Leaked Clinton campaign memo on ‘climate change’ shows it’s really about politics, not science

From Larry Kummer at the Fabius Maximus website

Memorandum: “Climate: A unifying theory to the case“,
Emailed from John Podesta to Chris Lehane, 28 January 2014.

This memo was emailed to Podesta (a senior White House official) from Lehane (partner in the strategic communications firm Fabiani & Lehane, dissolved in Nov 2015). We have it courtesy of Wikileaks — and whoever leaked it to them.

John Podesta was Chief of staff to Bill Clinton and Counselor to the President for Obama. He is Chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Chris Lehane – When an attorney in the White House Counsel’s office, he and his current business partner Mark Fabiani called themselves the “Masters of Disaster” for their work as a “rapid-response” team responding to the many scandals of the Clinton Administration. Lehane co-authored a book on damage control titled Masters of Disaster: The Ten Commandments of Damage Control. Jim Jordan, Kerry’s former campaign manager, called him ”a master of the political hand-to-hand” for his work as a political strategist.

——————————————-

“Thank you for asking us to share some ideas for a holistic approach to climate. Per your direction, the goal is to unify policy, politics, and communications to help the Administration best execute an informed plan over a multi-year time period. …this document is intended to provide some food for thought as the Administration refines its thinking on climate. …{it} addresses the four components that the Administration may want to consider as it seeks to lead on this issue.

  1. Three-Year Framework. …
  2. Right v. Wrong. Make the case that climate must be approached as a challenge of historical social change where progress will depend in part on successfully casting the issue in moral terms of who is right and who is wrong …
  3. The Big Idea. …{It} could drive an Administration-wide approach to climate for the next three years. …
  4. 2014 Action Plan. …

“To achieve victory, we must treat climate change as an issue of historic importance that is worthy of a true political social movement to create change. This political social movement must be founded on moral principles with stark definitions of who is right and who is wrong, and it is important to outline the historically negative, irreversible implications if we were to not succeed.

“By pursuing this as a political social movement, President Obama and his Administration will best be able to assure that his legacy includes his unprecedented leadership on climate that initiated the shifting of the country’s political tectonic plates to enable transformative climate change policy, before it was too late.

“…At the end of the day, given the powerful and entrenched interests that are opposed to climate change policy, one needs to have an organizing platform that defines the Administration as being morally on the right side of the issue and, equally important, defines the opposition as morally responsible for an issue that threatens the health and welfare of the American people. …

“Define the issue as between those who believe in the science, and therefore are taking steps to respond to the scientific findings, versus those who do not believe in the science. The power of this approach is that it puts the opposition in an indefensible box (the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing); it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative(anti-women; anti-Latino; anti-gun safety; anti-common sense fiscal policy; and anti-science) that is raising basic trust issues for the Republican Party – especially with electorally decisive voter cohorts. You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office. …

“The Winning Principles

“The Big Idea will need to be animated by three principles that the wedge political policies would connect with (think of FDR’s Four Freedoms or TR’s Three C’s). In the context of being informed by various campaigns (candidate and ballot initiative) in which climate was deployed as a decisively winning political issue, there are three issues that really stand out as wedge principles that could undergird the Big Idea (whatever the Big Idea may be).

“Health/Safety. The opposition is engaged in practices or holding positions that are demonstrably imperiling the health and safety of our people. This ranges from macro issues like extreme weather to local issues like drinking water, air quality and rail safety to micro issues like children’s asthma. People care when the health and safety of their families are implicated.

“Pocket Book. People care when climate impacts them economically. On the positive/aspirational front, this principle can be about whether new green jobs will be based here or overseas or how citizens are able to save money by paying less for energy. …

“Accountability/Responsibility. Follow the money. Who is accountable/responsible for the bad things that are happening, and how are they rigging the system to benefit from the bad things? …

“2014 Action Plan

“…Establishment of an extreme weather SWAT team prepared to work together and engage when extreme weather happens — including response; local outreach; media; science information about historic nature of the event; and coordinating possible principal travel (POTUS, FLOTUS, VPOTUS, Cabinet).”

———————— End excerpt. ————————

Conclusions

The most important thing about this memo, obvious almost three years later, is its complete failure. Few Americans consider the environment our most serious problem. It is a minor issue in the presidential election, seldom even mentioned. Climate change isn’t among our top 10 fears.

The approach is pure politics, with little mention of science. For example, the SWAT teams {as we have seen} blame all “extreme” weather on climate change — ignoring that extreme weather is normal, occurring before any anthropogenic effects. The IPCC has repeatedly explained this, not just in their regular Assessment Reports but also in the 2012 report “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (SREX).

Worse, the binary framing (“the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing”) ignores the key issues of how much change is likely from anthropogenic sources — and when. That is the area of debate among climate scientists (there is as yet no consensus), and the necessary input to make public policy decisions.

Describing climate change as a moral issue probably seemed like a sure winner to Lehane, especially with academia, journalists, and most NGOs as supporting players. But that prevented political compromise or any rational discussion of costs vs. benefits — both essential elements of successful public policy. It polarized the issue so that America has taken few measures to even prepare for the repeat of past weather (as Hurricane Matthew reminded us).

Worse, Lehane does not mention what he relies upon as the authorities for science. The IPCC? NOAA? The alarmists that journalists love for their exciting soundbites? The climate scientists who write the IPCC’s Working Group I reports devote great effort to explaining their state of knowledge — and the large uncertainties in much of it. There is a large gap between the certainty of warming since the early 19th century plus the large role of anthropogenic forcings since 1950 — and the massive unknowns driving climate during the 21st century.  All that is lost when the issue is defined in purely moral terms.

So they lost. Clinton’s probable win (in March I predicted a landslide) Lehane and his fellow activists a second chance. Will they learn from their failures in the 28 years since James Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress ignited the movement? Or will they have sufficient political power to push through their agenda despite their weak political support and ineffective plans?

There are better ways to handle major public policy issues. Climate change, our mad foreign wars, and our mishandling of so many other key challenges — these show our dysfunctional politics in action. We can do better.

Advertisements

152 thoughts on “Leaked Clinton campaign memo on ‘climate change’ shows it’s really about politics, not science

    • I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.
      – Pauline Kael

    • Mark,

      (1) While you are hoping for a left wing landslide…

      You should read more carefully. I said “Clinton’s probable win (in March I predicted a landslide)”. You can not infer my personal preference from a statement about the data.

      “most of the polls put the race as fairly even”

      (2) That’s not really correct. This close to the election, the polls and models are fairly accurate.

      * The RCP average of recent polls shows Clinton with a 6.4% lead.
      * Models using data in addition to polls have better records. The Pollyvote model predicts a 7.7% popular vote win for Clinton, with an electoral college win of 347 – 191.
      * Nate Silver’s model at 538 puts the odds of a Clinton win at 88%.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

      http://pollyvote.com/en/

      http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

      • This close to the election the polls are quite accurate (models using other data sources are even more accurate). Text and graph from Will Jennings, Professor of Political Science at the University of Southampton:

        “Mean absolute error of US presidential polls 1952-2012. From now, average error typically decreases by less than 0.5 points by Election Day.”

