President Trump could help – and force climate alarmists to answer questions they’ve ignored
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.
Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.
The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies.
Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.
They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues.
Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.
That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.
That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.
But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.
Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”
Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling.
1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can alarmists ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?
2) Your “manmade climate chaos” thesis – and computer models that support it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions and feedbacks they generate have replaced numerous powerful natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over?
Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?
3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms?
4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces?
5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?
6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?
7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?
8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?
9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?
Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Flat Earth Myth
Obama and other climate alarmists are so ignorant of logic and of Science and the Scientific method (or malicious) that they descend to the rhetorical false accusation that climate skeptics are members of a fictional anti-scientific “Flat Earth society.”
See also Flat Earth Myth
Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991
“Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.”
Don’t worry,
There are far too many liberals in my country already – believe me.
Here is one http://heightweighnetworth.com/helen-clark/
This is a more typical picture without the air brushing.
I like the way these liberals take and honour vows of poverty 🙂
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.
Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.”
Another Paul Driessen must-read masterpiece…
This is an excellent and concise essay that should be considered in every gathering of the so called “Climate Conferences ” when they are held (seemingly monthly) and honestly be part of the debate
The Earth’s climate has never, EVER, been static. It, frankly, is what it is. Man’s impact on the climate is infinitesimal at best. I call your attention to the book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” authored by Mark Steyn which chronicles the incessant mis-characterization of the so called facts. It is eye opening to those who have been victims of the official Media
Thank you for the essay
AndyG55:
Now that is curious, as I find the UAH looking like this (and even from this source).
Also here is RSS for the “North pole”.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Polar_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Delving deeper, look here…
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
At the bottom of the file you see trends listed.
For NoPol it is 0.24C/Dec
For the Globe it is 0.12.
Just as in the recently ended slow-down in warming- you must look at the long-term trend.
So it’s warming twice as fast.
Of course this is UAH v6 beta5, which revised temps down.
So if we take a look at the previous v5.6 file….
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
We find that there the NoPol is 0.42
And the Globe 0.15.
So in one fell swoop Christy and Spencer nearly halve the trend, whereby it was warming nearly 3x as fast.
Now what was it about the surface record being *altered*?
Let me posit this heretical hypothetical.
If any of the surface data records were to, err *alter* their trends by a factor of 2, let alone in the warming direction.
Wot would your reaction be?
Remember the Sat temp record is the “Gold standard” (Curry).
Probably along the lines of “we trust them”.
Did you also trust Mears when RSS was top, I mean the coldest in the pile?
You can gather I know your MO.
You may also gather I don’t spend time down the rabbit-hole with hand-waving cherry-picking …… *sceptics*.
TaTa
Thank you for the link to the UAH data , but I was a bit surprised that you did not comment on the asymmetry of the trends (1981 – 2016) wrt to northern and southern hemispheres .
Earlier version revised version
Trends : Global : 0.15 0.12
(land 0.19 0.17)
(ocean: 0.13 0.11)
North hemisphere: 0.21 0.15
(land 0.24 0.18)
(ocean: 0.18 0.13)
South hemisphere : 0.10 0.10
(land 0.10 0.14)
(ocean: 0.10 0.09)
N pole: 0.48 0.24
(land 0.42 0.22)
(ocean: 0.50 0.27)
S Pole : -0.01 -0.01
(land -0.00 0.06)
(ocean: -0.02 -.04)
Do you attribute this difference to a greater influence of the ocean in the southern hemisphere , or a lower anthropogenic effect , ie fewer centres of high population density .
Did you pick up from previous comments that the arctic sea ice , this year , and not previously , is recovering in stages of rapid growth , separated by no or negative growth , as if it is being pulsed- what could that mechanism be ? Is there a PhD thesis here on something novel meteorologically speaking?
I wont ask if you think that a global trend of 0.15Kelvin in 30 years justifies the hysteria with which the media greet such figures?
The real issue is that the whole of the satellite data just happens to coincide with the upward leg and now, flat top of the AMO.
