be noticeable. So when the war powers act allows POTUS to curtail concrete production in China, McKibben’s war has a chance. Until then it’s a lost cause and we should be all into negotiating a cease fire if not a complete surrender. ( How does one surrender to climate change-you must be able to if you can wage war on it.) Whats that about the definition of insanity? And his ranting is based on verbiage in the Democrat platform. Does Hillary endorse his craziness?

    • DMA asks: ” How does one surrender to climate change-you must be able to if you can wage war on it[?]”

      I believe it was best summarized in the phrase “We must have the courage to do nothing”. That would be surrender in my opinion.

      • I was thinking along the lines of building a pool with a wet bar and a barbeque in my back yard, buying one of those floating chairs, and ordering Tanqueray in handles along with cases of limes. Anytime you guys want to drop by for a dip and a cold adult beverage, just yell over the back fence.

        Sweet surrender.

        [The mods look again, but notice he did not post his address, nor the GPS coordinates of the back fence of that Tanqueray-filled pool. .mod]

      • I said I was thinking about it. But, I am only going to do it if there really is GW. I believe the Russian’s are right and we are heading into a new LIA. Until I am convinced otherwise, the pool is a fantasy. But, if I am wrong, you will receive an invitation.You have my word on it.

      • I should add that Tanqueray is the good stuff, and it is for drinking not floating. The pool would be full of water, nicely, but not overly, warmed. The bar will have tonic to ward off the malaria, lots of limes, and plenty of ice. If you want martinis, bring your own vermouth and a shaker.

      • Bartleby: The great playwright and commentator, Keith Waterhouse coined the phrase:

        Don’t just do something, stand there!

        I heartily recommend it to our leaders.

    • It’s more than just the US that cannot make a difference in atmospheric CO2 content. McKibben and his “researchers” are conveniently the fact that John Kerry correctlypublicized last year:

      “The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

      If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

      So what does McKibben want to do? Have a real war with Asia over CO2 emissions before 2030?

    • “How does one surrender to climate change”

      I’ve surrendered by trying to catch up with DiCaprio’s air miles.

  54. “Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against Climate Change,…”

    Below is how I interpret the above:

    “The Rockefeller foundations (and other rich lefty groups/people) wants the world to wage war against climate change,…”

  55. ‘The government would have unconstrained power to seize private property, and direct business people to work for the government for whatever “profit” the government decided was fair, on pain of having their assets forcibly removed and handed to someone else.’

    Sounds like what they’re doing to the medical industry. Free enterprise and common sense are mostly gone from our government.

  56. So Socialism has been overtaken by Crony Capitalism or ‘Fascism lite”. This is how the Nazis ran things, instead of taking over the industries like their cousins the communists did, they simply regulated them and made sure the owners supported the Regime politically. Kind of like what is happening with US industry now. And of course we have the pretense of a Bill of Rights that is continually toddering on obliteration by interpretation. McKibben is not much different than his predessors on the left. If its not one cause, its another. This country, this idea was a nice experiment.

  57. McKibben: “…experts … used their out-of-touch computer models to screw up government programs…”

    Wow! He’s onto something here…!

    Let’s not let experts with their out-of-touch computer models near anything that matters!

  58. Mckibben is even madder than he looks.
    He needs to be sectioned for the safety of the public.

  59. Lost is that fact that most of the industrial capacity of the world was in the US.
    I suppose we were supposed to keep the rest of the world in the rubble of World War II.

    • Think you’re exaggerating a bit there, from Wiki so usual caveats but;

      GDP in billions of (1990) dollars 1939/1945

      British Empire 687/731
      French Empire 248/150
      Soviet Union 366/343
      United States 893/1498
      German Reich 461/310
      Italian Empire 154/115
      Japanese Empire 247/207

      The huge growth in US GDP is certainly remarkable but it started at 29% of world GDP and finished at 45%. Not that the World wasn’t and isn’t eternally gateful for the enormous contribution to the defeat of fascism.

      • Apples and oranges.
        The first post referenced manufacturing capacity while you are listing GDP, which includes a lot of things not related to manufacturing.

      • You’re right of course although not really apples and oranges since GDP of the industrialised nations seems a reasonable rough guide. Manufacturing as a percentage of total GDP probably rose in US but it seems unlikely that it didn’t rise elsewhere too (Sweden and Switzerland for instance). You missed the more obvious error that although it was a World War the combined GDP of the major combatants was not the total World GDP. On that basis US GDP is 20% of total World GDP in 1939 and about 31% in 1945. Very impressive but it still seems unlikely ‘that most of the industrial capacity of the world was in the US’. Perhaps Neo could provide a source for the original comment.