      • From somebody outside the USA, I think you are possibly mistaken. The Polls in the USA survey likely voters. There are two confounding factors, who to vote for, and whether to vote at all. Hilarity’s problem is that many likely voters won’t vote. As I see it from here, Trump has recruited a critical mass of disenfranchised voters, these people will vote. Hillary on the other hand doesn’t have this, sure the revelations about Hillary won’t necessarily cause people to vote for Trump, but they will cause people not to vote at all. I

        I see an upset vote coming due to depressed Democrat turnout.

        PS, is it just me that sees similarities between erasing 18.5 minutes of tape and erasing 33000 emails? Hillary is the Richard Nixon of the 21st century! Would anyone in the USA even look at electing Nixon, OR his wife…

        18.5 minutes of tape, 33000 emails: 18.5 minutes of tape,33000 emails…. hmm

      • The LAT/USC daily ave Poll of the last 7 days has Trump up 10/18 at 1.6% +/- about 2%. The margin of error can change daily. I think it’s one of the more reliable based upon its method in which they seem very serious. They’ve selected a base of 3000 and Poll about 400/day, but which could also be a drawback if their method of getting the 3000 is somehow off. And you can see the movements graphed daily just by clicking.

        http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

        I also saw a report of an Ohio-specific Poll touted by John Podhoretz on Twitter as making Trump “toast”, since he was down 9%. I challenged Podhoretz because his link didn’t link to the Poll. The next day another Ohio Poll had Trump down by 1%. Podhoretz responded only by in effect calling me “crazy”, according to a Doogie Howser vid. I see this kind of response from Progs and “conservative” Never Trumps. So after 24hr. from again only asking for and waiting for his link to the Poll, and calling “strike one”, I finally gave him a “strike three” and threw him out of the Game.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website – October 17, 2016 at 10:28 pm

        <blockquoteThis close to the election the polls are quite accurate

        Dear Editor,

        Technically, there is like 100+ MILLION eligible US voters that haven’t previously voted an d/or haven’t bothered to vote in the past 8 or 10 General Elections …. and who now have I-phones and Cell phones …… and who do not have a “land line” and/or their name and phone number recorded in a phone book …… or said name and number even accessible via the internet, …… so please tell me Mr. Editor, ….. just how did those Pollsters query any of the aforesaid 100+ MILLION eligible US voters to garner a legitimate “sample size”?

      • This close to the election the polls are quite accurate…..

        LOL…that’s exactly what they said before Brexit!!

    • Polls don’t vote, they just attract views which in turn attracts advertisers. So there is motive to keep them tight.

      Non of this matters because we all know Podesta will be eating only the finest lobster risotto that will most certainly be better than anything they serve at the Ecuadorian Embassy. This level of hubris only shows that these people have no intention of letting democracy take place in November and will give it all to Hillary while pretending to protect us from the Russian hackers.

  1. The lesson is if your supporters believe it, then, it is true. Just do it, debate only confuses people.

    • You have to remember that to them “Transparency” means that the public can’t see what they are doing.
      Why else have private email servers, EPA heads have pseudo email names etc.

      • Even Obama wrote to Hillary on her private server (@hillaryclinton.com) 18 times using a pseudonym! Of course, Obama also claimed to have only learned of that server through the news. Honesty never was his strong suit.

  2. The more I read articles like this, the more I follow American politics in general and this year’s presidential campaign in particular, the more I reflect on my good fortune to have been born into a nation whose lawmakers operate in a parliamentary system lodged in a constitutional monarchy.

    • Grahite, I can certainly sympathize with your point of view. What you need to understand is that the people who wrote our constitution distrusted government. They purposely split power between three separate branches of government and between the Federal and state governments. They purposely staggered terms of office. They purposely made the President (elected by the electoral college), Congressmen (elected by the public), and Senators (elected by state legislatures) answerable to different constituencies. It was purposely done so that someone like Obama couldn’t enact sweeping changes like environmental rules all by himself. The founders purposely gummed up the works.

      When you consider what Obama might have done on the environment in the last eight years if he had the powers of a prime minister, compared to what he actually did, I’d say that the American constitutional system saved us from an economic disaster.

      • Marty October 17, 2016 at 1:55 pm,

        I am VERY concerned that you are about to be shown that you absolutely correct on your assessment of the damage a Prime Minister can do. Concerned in Canada.

      • So, about those executive orders, and vetos of congress decisions, and the selective enforcement of laws, where were the checks and balances to stop that ?

      • In the old days that would have been refusal to fund agencies that were being abused, overturning vetoes and ultimately impeachment.
        Unfortunately the Democrats will never undercut their own president by supporting any of those moves.
        Unless Republicans can get to at least 70% in the House and Senate (2/3rds, plus enough to compensate for the weak sisters who will inevitably cave to media pressure) nothing will happen.

      • “Senators (elected by state legislatures)” changing this to elections instead of appointment was a very BIG mistake.

      • “So, about those executive orders, and vetos of congress decisions, and the selective enforcement of laws, where were the checks and balances to stop that?”

        That’s what happens when you have a bunch of political cowards running the House and Senate. They have the power to reign in the president, but they choose not to use it, because they are afraid the Leftwing Media will brand them racists. So, they prefer to allow Obama to run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, rather than take any action that might bring some political heat their way.

        If we manage to get Trump elected, then we are going to have to work on the Congress. A lot of current members of Congress should be voted out of office and sent home. We know who they are. We won’t forget, either. All you guys who tried to give us Hillary Clinton are toast!

      • Yeah, I’ve heard all that, Marty. Here’s the thing . . . because the US is so big, so rich, so powerful, it’s reach extends around the world in all sorts of areas. F’rinstance, 95% of the music I listen to is American, 75% of the literature I read is set in the US (current reading, after a gap of thirty years, is Gore Vidal’s Burr), 98% of the musical comedy I enjoy is US-based, 33.3% of the TV programmes I watch are US-sourced, 25% of the websites I visit are American and so on and so on.

        The rest of the world studies you, knows how you work. The rest of the world learns from you, both what to do and what not to do. Conversely, the US is inward-looking to a degree not found in the rest of the developed world. When America wants to do something, it doesn’t bother to study what’s been done overseas — foreigners, even English-speaking foreigners, are second-rate thinkers. Anyway, to many many Americans, the USA IS the world. Exhibit A: All your major national sports championships are run as world championships. Exhibit B: Americans believe that they won World War Two, with a little bit of help from the Brits and the Russkies. Both of thoser attitudes take some chutzpah.