Linear trends are basically a pointless exercise, especially when you understand that the warming also happens in “events”, .
But that AMO is slowly starting to turn downwards.
Your graphsare from aprox 1979 to 2012. Do you really think they show you anything? That record cannot trend anything because it is not long enough to have even caught one cycle of any natural variation let alone prove Co2 is doing anything. Sadly too, the degradation of data from these sources can often go unrecognized for months or years before they totally fail calling into question when did they start to fail. I also call into question your 2012 cut off.. um it is 2016 they have more current graphs. PS who decided what the perfect ice mass would be on this planet? I certainly did not get a vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
?w=700
“Also here is RSS for the “North pole”.”
Straight across all the El Nino jumps, just like other monkeys do.
ZERO attempt to see what is actually happening.
Well done, Toneb.
Now look at it in terms of major El Ninos events and the AMO.. see if you can figure it out yourself….
….. rather than having one of the climate change propaganda priests do it for you.
Yawn, you yet again, don’t comprehend that the UAH adjustment was because of KNOWN issues with the satellite
Surface data changes are much greater over time, so much so that the 1940 peak that was in NCAR has now been all but squashed from existence… and those changes are based purely on a fabricated WHIM and a political agenda.
Poor Tonedumb… you need to look at what is happening between climate events.
Here is UAH NoPol between 1980 and 1995.
And here is UAH NoPol between 2000 and the start of the 2015/16 El Nino
The trends you mention are basic mathematical trends, which RELY TOTALLY on the El Nino type steps.
Sorry if you don’t have the basic intelligence to figure that out. I can’t help you find that.
And BTW: The Antactic interior will be the very last place on Earth to warm, which would be evident with even a modicum of meteorology/climatology knowledge, and not the myopic CO2 is the only cause option blindly assumed here.
‘CO2 is the only cause option’ is never assumed here. It’s the Climatology crowd who believe that CO2 is a dominant factor. This is a sceptical (e.g. science) site.
Round here we suspect that all the trace gases with a radiative effect are a merely minor cause that is swamped by heats of evaporation and convection and the albedo alterations from land use change.
The latter factor being a major reason why Antarctica is least affected by climate change.
CO2 is not a cause at all..
Never was..
Never will be.
“and not the myopic CO2 is the only cause option blindly assumed here.”
And really tonedumb… the fact that you think most people here consider CO2 has having anything more than a zero or very minor warming effect, shows just how incredibly DUMB you really are !!
That “myopic view” comes totally from the propaganda of the climate totalitarians.
Are you one of those? .. or are you capable of rational thought?
Does anoyone know why gallery.surfacestations.org is down? Even the contact email doesn’t work!
On question 5, no one is trying to hide any methodologies. Land, sea, and satellite data are accessible to anyone. Feel free to assimilate all data yourself.
A splendidly written article (once again) from the fearless Paul Driessen: WONDERFUL STUFF !
He correctly states “poor countries”: he does NOT use “that other” horrid expression.
Trolls, cling-ons, eco-tards, bedwetters, greenpissers and the snowflake generation are advised to study … well … everything here at WUWT and then make suitable apologies to Mr. Watts and all his fine contributors.
I mean, WTF has carbonated oxygen got to do with warmin’ mi’ planet ?
WL
(writing from planet “earth”).
Please!!!
Just get them to do science! Get them to make a hypothesis, then predict some effects from that hypothesis, then look for them. Straight Feynman stuff.
If they can prove it following normal scientific methodology, I’ll believe it…
Dear WUWT folks
I HIGHLY recommend submitting your resume to this webpage. The Trump transition ppl do use it as a database. I also highly encourage submitters to look beyond advocating for your particular niche and instead view this as an opportunity to serve the greatest country on earth APPLYING your expertise.
https://www.greatagain.gov/serve-america.html
Funny link you have:
“Secure Connection Failed”
Is this a sign from god?