      • It was not the world GDP, however it was the vast majority of the first world GDP which is where most of the manufacturing for trade was also occurring.
        The fact that a lot of second and third world countries were also growing crops and hand producing stuff for local consumption greatly increases the world GDP but has no impact on this discussion.

      • You can’t surely define 45% as ‘the vast majority’. 45% of the total GDP of the combatants in 1945 was my calculation and obviously not all the ‘first world’ countries were combatants.

      • WWII did not involve all of the first world, but there was precious little from that category left out.
        Those that were left out were not major manufacturers to begin with.

  60. Bill McKibben is barking mad. But Tony Blair isn’t far behind…

    “Brexit is a catastrophe for Britain,” Mr. Blair also claimed in the lecture, insisting that people only voted against the European Union (EU) because they were uneducated.

    “[Education is] the single most important way to prepare societies for globalisation. We need a commitment to it like the one we have on climate change”, he said.

    http://www.thenational.ae/uae/tony-blair-holds-up-uae-as-model-nation

    • We’ve got one here—Common Core— with similar predictable results, if we can’t get rid of it.

  61. The world isn’t at war, just the climate numpties are. Their foes are science, rationality, democracy, truth, and human decency. Fortunately, they’re losing. But don’t tell McKibby. He might cry.

  62. We’ve been told repeatedly that 97% of all scientists agree with what McKibben is saying. I guess they didn’t make the photo-op for some reason. But no doubt The Republic will feature those scientists enthusiastically celebrating Bill’s ideas in an upcoming article.
    /snark

  63. Weepy, you foretold your retirement a couple of years ago, why not make at least that prediction come true.

  64. A strange resemblance to Donald Duck . No disrespect to the Duck .
    Let’s hope it keeps warming .
    What do eco- frauds have against plants, animals and more ocean ?
    Kind of selfish aren’t they ?

    Scary global warming promoters are going to really hyperventilate as the
    scam collapses and wrecks their business .

    • It is a pity Bill doesn’t stand for election, where his great ideas could get a full airing.

      That is exactly why Bill and his ilk don’t stand for election. They know full well that no democratic process would ever let them past the first round. They work in the background at eg UN conferences where there is no democratic oversight of the very real damage they are already inflicting.

  65. That video is super funny, especially given the WUWT post after this one – ‘The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling’ !!!

  66. I love Bill McKibben! He epitomizes the missing link (they say we haven’t found it yet, I say you are looking in the wrong places). Ignorance truly is bliss. What Billy Boy doesn’t know may also be what many of youu also do not know, and that is that the ends of all post-MPT interglacials is considered the “Climatic Madhouse”. It is entirely possible that at 11,719 years old, the Holocene is entering its death throes. There were a minimum of two major positive thermal excursions at the end of the last interglacial, the last one was the strongest and it saw the glacial inception. Same thing happened at the end of MIS-11:

    “The Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial, centered at ~400 ka, appears to be the best candidate for understanding climatic changes in the context of low insolation forcing such as that of our present interglacial. Direct correlation between terrestrial (pollen) and marine climatic indicators and ice volume proxy from deep-sea core MD01-2447 (off northwestern Iberia) shows for the first time the phase relationship between southwestern European vegetation, sea surface temperatures in the northeastern Atlantic midlatitudes and ice volume during MIS 11. A warmest 32,000 years-long period and three following warm/cold cycles occurred synchronously on land and ocean. The end of the warmest period sees the glacial inception which coincides with the replacement of warm deciduous forest by conifer (pine-fir) expansion in northwestern Iberia and, consequently, with the southward migration of the tree line in high latitudes in response to declining summer insolation.”
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephanie_Desprat/publication/229415952_Is_vegetation_responsible_for_glacial_inception_during_periods_of_muted_insolation_changes/links/0c96051e55e2f0f6b2000000.pdf

    Same thing happened at the end of MIS-19:

    “During the glacial inception from MIS 19 to MIS 18, the low resolution EPICA Dome C water stable isotope record (Jouzel et al., 2007) has revealed millennial variability principally marked by the occurrence of three consecutive warm events.”
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valerie_Masson-Delmotte2/publication/48416689_New_MIS_19_EPICA_Dome_C_high_resolution_deuterium_data_Hints_for_a_problematic_preservation_of_climate_variability_at_sub-millennial_scale_in_the_oldest_ice/links/0912f50ef2d7d14be2000000.pdf

    So I am sorry to Billy Boy, and all the mewling quim out there. You have a much more difficult problem to solve than you can possibly imagine! As time, and the Holocene, plow on, I become less and less resistant to your mewlings. Go right ahead, strip the climate security blanket from the late Holocene atmosphere. Tip us into the next glacial. Your gene pool stands a far lower chance of making it to even the first Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillation, much less to the next interglacial (some 90kyrs away). In other words I am leaning more towards “I suggest a new strategy R2, let the Wookie(s) win!”

    Here”s why:

    “Here, we study the questions why we still live in an interglacial world and when we should expect the end of the Holocene under natural conditions (no anthropogenic influence) or under anthropogenic perturbations (also referred to as “Anthropocene”), questions which attracted considerable interest in recent years. It was argued that without earlier anthropogenic activity we would live already in glacial world (Ruddiman’s hypothesis). Tzedakis et al. (Nature Geoscience, 2012), using MIS 19 as the best analogy in terms of the orbital parameters for the Holocene, suggested that the new glacial inception would start within the next 1500 years, assuming natural CO2 level of 240 ppm. However, 240 ppm is much lower than preindustrial CO2 level and CO2 concentrations during several most recent interglacials (starting from MIS 11). Here, using the comprehensive Earth system model of intermediate complexity CLIMBER-2, carefully calibrated for the simulations of the past eight glacial cycles, we show that (i) although climate conditions during late Holocene were very close to the bifurcation transition to the glacial climate state (Calov and Ganopolski, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2005), it is very unlikely that under pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppm) glacial inception would occur within the next several thousand years; (ii) it is likely that the current interglacial, even without anthropogenic CO2 emission, would be the longest interglacial during the past million years; (iii) current CO2 level makes new glacial inception virtually impossible within the next 50,000 years; (iv) in agreement with earlier result of Archer and Ganopolski (Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 2007) based on a conceptual model of glacial cycles, we found that consumption of a large portion of available fossil fuel could postpone the next glacial inception by hundreds of thousand years.”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..15.1666G

    I could provide a slew of quotations/references, but we are limited to 3 before automatic moderation sets in.

    But the salient point here should be rather simple and obvious. Only 1 post-MPT interglacial has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle, which varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years and we are at the 23kyr point now, making 11,500 half. At 11,719 years old, the Holocene is now looking a bit long in the tooth. As far as I can tell from vast research the only thing we could possibly do to extend it would be to release large quantities of GHGs into the late Holocene atmosphere. Gobs of research confirms this hypothesis, but with the proviso that the warmists are actually right about the insulating properties of CO2/CH4/etc.

    But the hard point is precisely this. Who wants to extend the Holocene/Anthropocene such that we are stuck with ever growing numbers of mewling McKibben-style quim? Isn’t it interesting that by coming at the problem from a completely opposite viewpoint one can come to the exact same conclusion?

    So I laugh at you Billy Boy. You have no idea if this last grand solar maximum was the Holocene’s last hurrah, or its first of several. And we have no idea what caused those…… What we do know is that if you happen to be absolutely correct about GHGs, then you could not possibly be more wrong about what to do about them. You call this the Anthropocene. OK, I’ll bite. Technically would that not mean that we are actually living in the anthropogenic extension of Holocene interglacial warmth? And you want to end it? Right? You realize that there is only one other climate state left, the cold glacial state.

    Did you bump your head?

    Full Disclosure: I am doing my bit, I drive a 6-month old SRT Challenger with the 392 Hemi. I’ll be long gone before you man-up to try and take it away Billy Boy. That is assuming you ever do manage to graduate puberty.

  67. It is long past time to unite and defeat green fascists like Bill McKibben.
    Our climate extremists behave disturbingly like the nice folks pushing NICE in “That Hideous Strength”.

  68. Dictators need a reason to grab total power: for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and McKibben these are dressed up differently, but still just means to a Goal.

  69. Is there no way after all this time to reset the starting date for Arctic Ice away from the end of the famous 1970’s ice age scare? I mean, talk about end point problems – what would the conversation look like if that start point were 20 to 30 years earlier? It would change everything and take away a recurring cherry-picked data record. I know it is the satellite record, but it is, by limits of technology, scientifically flawed as used.