        So sure, all those old dudes two hundred and something years wrote in all those checks and balances because they had seen what autocratic power could do. And by the way, you forgot to mention the Supreme Court and the part it plays.

        Meanwhile, the nation from which the United States broke free went in another direction but ultimately wound up as a democracy. Looking at them both, my take is that the US has a contrived democracy, something worked out in a committee; British nation have an evolved democracy, something that has grown and developed by trial and error over the centuries.

        As they currently stand, my take is that American governance is based on patronage; British government is based on service.

      • My apologies. The “it’s” in the second line should read “its”. Don’t know how that happened; first time in fifty years. (The other mistakes are just typos.)

    • [Graphite’s] good fortune to have been born into a nation whose lawmakers operate in a parliamentary system lodged in a constitutional monarchy.

      The Parliamentary system that gave you that slime-ball David Cameron, whose only loyalty was to his personal political fortune, the Parliament which has virtually remained silent in the face of the national disgrace of multiple Rotherhams and their police facilitators, and which Parliament presided over surrendering the freedom of the British people, and enslavement of that population to a foreign un-elected bureaucratic tyranny; a crime not yet reversed by Brexit.

      I’ll take the USA, any day.

      • @Pat Frank

        October 17, 2016 at 4:54 pm : PMs can be gone in a minute, and he was. While Brexit is organised under new management with scarcely a tremor. With the russians assured the button can and would be pushed. A smooth system in peace and war, no wasteful fuss. But yes, comparisons are odious, always, and generally meaningless. Apples and oranges…

      • Actually, Pat Frank, Cameron, slime-ball that he may be, has no part in the government of my country. My Prime Minister is a guy called John Key. The systems, though, are similar.

        The Rotherham disgrace, bad as it was, can’t be sheeted home to the parliamentary system of government. Are you saying that under a presidential system it wouldn’t have happened? Hard to follow that reasoning.

        As for the UK joining the EU, that was a national disgrace (although perhaps understandable given the UK’s economic travails of the time) and an insult to the nations of the Commonwealth. But, though it took 40-odd years, it is now being reversed. And Cameron is gone, never to return, I’d venture.

        And therein lies one of the strengths of a parliamentary system. A prime minister is “first among equals”, he chairs the Cabinet. A president is an emperor in drag. If a prime minister loses the confidence of his colleagues, he is gone – overnight, usually. If a president is known and shown to be incompetent or, worse, a crook, you are stuck with him for the rest of his term (with one notable exception, of course). And in those third-world nations which have taken up the American way, the usual reaction of a president who comes under sustained criticism is to declare himself “President For Life”.

        Give me a parliament over a presidency any day. Exhibit A: Your system is going to deliver either Trump or Clinton . . . for four long years.

      • As an Englishman, I would say that the US constitution is a far better model than that of the UK.

        However, whatever system is employed, power always corrupts, and democracy can and is subverted. Sometimes in subtle ways without the people even noticing.

        But what democracy is there when faced with a choice such as Clinton or Trump? It is difficult to see how either candidate was put up. To make matters worse, the media appears (at least that is the impression from the UK) of extreme bias. Apart from the health issue, there appears to be a lack of any negative articles in UK MSM on Clinton.

        Personally, I cannot see how any sentient being could vote for Clinton. She represents absolutely everything that is wrong with politicians and politics. For sure she has some experience but that experience demonstrates how incompetent she is, and the email scandal and her response to the Benghazi inquiry demonstrates she is not a fit and proper person for public office.

        Democracy is presently standing at a junction throughout the Western world. Here in the UK, we have voted to leave the UK, but attempts are a foot, to subvert that vote and not give effect to that vote or water it down so as to render it all but meaningless. Throughout Europe, similar themes are being played out. The EU replaced a democratically elected Italian prime-minster and has since shoe horned in a couple of unelected prime-ministers. Across Europe people want a vote on the EU and the direction it is going, but are being denied that opportunity by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. In America, we will see whether the US constitution will be reinterpreted as government by the elite for the benefit of the elite, as opposed to government by the people for the people.

        God help America, and the World if Clinton gets elected.

      • Graphite, you were speaking to systems (Parliamentary vs. Presidential), not countries. Referencing New Zealand in response is a non-sequitur.

        My point about Rotherham was that it did happen under a Parliamentary system. Whether it could do anywhere else is another non-sequitur, in that the Parliamentary system is shown to be prone to banal evils. The rape-grooming in the UK, after all, has gone on for about 20 years while known to police and social services all the while.

        You wrote, “A president is an emperor in drag.” Not at all true. The power of the US president is heavily hedged by Congress and the Supreme Court. A criminal president can be impeached and removed from office on conviction by the Senate.

        It should be obvious, even to someone living at the relative antipode, that a country with a “president for life” is not following “the American way.”

        As to the current election, Trump is not criminal but is heavily maligned by the press, while Clinton is a criminal and is coddled by the press. I don’t fear a Trump presidency, but a president Clinton makes me ill.

      • Brett, Cameron was gone by resignation, not by a party ejection or a Parliamentary no-confidence vote. Comparisons are fine, so long as they are not prejudiced.

      • “The power of the US president is heavily hedged by Congress and the Supreme Court. A criminal president can be impeached and removed from office on conviction by the Senate.”

        ++++++++++++++

        Of course, Pat, the power of Congress and the Supreme Court. I’d not taken that into account. In my lifetime (born between VE and VJ Days) I’ve seen numerous presidents reined in by Congress. Handcuffed, you might say. Yes, that power of the people, exercised through their representatives in the upper and lower houses has been a powerful steadying influence. Just refresh my memory, though. Which presidents have been corralled . . . I’m having difficulty bringing any to mind at the moment. There was Nixon, of course, forced out after what, three years of wrangling. But others . . .

        BTW: Imagine if it had taken three years instead of three days to remove Neville Chamberlain in 1940.

    • The more I read confessions like this, the more I reflect on the good fortune that most benighted subjects choose to linger under their constitutional monarchy, rather than to immigrate here and infest our constitutional republic.

  3. The United Nations just banned three Rebel Media journalists, blacklisting us from covering the upcoming UN global warming conference in Marrakech, Morocco.

    The one-line excuse offered by the UN is that we are “advocacy journalists”, a term they do not define and has been used by the UN before. You can see their letter here:
    http://www.therebel.media/let_us_report

    “The UN is refusing to let Sheila Gunn Reid, and a producer and a cameraman, attend the conference. But they’re letting in 3,000 other journalists, most of whom are wildly supportive of the UN’s global warming agenda.”

  4. Hillary Clinton having such true believers around in senior positions is scary. Hillary is too much of a machine politician to have many real beliefs that are not negotiable, but tolerating such a yahoo as a campaign manager is ominous.

    • A recent report has it that Hillary leaves most of the details up to her staff. They tell who to call and when, and what to say.

      • They even tell Hillary when to smile. On her teleprompter. It says “smile”, and Hillary smiles. Like a robot. How bizarre is this!