So it’s assumed climate skeptics will now have a stage. The MSM won’t change their support. The governments that support Climate Change aren’t going to change their ideology. States will still be able to mandate climate policy. Four years is nothing for the alarmists to wait out. We couldn’t even capitalize on 20 years of no statistical AGW or natural temperature rise. The AGW supporters aren’t going to dismount that tiger easily. I hope Ebell has a good plan and we/skeptics don’t squander this gift.
Get involved by writing to Ebell. Tell him what you think should be done. The weighted mass of intelligent opinion matters most during transitional moments.
I wrote to Trump’s site. Ebell isn’t official in his position yet and still attached to the CEI.
Cant hurt to send to Ebell. He is in charge of the transition team for EPA.
For Mike (con’t thread)
You’re wise to be aware .. to be eyes wide open. They are telegraphing what they are doing. It’s the Marxist playbook. At the same time they do that 1000s more frogs jump out of the water as they see its not some nutty theory but in fact rooted in a playbook that was most recently executed during the Bolshevik revolution.
The above observation is noted by organizations that tract content on the internet.
The awakening is growing since DJT got elected.
knutesea November 27, 2016 at 4:41 pm
The interesting question is who is in charge.
People like to think it is Hillary but she started out as a tool.
Certain people have dropped off the radar. So what are they doing?
Calm before the storm.
So are we going to have the courts involved again? I don’t think the S. Court wants to be dragged in.
We both know this is heading that way as does everyone else. 2000 all over again.
michael
http://truthfeed.com/breaking-cnn-finally-admits-that-the-recount-is-pointless-and-wont-change-election-results/38229/
the numbers arent there
this article does a good job of splaining
as per the “whose in charge question” its always best to track back to the money
anthony runs SCIENCE blog and while obviously CAGW is a money/politics scam i think
it would be disrespectful on my part of start hammering his content with globalist themes
there is an excellent NSA whistleblower source who went to jail for his convictions.
Scott Bennet <~~~~~ his you tube vid is well worth a look see concerning the wider HSBC/UBS cash flows
the left will continue to throw up drama between here and swearing in
thinkers should also suspect that bigger drama is gonna go down in europe
we are living thru history my friend AND we are creating momentum
there are just TOO many of us who woke up
Tom Steyer seems to be one of the more vocal and moneyed climate crusaders in California.
Checkout The Guardian they even call Trump a sceptic instead of a denier!
nothing like reality to sober people up from their delerium. 1 degree DROP in temperature.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html
I just live in Thailand about 20 ° C warmer than Germany. I assure you, it’s fine to live with this temperature. There are no draughts or hurricane here, only its raining sometimes. But in December there will be more moderate temperatures – about 25 to 28 °C and less rain. I don’t need a heater or so much clothing, mostly I wear only some swim trunks. BTW nobody here is worrying about climate or change. The king of Thailand died some weeks ago, They are mourning for one year! Ok, its a regional climate, but the arctic warming is a regional climate too. I wonder if it makes sense here to form an average and to calculate a super regional climate?
Averaging land temperature anomalies from different latitudes could lead to some problems (polar amplification) when deriving global averages. Averaging sea water temperature anomalies with land air temperature anomalies is a crock.
Mr. Driessen;
Thank you for your summary and for revealing your concise findings on the nature of AGW advocacy. I believe each of your points convincing in themselves and together form a compelling indictment.
You efforts are sincerely appreciated.
With my dyslexia I read this as the 5 stages of climate Griff…they are all wrong!
Did you mean the 5 stages of climate grifters, Patrick?
From the Urban Dictionary:
A grifter is someone who swindles you through deception or fraud.
Synonyms include fraudster, con artist, cheater, confidence man, scammer, hustler, swindler, etc.
1) That grifter swindled me out of £250,000!
2) “The first rule of grifting is, you can’t cheat an honest man.”
-Quote from the BBC show “Hustle.”