  70. The worst punishment for guys like McKibben would be to make them live in the “Utopia” of their own design, except as an average joe and not as the ruling elite they imagine themselves to be. It would only be fitting. Let them suffer both the intended and unintended consequences that would result from the policies they wish to enforce on the rest of us.

    • Fascinating to read of an American ratbag (Aussie term for an unhinged urger)
      He has his mates though
      We had a beauty here in Oz by the name of Dr Clive Hamilton
      An academic he stood for Parliament as a Green and I think lost his deposit (meaning he was not able to attract enough votes)
      Clive came out with the line thst if the public did not /could not get it right in supporting the essential climate policies it may be necessary to suspend democratic provesses
      No doubt leaving the decision making to bien pensants (right thinkers in Emglish) of which of course Clive just by happenstance would be one
      Recall Orwell’s dictum that only an academic or intellectual could hold such a crazy opinion that no ordinary person would hold

  71. We diidn’t need models to establish that Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler was gobbling up Europe.

  72. Fascinating how the solution to all environmental problems always involve total control over others by the environmentalists.

    • You’d think they’d catch on to their own Catch-22 – because their solutions DO require 100% capitulation and total control, than absolutely none of them can ever work, because total control is impossible.
      But nope – they’ll keep tightening the noose anyway. That ‘control-freak-carrot’ has kept them plowing away at our freedoms and rights for generations, and they show no signs of stopping.

      • There are two major categories of leftist.
        The first are those who are convinced that marxist principles WILL work, once all opposition to it is eliminated. To these people their previous failures are always explained by the failure to have enough power.
        The second are those who are only interested in free stuff. They don’t care how much other people are suffering because their need for more stuff is the only thing that matters to them.Like the rioter in Milwaukee last week who justified their rioting by declaring that there were rich white people who still had lots of stuff and they weren’t making any effort to give that stuff to people like him.
        To most of these people, other people having more than they do is an unforgivable sin and justifies them to do whatever they need to do to rectify the situation.

      • I think there’s also the ‘bleeding heart’ demographic – who don’t necessarily look at the Marxist mechanics of Progressive policy (or are even really aware of them), but who are easily led down any road the propagandists choose by putting the proper sob stories in place – these tend to be the affluent types that are actually mostly untouched by the issues that concern them – but just feel really, really bad about that it’s all going on out there.
        These are the most problematic types, because they continue to vote for the same people, the same causes, with the blithely unaware toss-off of ‘we’re trying to help’ – or ‘it’s for the environment, so what harm can it do?’ – sort of the way the DDT ban got pushed through, with no concern for consequences as long as that warm fuzzy was there to balm the bleeding heart – and they never, ever, stop because they assign themselves the higher moral ground.

        The ‘bleeding heart’ – the only heart disease that kills others.

  73. “with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears.”

    Most people call that summer.
    Then in the winter, it magically reappears.

  74. “World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.” – Bill McKibben

    Bill, if you want to win World War III, nuke them all! Nuclear winter is the Final Solution. Total annihilation of global warming, not just the warming but also the globe. Screw the Nazis, warmists are the badder ahss

  75. “World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.” – Bill McKibben

    Bill, if you want to win World War III, nuke them all! Nuclear winter is the Final Solution. Total annihilation of global warming, not just the warming but also the globe. Screw the Nazis, warmists are the badder azz

  76. “World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.” – Bill McKibben

    Bill, if you want to win World War III, nuke them all! Nuclear winter is the Final Solution. Total annihilation of global warming, not just the warming but also the globe. Screw the Nazis, warmists are the badder assjole

  77. Just below the surface of every environmentalist is a national socialist screaming to get out. AKA the watermelon effect.

  78. Academia is full of intellectually corrupt “McKibben” types. They teach in almost all departments. At my university, I purposely gave up my office to avoid mixing with them as much as possible. Most of society’s institutions are similarly corrupted. The real “97%” consensus is all the academics that will vote for their LEVIATHAN gov’t come November.

  79. McKibbles is lacking quite a few of his Bits.

    Kibbles ‘n Bits is a dog food.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  80. “Worst of all, McKibben’s war would never end. McKibben actually laments that control of the economy was handed back to private individuals after WW2.”

    Yeah…the 1945-1970 was a big disaster for the US economy.

Comments are closed.