      • Hillary is such a robot that she’s even SAID the word “smile” rather than doing it. That’s what’s bizarre.

    • Podesta and Lehane are putting out a political road map for selling a policy choice as a Moral Crusade (to save the world). A crusade which is purely good vs. evil (no compromise necessary) and which incidentally has Science 100% on it’s side.
      As to the underlying issue of Global Warming, there is no indication that either one of them believes a word of it. It is politics and power all the way down.

  5. So now the worldwide climate system from pole to pole is “basic science”? REALLY? No complexities, nothing we don’t understand completely about it? And of course, no room for any questions or disagreements.

    Just Wow.

    Naked. Power. Grab.

    • And now to change the way things are measured, again.

      The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.

      Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

      After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed. We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”
      http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/

      “So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”

      “This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”

  6. “Leaked Clinton campaign memo on ‘climate change’ shows it’s really about politics, not science”
    So what do you expect of a campaign memo? Podesta’s job at the time was to manage politics, and he was hearing a pitch from a political consultant. Does that make for a scientific discussion?

    • Nick,

      As so often the case, you appear to reply to the title — giving no evidence that you read the post. The 438 words in the “Conclusion” address exactly that point — why this should not be just “about the politics”. That makes not just for bad policy, it is politically ineffective.

      • ‘why this should not be just “about the politics”’
        Yes. But all you’ve quoted is a political consultant pitching to a political manager. To them it’s all about the politics. That’s their job.

      • Sorry Nick–that’s a bogus argument. If “climate science” were truly a science, it wouldn’t need political patronage of the type provided by Podesta and Lehane. Instead, the Left uses “climate science” as just another lie to confuse and then control people.

        Democrats–the party of liars. Obama and Hillary are prime examples.

      • “Define the issue as between those who believe in the science, and therefore are taking steps to respond to the scientific findings, versus those who do not believe in the science. ”

        When they try to turn the method called science (which entails a lot of second guessing) into a deity called The Science that must not be questioned, its not longer just politics.

      • “If “climate science” were truly a science, it wouldn’t need political patronage of the type provided by Podesta and Lehane”
        It doesn’t. The thing is, voters care about it. And hence so do politicians, and political operatives.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        The thing is, voters care about it. And hence so do politicians, and political operatives

        But that’s not true, is it Nick. The voters don’t care about CC/AGW, as many polls have demonstrated – and which have been publicised on this blog.

    • “Does that make for a scientific discussion?”

      Of course it doesn’t.

      Given that climate “science” and its practitioners ceased to have any connection whatsoever with real science and real scientists some decades ago, why do you think it should?

    • “So what do you expect of a campaign memo? Podesta’s job at the time was to manage politics, and he was hearing a pitch from a political consultant. Does that make for a scientific discussion?”

      For this American, one who does not want my freedoms erased by such politics, am quite irritated by the hubris of this hack. He loves himself, not this country. Not this American idea. He is not a freedom lover. Send him to Australia, he needs a warm welcome from his brethren.

    • Had there been any strong science to quote in favour of their position it surely would have been included.

      • Huffpo, really? They have no credibility at all. Not that I’m a Hillary supporter (quite the opposite), but I’d believe the National Inquirer over huffpo any day.

    • I agree.

      There is nothing in this email that suggests that AGW is not based on sound science.

      Politicians have, for whatever reason accepted that something has to be done, thereafter it is a matter of politics as to how that something is done and how it is sold to the public.

      Nothing in the email surprises me.

      • “richard verney October 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm”

        Well me, I just don’t think I can co-exist with Evil. Aka, “our” Alinskyite wannabe First Lucyfer, although some Miracle must have allowed me to still exist throughout the Reign of the First Male Lucifer…so far. But just how much Hell can an “irredeemable deplorable” endure! Without “for whatever reason” becoming one with it…

    • Nick Stokes
      October 17, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      “Leaked Clinton campaign memo on ‘climate change’ shows it’s really about politics, not science”

      So what do you expect of a campaign memo? Podesta’s job at the time was to manage politics, and he was hearing a pitch from a political consultant. Does that make for a scientific discussion?

      That’s exactly what you are doing in your job, Nick. Don’t forget about your proof that ~”CO2-Climate Change is just like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in its early days,” and my equally resounding disproof that ~”I’m just like Albert Einstein, so there!” QED

  7. Since the Democrat ‘base’ covers the Green-Left I don’t see how she has any choice but to address the issue. If she did not we would be looking at a Sanders – Trump Contest. Give me Clinton any day, the devil you know and all that. At least if the wheels fall off climate science in the public perception sense she will be able to turn and savage the fraudsters. Realpolitic is that would be very hard now given all those Green-Left people who vote.

    Maybe if the US had compulsory voting it would be viable for her to come out as a skeptic.

    WHAAAAT – LEGISLATE FOR RESPONSIBLE ADULT BEHAVIOUR???? ARE YOU MAD?

  8. And on another front Kurdish Forces Iraqi Army Regulars and Iranian Shia Militias advancing on the I S Iraqi city of Mosul

    All backed by U S air strikes

    Obama Hilary and the Washington Establishment must be panicking at the prospect of a Trump win and a Repuplican Controlled Senate

    Ditch Climate Change there’s no votes in it.

  9. Add this political climate push to the text of the Clinton speeches to Wall Street money bags on financial reforms and you can see that the whole game is about looking busy and addressing public concerns no matter how wide the mark, no matter how many politicos feast on the policy move, no matter what the science, no matter what the facts, no matter the unintended consequences beyond three years out. If this playbook is ignored it is our dumb fault.

  10. Politics.
    “The end justifies the means.”

    Chris Lehane – When an attorney in the White House Counsel’s office, he and his current business partner Mark Fabiani called themselves the “Masters of Disaster” for their work as a “rapid-response” team responding to the many scandals of the Clinton Administration.

    When did these guys get involved with the Clintons? Were they part of the team to deal with Billy Goat’s “bimbo eruptions” when he ran the first time?

  11. “We can do better …”.
    ===========================
    Better at doing what Larry, selling Climate Catastrophism to ‘les deplorables’? And who are “we”?
    Another Delphic post from the enigmatic Editor.

    • Chris,

      “Better at doing what Larry…”

      Where might you find the answer to your question? Look in the preceding sentence!

      “There are better ways to handle major public policy issues. Climate change, our mad foreign wars, and our mishandling of so many other key challenges — these show our dysfunctional politics in action. “

      I’m glad to have helped. I’m unclear why you needed help.

      • But Clinton is sure to continue our dysfunctional politics. She is the candidate of the status quo. Trump is the candidate who wants to take another approach to climate change, which he recognizes is not a real problem, foreign wars, open borders, loss of jobs to foreign countries, etc. He may not be able to solve any of these problems, but he is the only one willing to try. And with his ego, if any of these problems can be solved, he will find a way to do it.