#fraudster #con artist #cheater #confidence man #scammer #hustler #swindler
+++
‘don’t mourn organise’ are my watchwords
Just this last week the Economist Intelligence Unit and Standard and Poor have issued reports saying renewable energy is going to continue growing despite Trump and that he won’t be able to do anything to restart the US coal industry.
go look them up…
and the climate stubbornly refuses to demonstrate the world isn’t warming…
Skeptics really can’t keep ignoring or excusing the current situation in the arctic, that it is the warmest year ever and other climate caused problems like droughts (e.g. Bolivia)
It will be interesting to watch the counter factual Trump administration playing out against the real world…
… even if Americans will lose out.
Watermelons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
5 stages of climate grief vs. 8 traits of psychological climate totalism
——
1) Milieu control. True believers long to create an environment “containing no more and no less” than their “truth.”
2) Mystical manipulation. The ideology is a higher purpose in itself, and its leaders chosen by History to lead the way towards Truth. All must trust in and obey the ideology and its leaders.
3) Demand for purity. All “taints” must be removed and “anything done to anyone” in the name of attaining purity is excusable, even moral – including the continual denouncement of the impure. The ideology creates a narrow, suffocating world of guilt and shame, in which one must perpetually strive for perfection and expect humiliation for failing to achieve it.
4) Cult of confession. Confession is an act of self-surrender to the group; individuals must retain no intellectual/emotional/social privacy. Confession could be an opportunity for catharsis, but through repetition becomes a performance, often a “histrionic public display.” It becomes impossible to maintain a healthy balance between self-worth and humility. Furthermore, the perpetual confession becomes a means of judging others (“the more I accuse myself, the more I have the right to judge you.”)
5) Sacred science. The ideology simultaneously “transcends ordinary concerns of logic” and claims scientific truth. (Thus any criticism becomes “unscientific,” backward as well as selfish and morally wrong.) Such a worldview can provide comfort via the excuse to avoid more rigorous kinds of knowledge-seeking.
6) Loading the language. Thought-terminating clichés reduce large, complex issues to brief, simple, definitive-sounding phrases that are easy to remember and repeat. Totalist language is repetitious, jargony, and relentlessly judgmental. Linguistic deprivation stifles critical thought.
7) Doctrine over person. Reality is constructed as a morality play with stock characters of good and evil experiencing abstract emotions. This myth replaces individual experience. Any individual’s unique nature/potential must be molded to fit the ideology. The past must be re-written. The ideology is what is valid and therefore true.
8) Dispensing of existence. The ideology is clear about who has the right to exist and who does not. Outsiders are less than human. Insiders can also become less than human if “contaminated” by affiliation with outsiders. Thus, individuals must fear ideological annihilation. “I believe/obey, therefore I am.”
———————
Heaven’s Climate Gate, meets Jim Klimate-Kool-Aid Jones in 5,4,3,2,…
Good Grief!
What’s wrong with college kids having Play Doh. There would be no Republic without Play Doh.
The polar bears of Churchill, Ontario would like to invite all climate alarm crybabies and President Trump-hating, move-to-Canada types to the Great White North. They want you to be happy in a new home in Canada, camped out beside Hudson Bay, where you can watch the grand annual spectacle of the sea turning to ice. The bears further state that you’re welcome to stay there, in your tents, camped beside the Bay, for the rest of your natural lives. The bears also request that, out of respect for their local traditions, and if it isn’t too much trouble, please baste yourselves with Jack Daniels brand BBQ sauce, their favorite, before or upon arrival. On a personal note, I’d like to wish a hearty ‘bon voyage’ (good in both French and English) to all you intrepid movers / campers.
Far too few people understand that all this assiduously defended “settled” science and “consensus” about greenhouse warming takes place in an atmosphere (forgive me) of absolutely no supportive evidence. A colleague of mine, Peter L. Ward, recently conducted a study of over 10,000 climate-related, peer-reviewed journal articles to try to find any actual data-based experiments supportive of AGW, and he found just one, that of Knut Angstrom in 1900, in which it was concluded that there was little warming effect from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In other words, the generally accepted theory of AGW is fundamentally unsupported.