  12. In a democracy, you get to choose the cream of society to lead you (to the promised land ?).

    The USA has a population of ~320 million & a high % will be fine upright citizens, yet you end up having to decide between trash like Clinton & Trump !!! WTF !!!
    The old saying ‘scum floats to the top’ appears to be true.

    To see what happens next try reading – ‘Decline & fall of the Roman Empire’ Edward Gibbon; there are so many parallels it’s uncanny.

    What I’ve learned from history is…We never learn from history & think that doing the same again & again will lead to a different outcome.

    • Perhaps we are looking at the situation the wrong way round. We have to remember that Trump and Clinton are winners , the best of breed so to speak , of their respective tribes . They have defeated all competitors and are , in a Darwinian sense, the best fitted to succeed and reproduce (their doctrines and policies) in the society in which they dwell.
      If it is difficult to accept that it is because we think that our western society is basically decent , cultured , civilised and educated and that the naturally successful leaders would display those properties. But suppose our society is actually heading downward towards greed , deceit and selfish lust as the norms ?
      What sort of leaders would win the struggle for survival in such a society ? I think that we have seen the answer.

      • I think you are on to something. We have all of this technological progress, but everything of real value is in decline and has been for a long time.

      • What has Hillary “won”? Two-thirds of Americans define her as deceptive and untrustworthy. That’s not something I’d want written on a trophy.

  13. An interesting article and a worthwhile read about the political machinations. My read of it is Lehane took the climate science consensus as a given, and thereafter mapped how to use the issue of climate change in tactical to achieve the strategic political and social change goals. Smart, Machiavellian, ruthless, tactics to achieve the goals of your clients that pay you handsomely.

    From the conclusion:

    Describing climate change as a moral issue probably seemed like a sure winner to Lehane, especially with academia, journalists, and most NGOs as supporting players. But that prevented political compromise or any rational discussion of costs vs. benefits — both essential elements of successful public policy. It polarized the issue so that America has taken few measures to even prepare for the repeat of past weather (as Hurricane Matthew reminded us).

    Astute. A moral issue can be pursued with religious fervor. They tell their clients that to achieve the greater moral good, it is ok to commit a series of immoral acts.

    Define the issue as between those who believe in the science, and therefore are taking steps to respond to the scientific findings, versus those who do not believe in the science. The power of this approach is that it puts the opposition in an indefensible box (the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing); it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative(anti-women; anti-Latino; anti-gun safety; anti-common sense fiscal policy; and anti-science) that is raising basic trust issues for the Republican Party – especially with electorally decisive voter cohorts. You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office. …

    In otherwords, successful politics is about clear choices, black and white, not shades of grey. Show no doubt or uncertainty. Paint your opponents as how you see them, not as who they are. “Never do any enemy a small injury…”

      • Why do you think they failed? Everything is based on climate change, it s talked about as if it were fact, when it is complete bullsh…….it. from what I hear they have succeeded.

      • I agree with John. They succeeded in silencing the non-believers. They win the battle field uncontested.

        Remember Ted Cruz hearing (Dec 8, ’15) with Mark Steyn, Judith Curry, Will Happer? Every Democrat attended and used their 5 minutes. Cruz was the lone Republican except for one other who said his short piece and left the room. The Republicans lead to the battleground on “Data verses Dogma” chose to cede the field by default. The war is over and the Lehanes have won.

      • John,

        “from what I hear they have succeeded.”

        It is a political project to make large-scale public policy changes. Almost none of their policy goals have been achieved. The public support for them is low.

        So far they have been unable to translate their superior institutional power into policy action. We can only guess at why. But more important is the future — what might a Team Hillary do? As I’ve written, there are indications they plan bolder initiatives than Obama — both domestic and foreign.

      • No policy? They have the Paris Climate Accord. Obama has used that as a blank check, albeit in counterfeit money, to do as he pleases. He “ratifies” the Paris Accord together with China a few weeks ago. Completely unconstitutional, but no one will or can stop him, and he knows it. The EPA has the Clean Power Plan which will and is doing irreparable harm to the towns and citizens whose lives depend upon coal. Congress doesn’t stop it. Judicial review takes years. Even when under Temp Restraining Order, the CPP has a chilling effect on investment decisions.

        Define the issue as between those who believe in the science, and therefore are taking steps to respond to the scientific findings, versus those who do not believe in the science

        Man! that has worked like a charm! My hat’s off to them. Despicable as it is, it worked and continues to work. The only way to fight it is to publicly throw those very words back in their face, because it is FALSE on face. Science is never “all or nothing.”

  14. The Democrats love to talk about compromise, but what they are really interested in is defining who is wrong and who is right. Most of this distinction is unknowable. I mean when Obama says somebody is on the wrong side of history, how does he know and what the Heck does this mean anyway? This business of assigning blame and right/wrong is counterproductive to finding compromise (which I doubt Democrats are interested in) and enormously divisive and galling. I’m looking forward to another four years of this crapola with the Clinton syndicate.

    • The Democrats love to talk about compromise, but what they are really interested in is defining who is wrong and who is right.

      Exactly, as just revealed from a wiki-leak.

  15. Yes, it is really a matter of science. The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and through the ages Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels cannot possible have been the cause. The current rate of climate change is so slow that it takes a large network of sophisticated instruments used over a long period of time to have any change at detecting it And even then it has been impossible to separate current climate change from naturally occurring weather cycles. There is scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water but there is no such evidence that CO2 adds to the warming. There is scientific reasoning that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 did really affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

    The AGW conjecture is full of holes and is based upon only a partial understanding of science. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. A real greenhouse stays warm because of a convective greenhouse effective. There is no radiative greenhouse effect provided for by LWIR absorbing greenhouse gases that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. As derived from first principles, the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer because of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and effects of gravity then if there were no atmosphere. It is all a convective greenhouse effect where gravity limits cooling by convection. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases On Earth there is no additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres. There is no radiant greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system. Without the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is nothing.

    The initial rough calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 have been found to be too great by a factor of 20 because the initial calculations neglected to include the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would serve to slightly lower the dry lapse rate which in itself is a cooling effect which would offset any radiative warming effects. A good absorber is also a good radiator so more CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would serve to make the Earth a more efficient LWIR radiator to space. This is another cooling effect that the AGW conjecture ignores. Then there is the H2O feedback effect which has to have been negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved over more than the past 500 million years. What the AGW conjecture ignores is the fact that besides being the primary so called greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which for the most part some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The wet lapse rate is significantly larger than the dry lapse rate which adds further evidence to the cooling effect of H2O. The AGW conjecture depends upon H2O to provide a positive feedback to any warming that CO2 might provide but there is plenty of rationale to support the idea that H2O feedback must be negative. Ath AGW conjecture also ignores the fact that in the troposphere, heat energy transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat energy transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation.

    Politically, I believe that Mankind;s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible is not a good idea and I would have liked to have added AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is more fantasy then science and I cannot defend it. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    • I believe that Mankind;s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible is not a good idea …

      Actually, I think we are becoming more efficient. If we were still using hundred year old technology, we would be using more fuel and other materials.

      Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country’s population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. Dematerialization

      See also Ephemeralization

      • Before the fuel runs out we must switch to alternate sources of energy and we must control our own population to a level where alternate sources of energy will be sufficient for our needs. New developments in technology may be giving us hundreds of years more to solve this problem but the clock is ticking. Just two hundred years ago transportation did not involve fossil fuels and wood was the primary fuel for heating buildings. Fossil fuels are already becoming harder to find as evidenced by fossil fuel companies having to seek fossil fuel resources underneath the sea floor and in the arctic. In terms of human evolution a few hundred years is not long at all.

      • … wood was the primary fuel for heating buildings.

        It takes a lot of wood to heat an old farm house.

        In Plainfield, Vermont, Donny Osman will heat his farmhouse with about six cords of wood this year at a cost of $230 each. link

        A cord is about three and a half cubic meters of wood.

        My city house is well insulated and my natural gas furnace is 98% efficient. Heating my house costs a tiny fraction of what it costs to heat a Vermont farmhouse. It’s possible to go farther and have a house whose net energy consumption is zero. net-zero

        We are on the right trajectory. The problem is that people don’t appreciate the tremendous improvements we have made in fuel and material efficiency.

        Buckminster Fuller was right. We can do a lot more with much less. The Club of Rome was wrong. Society has not collapsed because of the depletion of certain raw materials. As one wit put it, the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

    • I can’t be sure what are really fossil fuels and what are geologically produced hydrocarbons these days. Coal is self-evidently compressed biomass, but oil comes from much deeper than even fossils are found and seeps to the surface on its own. I can’t help but question the conventional idea that it no longer is being produced by the same planet that cranked it out to trap Mastodons in tar pits.

      • Sure, what we call fossil fuels are being replaced but the process is very slow compared to the rate at which we have been burning them up. Just 200 years ago there was almost no use of fossil fuels and already they are becoming harder and more expensive to find. Using them up at a much faster rate then they are being created means that some day we are going to run out. Our current civilization cannot just go without energy for several million years while supplies replenish.

    • willhaas, may I suggest you read Merchants of Despair, by PhD nuclear engineer Robert Zubrin, re our safe nuclear powered future, & the past slaughters of human populations by the antihumanists behind the warming/climate hoax?
      Zubrin has 9 patents granted or pending, & his research, reasoning & this book are compelling.
      The past slaughters are such as the forced famines in Ireland & India.

      On the resources question, I believe you might enjoy The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian Simon.
      Simon won a $10,000 bet against Paul Ehrlich, fellow “genius” John Holdren (& another) re resources availability & costs. Noticing that throughout human history the trend for commodities prices was downward, Simon let Ehrlich & Holdren +1 choose their 5 metals ,copper ,chrome ,nickel, tin & tungsten & their time period, 10 years. When the bet finalised, Sept 1990, the price of every metal had fallen.
      Simon offered to repeat the bet, at higher stakes. The Ehrlich group refused.
      Simon also convincingly makes the case that greater population numbers lead directly to greater prosperity.
      In economics, it seems, as in the climate/warming scam, it pays to dig behind the claimed consensus/propaganda.
      Well worth a read.

      John Doran.

    • “Control populations” …

      I just hope you are first in line to get sterilized. … put your actions where your mouth is.

      • “I just hope you are first in line to get sterilized. … put your actions where your mouth is.”

        I did it years ago, since then I’ve had tons of fun.
        My nick name in certain quarters was ‘Everard’.

  16. I don’t think the memo proves much. You won’t mobilize many people with dry science facts. People respond much more to moral arguments. “Think of the children!”

    The other thing they will do is try to point the Republicans into a corner.

    Their problem is that a large portion of the population no longer trusts experts. They can’t find fault with the experts’ facts and logic but they have seen them be wrong more often than they are right.

    The Democrat party has embraced a well graduated elite. These people will believe anything said by any other of their number. They’re just so much smarter than the peasants. They love complexity because it proves how smart they are. They are the ones who gave us the complicated financial shenanigans that led to the 2008 meltdown (among other things). They are a bunch of out-of-touch, entitled little s**ts.

  17. Clearly, the goal is not to “save the planet” but to subjugate every facet of human existence to the State.

    Real Human Freedom can be measured in terms of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies. Real Freedom is inversely proportional to the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person is forced to endure. The fewer the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the more Freedom they possess. The greater the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the less Freedom they possess.

    • Obligations are those entities for which a person is Financially and Ethically bound.
    • Regulations are those authoritative decrees which a person must obey.
    • Dependencies are those estates where a person is void of self-determination.

    Totalitarianism grows itself by “solving” one problem after another with a solution that inevitably involves more Obligations to the State, more Regulations by the State, and more Dependencies on the State.

    Health Care and Global Warming are just two examples.

    It is a simple but bloody effective formula to accomplish the ultimate end.

    “I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

    II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

    III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.” – Étienne-Gabriel Morelly (French Communist and Author), Code of Nature

    http://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/morelly/code-nature.htm

  18. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Masters of Disasters” Fabiani and Lehane confirm that issues of environmental catastrophe play into quite a number of the Lefts/Progressives social agendas, namely power and control.

    The UN and its environmental agencies, UNEP and their ‘sciencey’ arm, the IPCC, have used Global Warning aka Climate Change to push their globalist agenda for decades:

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

    More recently this stunning admission from IPCC leader, Ottmar Edenhoffer, in November 2010 :

    “We (UN IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”
    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore…”

    And this from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change in 2014 :

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

    In other words, use climate policy (through climate alarmism) to change the structure of the worlds successful free-market capitalist economies to the failed statist communist model.

    Nice one Wikileaks and the Podesta emails – the gift that keeps on giving!

    • Climatism has it precisely correct. The warming/climate, because it’s not warming, hoax is a deindustrialisation/depopulation agenda, dressed up as an environmental/resources agenda.

      The reason is control. The money masters’ fiat money created out of thin air & lent out at interest (fraud & usury) scam in which all Western govts are complicit, is grinding to a halt.
      All money is created as debt, & more debt is created to pay the interest on this debt.
      It’s an upside down pyramid of usury which is crumbling. Madness.

      Far fewer people in a post-industrial future will be far easier to control our Feudal money master lords intend.
      3.5 hr video: Bill Still Money Masters
      Book: The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin.

      John Doran.

  19. “There is a large gap between the certainty of warming since the early 19th century plus the large role of anthropogenic forcings since 1950 — and the massive unknowns driving climate during the 21st century. ”

    Oh, so Fab one deems himself worthy to state as a fact the “large role of anthropogenic forcings since 1950” . . and thus reenforce my disrespect and suspicion. Congrats ; )

    • John,

      Life will go on despite your disrespect.