Alarmed by this (I was once a non-questioning “warmist,” myself), I did my own hard-data-based analysis in 2015, 115 years after Angstrom, and came to essentially the same conclusion, that there is very little effect, but that ozone depletion by anthropogenic and non-explosive volcanic chlorine probably does have a warming effect, as suggested by Ward. My results were reported on this blog at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/interesting-climate-sensitivity-analysis-do-variations-in-co2-actually-cause-global-significant-warming/
This underscores a disturbing trend in science, undue reliance on well-elaborated and well-accepted theory that, in this case in particular, is entirely unsupported by hard data. Could that be the fundamental reason why most climate scientists are so aggressive and dogmatic about greenhouse warming theory, an uneasy feeling that the theory that they so dogmatically espouse lacks actual proof form hard data?
Good article for these reasons: Slams liberals. Funny. Slams liberals. Asks many questions the warmunists need to answer, but never will. Slams liberals.
Mr. Driessen describes leftists in their ‘native language’ — Alinsky-style ridicule and character attacks! Trump used the same ‘language’ to win the election.
Democrats are not used to being character attacked, especially by a political novice like Trump, who hit Hillary and her lap dogs hard.
I believe Democrats are upset for many reasons:
(1) Their ‘girl’ lost the election.
(2) They got two million more votes, but still lost,
(3) They had no clue they were going to lose until late election night, because some Trump fans had lied to, or avoided, pollsters, and
(4) If Democrats can’t win a ‘character attack election’, as in 2016, they will have to defend leftist policies in future elections.
Those leftist policies include raising taxes, “free” college, open borders, eliminating fossil fuels, etc.
It’s hard to defend those leftist anti-prosperity positions!
Much easier to focus on the usual character attacks on any Republican opponent:
(1) racist,
(2) sexist,
(3) Islamophobe,
(4) out of touch,
(5) doesn’t pay taxes,
(6) has no idea “transgender” means, and
(7) can’t speak Spanish.
Hopefully this is the last comment here:
I enjoyed the article but the writing needs improvement.
Instead of just criticism, I rewrote the entire article to make it easier to read.
I did some editing too.
In the original article too many points were squeezed into each paragraph.
I sent the article link to some people who don’t know much about the climate.
Two of three people found the climate content too complicated.
I decided to rewrite the article and sent them an easier-to-read version, with lists replacing complex paragraphs.
My version is below:
Our liberal media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have been going through stages of grief since the election. The five conventional stages of grief are said to be:
(1) Denial,
(2) Anger,
(3) Bargaining,
(4) Depression, and
(5) Acceptance.
Liberal-progressives are wallowing in (1) Denial, (2) Anger and (4) Depression.
(a) They can’t work, attend class, or take exams.
(b) They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters, and counseling.
(c) Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zealand or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.
Liberals’ five grief stages are unconventional — they seem to have eliminated Stage (3) Bargaining (replaced by intolerance), and Stage (5) Acceptance (replaced by defiance, or even riots).
Sadly, it appears the two new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.
The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints:
(a) Refusing to engage or debate,
(b) Banning or forcibly removing books and posters,
(c) Threatening and silencing contrarians,
(d) Disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers,
(e) Denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, and
(f) Criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers”.
These have all become trademark tactics.
Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced liberal-progressive ideologies and policies.
Liberals view government as their domain — their reason for being. Government is far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements.
Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.
They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump.
They’re incensed about so many Republicans are likely to review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues:
(a) Republican President Trump,
(b) Republicans in Congress,
(c) 33 Republican governor’s offices, and
(d) 69 of 99 Republican state legislatures.
Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra.
It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at five-star venues in exotic locales.
It was their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.
That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” +2º C (+3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels.
1850 is when the Little Ice Age ended and the modern industrial era began.
It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to:
(1) Keep fossil fuels in the ground,
(2) Roll back their economies,
(3) Reduce their living standards, and
(4) Give $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.
(That’s why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. Developing countries would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their leaders – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades).
Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, greenhouse gas-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.
But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech.
Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development.
But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.
Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement.
President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate.
He has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change.
He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”
Here are a few important facts and probing questions that Trump could raise, to get the ball rolling.
(1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to prove humans control the global climate, while ignoring natural influences. The IPCC claims warming, cooling and weather are now driven only by human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
(a) How and why did this happen?
(b) How can you ignore powerful natural forces, focus solely on manmade CO2, and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?
(2) Your “coming climate chaos” theory and computer models assume CO2 emissions replaced natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth’s history.
(a) What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events, before manmade CO2 allegedly took over?
(b) Where did all the natural forces go?
(c) Why are they no longer functioning?
(d) Who stole them?
(e) When did they stop controlling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?
(3) You claim climate and weather patterns are “unprecedented” as CO2 levels continue to climb, but:
(a) Average global temperatures have risen barely since the 1998 peak,
(b) Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates,
(c) Sea level is rising no faster than in the last century,
(d) It has been a record 11 years since a category 3 or stronger hurricane made landfall on the 48 contiguous US states — the previous record was nine years from 1860 to 1869,
(e) The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record.
So, where are the unprecedented climate events?
(4) Your computer models are based on the assumption increasing levels of CO2 will cause dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events.
If this assumption is wrong, so are the models and their predictions … which have been dramatically and consistently wrong for decades.
(a) When will you fix your computer models?
(b) When will you include data for solar, cosmic ray, ocean and other natural forces?
(5) The manmade climate catastrophe ‘cult’ refuses to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with people they ridicule as “skeptics” or “deniers.”
97% consensus = case closed, you say.
(a) What do you fear from open, robust debate?
(b) What manipulated data are you trying to hide?
(c) Why are you afraid to lay out your supposed evidence – and have a real debate?
(d) Do you really think taxpayers should give you more money under these circumstances?
(6) The FDA requires applications for drugs and medical devices to include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your climate modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to:
(a) Hide your data and methodologies?,
(b) Treat them as proprietary?,
(c) Refuse to share them with Congress or skeptical scientists?, and
(d) Refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?
(7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores huge benefits of using these fuels.
(a) Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?
(8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now the EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline.
(a) Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and rampant fraud in the existing program, and impacts on small refiners?
(b) If we replaced all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?
(9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized, and exempted from most environmental rules.
(a) They kill millions of birds and bats.
(b) Their electricity is expensive and intermittent, requiring fossil fuel backup generators.
(c) Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws, allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and allowed to prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?
Mr. Trump, please keep an open mind, but exercise due diligence.
Trust, but verify.
And please fire anyone who lies, refuses to answer, or provides the climate science equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.
Since it may yet take the PETUS some time to get to it, allow me to answer some of your questions.
1) “Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions.”
Preposterous. Do you think climate scientists deny that seasons (warming and cooling weather patterns) are caused by our orbit of the sun? The IPCC has concluded that the abnormal warming we’ve been seeing is being caused by human activity not that it is the only factor in climate.
2) This is a red herring argument. The fact that other climate events have been caused by other factors in no way disproves the current state of affairs. If you want to criticise the current consensus, you have to address it directly and not try to substitute other events in place of current ones.
3) “Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates.” Simply a complete fallacy. Can you point to any research backing this up?
4) The models consistently show how C02 influences climate over the longterm. You would have to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it’s untrue.
5) Where is your proof of manipulation? If 97% of climate scientists agree, who are they supposed to debate? Non climate scientists with random opinions? Climate scientists constantly publish through peer review. Their facts, finding, and methods are there for everyone to see. Who is really hiding, and who is completely transparent?
6) Where is your evidence that anyone is hiding data or methodology? If you are scientifically literate, you can access virtually all the data and methods.
7) Apples and Oranges comparison. The reason we’re still using fossil fuels is because the benefits are self-evident.
8) Where is your evidence of “rampant fraud”?
9) A serious problem (bird and bat deaths) that requires some serious solutions. Your estimates of “millions” appear off by at least a factor of 10 however. Also, CATS kill as many as 1000 times more birds.