      Almost all scientists considered “skeptics” — including many whom I respect and whose opinion I rely on — believe that anthropogenic factors (e.g., atmospheric emissions, land use changes, aerosols, soot deposits) have had a large role since 1950.

      • “Almost all scientists considered “skeptics” ”

        I don’t do vicarious scientific thinking, sir. It’s silliness to me.

        “… — including many whom I respect and whose opinion I rely on — believe that anthropogenic factors (e.g., atmospheric emissions, land use changes, aerosols, soot deposits) have had a large role since 1950.”

        Then you ought to write the words “I believe” in such declarations as I commented on (or some such qualifier), and you will at least gain a bit of my respect. Talking as though you are an infallible God ain’t impressive to me.

  20. Aside from bringing the U.S. back to stone age. I guess keeping the third world from cheap reliable power requiring them to burn crap and die of respiratory problems is all part of leftiy’s “morality” what a bunch of unbelievable a-holes.

  21. Bingo JK- Fabius invariably laments the LW statists when caught in lies and machinations not because it indicts their constructs, but because it hinders the effectiveness of their propaganda campaign.

    Hansen’s 88 nonsensical “science”- Santer’s outright IPCC lie- the ridiculous hockey stick- acidity lies- SLR lies- absurd adjustments, hurricane, drought, polar bear lies…It’s all lies…

    Pretty soon you find yourself saying things like “large role of anthropogenic forcings since 1950.”

    BTW- 2nd to last paragraph : (would allow)?

  22. The US, as most would like to view it, is gone. Hillary will be elected, and the liberal news media will continue to push her agenda. The media has shown this year, that they will do whatever is required , to see their chosen candidate elected. That is a lot of power!

    One way to quantify how truly biased the news media is, is to simply understand that while Hillary is incredibly unpopular with the public, she is still VERY popular within the news media.

    • Matt,

      “The US, as most would like to view it, is gone.”

      Have confidence in the Republic. It was designed to outlast fits and fads, mania and maniac leaders. Power is decentralized on Fed, State, and local levels and between three branches — plus the bureaucracy.

      People have declared the Republic finished in every generation since the Founding. Most of them are dead and the Republic still rolls on.

      • It is a form of occultism, to my mind, to think that our Republic is somehow safeguarded against collapse by virtue of some people having said it’s collapse was imminent in the past. That such utterly weak logical inference appears in your comment, renders your opinion on the matter essentially irrelevant, to me, Editor . . for if you will include such pablum in your arguments, I can’t have confidence in your treatment of other aspects of the question at hand, naturally.

  23. “…one needs to have an organizing platform that defines the Administration as being morally on the right side of the issue”

    These are some of the same people who made fun of the Moral Majority and insisted “you can’t legislate morality.” Now, they want to redefine morality as opposition to climate change and legislate it. You can’t make this stuff up.

  24. “You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office.”

    First, they redefine basic science as something that matches their political beliefs. Then they want to require everyone who holds public office to adopt their definition. They would be incensed if anyone else did the same thing and tried to force it down their throats. But even if they had the science right, there is no requirement in the Constitution to “believe in basic science” in order to hold public office. They’re just making up their own rules like the little wannabe dictators they are.

  25. The power of this approach is that it puts the opposition in an indefensible box (the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing); it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative… You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office…

    It’s a story old as time! The weavers (Of narratives), the con game of the “confidence man” and the scams of rogues always play to the egos of their marks*:

    One day there came to the city two rogues who set themselves up as weavers. They said; but the cloth could not be seen by any one who was stupid or unfit for his office. “I must have some clothes made from this cloth,” thought the Emperor. “When I wear them, I shall find out what men in my empire are not fit for their places. I shall know the clever men from the dunces. Those weavers must be brought to me at once.” – Hans Christian Andersen The Emperor’s New Clothes

    *A confidence trick is known as a con game, a con, a scam, a grift, a hustle etc. The intended victims are known as “marks”. ;-)

  26. The power of this approach is that it puts the opposition in an indefensible box (the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing); it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative… You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office…

    It’s a story old as time! The weavers (Of narratives), the con game of the “confidence man” and the scams of rogues always play to the egos of their marks:

    One day there came to the city two rogues who set themselves up as weavers. They said; but the cloth could not be seen by any one who was stupid or unfit for his office. “I must have some clothes made from this cloth,” thought the Emperor. “When I wear them, I shall find out what men in my empire are not fit for their places. I shall know the clever men from the dunces. Those weavers must be brought to me at once.” – Hans Christian Andersen The Emperor’s New Clothes

  27. The power of this approach is that it puts the opposition in an indefensible box (the vast majority of people believe the science that climate is changing); it fits into what we call the Troglodyte Narrative… You either believe in basic science or you are against basic science — in which case you fail a basic requirement for being capable of occupying public office…

    It’s a story old as time! The weavers (Of narratives), the “confidence men” always play to the egos of their marks:

    One day there came to the city two rogues who set themselves up as weavers. They said; but the cloth could not be seen by any one who was stupid or unfit for his office. “I must have some clothes made from this cloth,” thought the Emperor. “When I wear them, I shall find out what men in my empire are not fit for their places. I shall know the clever men from the dunces. Those weavers must be brought to me at once.” – Hans Christian Andersen The Emperor’s New Clothes

    • I had not seen this video before, and note that it makes a similar point that I made above, namely:

      .Democracy is presently standing at a junction throughout the Western world. Here in the UK, we have voted to leave the UK, but attempts are a foot, to subvert that vote and not give effect to that vote or water it down so as to render it all but meaningless. Throughout Europe, similar themes are being played out. The EU replaced a democratically elected Italian prime-minster and has since shoe horned in a couple of unelected prime-ministers. Across Europe people want a vote on the EU and the direction it is going, but are being denied that opportunity by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. In America, we will see whether the US constitution will be reinterpreted as government by the elite for the benefit of the elite, as opposed to government by the people for the people.

      At no time have I ever cared more about the outcome of the US election.

      PS:

      voted to leave the UK

      Should have read:

      voted to leave the EU

      • Richard

        This is the second video from the Belgium politician that is going around. Sorry I don’t have first at hand.

  28. Mother Nature does not do politics.
    Thermalization of terrestrial radiation explains why CO2 (or any other gas which does not condense in the atmosphere) has no significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com identifies the three factors which do (98% match with measured, 1895-2015). Blaming CO2 for warming is misguided science.

    Water vapor has made earth warm enough to be habitable. Water vapor in the atmosphere (measured as TPW (Total Precipitable Water) has been measured by satellite and is reported by NASA/RSS under http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product with latest numerical data at ftp://ftp.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201609.time_series.txt (they only report the previous month. last 2 digits (09) are the month)
    Increasing water vapor is the only significant factor countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. Water vapor is hundreds if not thousands of times more effective at warming the planet than CO2 would be even if effect of CO2 wasn’t made insignificant by thermalization.

    Switching from coal to natural gas adds water vapor increasing the probability of flooding.

  29. =========
    “Clinton’s probable win (in March I predicted a landslide) Lehane and his fellow activists a second chance.”
    =========

    “…would give Lehane…a second chance…,” I suppose you meant to say.

    More importantly, a “win” for Hillary is improbable without a lot of post-normal adjustments occurring on election day.

    Successfully convincing Trump supporters that they have probably lost the race already would likely discourage many of them from actually voting. Was that an objective of the author, perhaps?

    If Hillary was truly electable, she wouldn’t need dead people and illegal immigrants registering to vote, she wouldn’t require proudly-biased full-spectrum support from the professional liars in establishment media (~2/3rds of Americans don’t trust them), and she wouldn’t need agent provocateurs engaged in the evil shenanigans documented in that viral video (2.2+ million views on day1) AndyG55 posted in his comment above.

    • Amen, Hillary really isn’t even Campaigning. And Trump’s overall attendance numbers including the Primary, give him an “inciting violence” number of about 2 out of maybe as much as 1 Million attendees. One of those violent guys was a Black Vet who took out a male “protestor” who had been or was still wearing a KKK hood. The Dems got that right. I’ve been trying to get it out via #BlackTwitter that the Dems Founded the KKK, Jim Crow Laws, and the “#DemoKKKratGhettos”; as well as other historical items showing that they’ve nearly always been the Racists.

      The other violent Trumpster was ~80 years old. But the AstroTurf Operation below tries to incite the people waiting outside in line, placing a trained “victim” where they know the Media will be waiting to film. Even their old COPD “victim” on Oxygen apparently had to be sure to get to the front of the line by showing up at 6am.

      Project Veritas has just released another of its “outings”, Part 1, showing exactly how the “victims” are admittedly manufactured by a super secret “double blind deniability” method keeping the Clinton Campaign separate from the Big on-the-ground AstroTurf Operation that Veritas investigated. But then the Operation admits and details how it works, on tape, to Project Veritas and calls Trump’s supporters “psychotic”!

      I’d already seen more of this kind of Projection and Denial in the wiki-leaks. They seem to need to accuse the eeeville Trumpsters of what they are doing, because they simply can’t conceptualize a different level of thought from theirs. But we sure do know theirs.

      I’d already concluded and tweeted that Hillary’s Sex-Assault Bimbo’s were essentially AstroTurfed and lying, because this is what the Dems and Hillary Clinton do; and two of Trump’s alleged “victims” of misogyny had already been pretty much outed as confabulating. That itself tars the rest of them and also by the “false in one, false in all” presumption allowed, according the We The Jury. And it wrongly tars real victims of sexual assault and worse, as they do actually exist in large numbers resulting from Hillary’s own role in promoting and nurturing the existence of ISIS, and etc.; which is well documented according to the statements of Brennan and General Flynn, who were there in the Administration as ISIS seeded and burgeoned as “The JV”.

      It’s up to Chris Wallace to finally rightfully destroy Hillary Clinton in the 3rd Presidential Debate. And I try to let the offending MSM know that “We The People” are watching them, including Fox News. Who knows what Chris will do? I’ve tried to let him know about our very serious concern and focus and the likely results if Hillary wins. And I referred him to his own Father, Mike, who got suckered by Ahmadinejad when he visited Iran, because of the Dictator’s “charm”. But where had Mike been for the whole rest of his life! Dictators aren’t going to appear as Bela Lugosi’s Dracula when they are trying to fool people.

      Has Chris Wallace been fooling himself the whole time?

      Thanks to Trump, I’ve now noticed that a lot of seemingly rational Pundits are severely disabled by their lack of experience in the Real World outside of their Bubble. Trump’s outed them too, as well as the whole comfy Establishment Cabal that essentially wants to Rule us. It started off in the case of allegedly “Conservative Journalists” with the statements of noted Baseball Stat Expert, George Will, who’s going to vote for Hillary: After Trump had visited the Border and talked to the Border Agents who’ve now endorsed him, Will immediately said “Trump doesn’t do evidence.” Like that obtained from talking to actual Border Agents? But Will stuck with what he’d said, and it only got worse as he escalated his name-calling to anyone even considering the question of the plague of illegal Alien crime, which by now is easily proven, and thus to me! By implication. So I in turn envision Will’s future as getting a room with Tim McCarver and pouring over Baseball Stats for the rest of their lives. A little money to the Clinton Foundation could be the only other price George will pay.

      • “the plague of illegal Alien crime, which by now is easily proven”

        PJ Media got hold of the still undenied Official Crime Stats in Texas over a 6 year period. There were 3000 murders by illegals total, from which someone could calculate the per cent Murders/year by illegals in Texas, by getting the total murders there per year. It came out to ~500/1200 or so, or greater than 40%! I almost still can’t believe it, but that’s what I got.

  30. This whole election, and the fate of climate policy in the US, and around the world, comes down to the potential appointments to the SCOTUS.

    If the public wants to hand the LEFT long term control over the government, and the opportunity to ram every crazy left wing idea down the public’s throat, then by all means, elect Billiary. She will ensure SCOTUS appointments that will bastardize the US Constitution, and rubber stamp every left wing idea, and rule every conservative position as unconstitutional. The EPA will be able to do whatever it pleases with Greenpeace as its advisor.

    It is the “leftists” utopia!!! …. laws and regs that affect the masses, sentencing them to “equal poverty for all”, while exempting the liberal (DNC and RNC), inside the beltway political class.

    Humanity is about to take one more giant leap backwards to the feudal system of old if the crook gets elected.

    • Exactly, and the “conservative” Never Trumps better start thinking about their own personal “Legacy”.

      • The “Never Trumpers” should go ahead and sport “Hilliary for President” stickers on their bumpers.

        I don’t care if you don’t like the guy, she is a far worse alternative.

      • “Dr. Deanster October 18, 2016 at 7:19 am”

        Right, since they’re so proud of their “Conscience”, why don’t they sport it? But their call for help demands ours! Otherwise they might be mistaken for Irredeemable Deplorables or even America Sympathizers!

  31. When it comes to the NWO agenda using lies like Climate Change people need to start using the common sense God gave them. Climate change is what the climate has done through it’s entire existence long before man could do anything to hurt it. We have had extra warm periods and extra cold periods throughout it’s history and the water has not risen hardly at all and not even noticeably for the last 100 years. Remember Al the whore Gore said Florida would be under water by 2012 and the ice caps melted? I am still high and dry in Florida and have not seen a difference in the beaches for the last 25 years.

  32. We know the left change data that suits the narrative on climate change. Why do we think that the same won’t happen ( and isn’t happening ) with this election. When politics is involved corruption knows no bounds.

Comments are closed.