By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Can the Left effectively oppose Trump, making arguments that mobilize public opinion? Their actions since the election suggest not. Climate change is both the Left’s signature initiative and its greatest failure (28 years with no change in the US public’s policy priorities about climate). How (or if) the Left changes their climate advocacy will show if they can adapt to the Trump era.
London, 6 December 2009. Photo by Franck Robichon/EPA.
Astronomer Phil Plait writes at Slate, one of the Left’s better-known climate propagandists. His recent columns at Slate show why the Left has failed to mobilize public opinion — and that they have learned nothing from the election.
There were no questions about climate change in the presidential debates. Clinton said little about climate change during the entire campaign. Accordingly, Gallup found that environmental issues were not in the top 12 issues people associate with Clinton. There are good reasons for this. Climate change has consistently ranked near the bottom of the US public’s major policy concerns. Gallup asks people “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” In October only 3% listed an environmental or pollution-related issues (including climate); economic issues were #1, totaling 17%.
His November 28 column at Slate, Plait discussed Trump’s plan to get NASA out of climate change research. He played the same song climate activists have sung for a decade. He began by invoking the consensus of climate scientists, which he should state (but doesn’t). As expressed by the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I…
“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
This is important. But the relevant public policy question concerns future warming: what are the odds of various amounts of warming during different time horizons of the 21st century? There is no easy answer to this, let alone a consensus of climate scientists about it. So climate activists either ignore the research (such as the 4 scenarios described in AR5) or focus on the worst of these (the truly horrific RCP8.5), ignoring its unlikely assumptions.
Plait skips all these vital complexities, going from the consensus about past warming to boldly assert that “Climate change is already one of if not the biggest threat our species has faced.” He gives no evidence for this because there is so little. There is little evidence of a consensus of climate scientists about future warming. More broadly, has any scientist compared the various future warming scenarios to past threats, such as the Toba supereruption 75,000 years ago that might have almost exterminated humanity or WWIII starting during the Cold War?
Such a speculative assertion is an absurdly weak basis to justify spending trillions and imposing far-reaching regulations — let alone restructure our economic and political systems (as proposed by Naomi Klein
and Pope Francis).
Plait often pulls this bait-and-switch. In his May 30 column about Trump’s ignorant statements denying California’s drought, Plait slides from discussion of the drought to implying it results from climate change. But centuries-long droughts are a natural part of the southwestern US climate. NOAA reported that “The current drought is not part of a long-term change in California precipitation, which exhibits no appreciable trend since 1895.” Many other peer-reviewed papers came to similar conclusions. See the research here.
Even more outrageous is Plait’s multi-year crusade to conceal from the public climate scientists’ research about the pause, the debate about its causes, and predictions of its duration — research that continues today. Plait ignores these scientists work, insisting that the “pause” (aka “hiatus”) is a lie by denialists.
Conclusions
The vast investment by the Left in its 28 year-long climate change campaign has had a trivial impact on the public policy priorities of the US public. It is one of the largest public relations failures in US history. See why the climate change debate broke and its lessons for the future. Plait’s behavior is typical of climate activists, and has helped poison the public debate. They earned their failure. Depending on how the climate changes, we might all pay for it. It might be difficult to restart the debate if evidence appears suggesting the worst-case scenarios are happening.
Looking ahead, will climate activists learn from their mistakes? Will they abandon their reliance on doomster forecasts, and again build on the work of climate science and the IPCC (once they called the “gold standard” of climate science, now they say it is “too conservative”)? If they cannot adapt, can the Left as a movement adapt to the Trump era?
The road back to reality will be long for climate activists
“You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
— Part of a tirade by “Zach” to Donna Brazile, interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, at a staff meeting. Reported by the HuffPo.
“I can’t see humans existing within 10 years. We can do nothing to stop the planet becoming too hot to grow food and support life. It is already happening and we have less than a decade left.”
— Guy McPherson (Prof of Biology, U AZ, retired). Reported by the New Zealand Herald. His website is “Nature Bats Last – Our Days Are Numbered“.
For More Information
For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the Left’s climate change campaign…
- Science into agitprop: “Climate Change Is Strangling Our Oceans”.
- Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.
- A leaked memo about climate change explains why we’re unprepared.
- The 5 stages of grief for the failure of the climate change campaign.
“Climate change is both the Left’s signature initiative and its greatest failure (28 years with no change in the US public’s policy priorities about climate).”
[snip . . . one strawman too many. Make your points about it not being a Left political initiative that is using some aspects of science to advance its cause and that it is not failing to increase its support base amongst the electorate. . . mod]
I thought my point was perfectly valid: demonstrating an inconsistency.
Hmm. From the Policy page:
“Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”
Lots about manners but not much about strawmen – BTW, which I reject. If the mods are going to let not just bad manners but outright offensive abuse (don’t make me go and cut and paste it) to be posted, then that is also pretty inconsistent.
tony-
You’ve shown us repeatedly that strawman arguments and other logical fallacies are your stock in trade. You were recently exposed in another thread as one of those people who knows the truth about certain aspects of the climate debate, but uses well known tricks to deflect attention from that truth. That’s not the work of a dissenter, that’s the work of a propagandist.
Ps Since you started slinging threats, you better wake up and realize you’re standing in the middle of a two- way street.
“us”? Like us and them Alan?
“threats”? What on earth are you talking about?
“You were recently exposed in another thread…”
Care to back that up?
Crickets…
I would like to think that love him or loath him the Don did win fair and square and the presidency is his for the taking , just the formality to make it official.
It’s a bit odd that the “analysis” is presented from the point of view of how the climate consensus activists should repackage themselves, and not about how wrong they are on their substance. It would be much more ground breaking to admit that the skeptics, under funded, dismissed, disorganized, were right. The lefties are wrong basically always. Why do they control so much of the public attention?
Hunter,
“It’s a bit odd that the “analysis” is presented from the point of view of how the climate consensus activists should repackage themselves”
Why is that “odd”? It is a relevant subject, about which practical recommendations can be made.
“It would be much more ground breaking to admit that the skeptics, under funded, dismissed, disorganized, were right.”
You are welcomed to do so and submit it to Anthony. I write about what I want to write about, and you write about what you want to. I suspect you’ll find that topic requires a lot of work.
Excellent point sir. My question was rhetorical, for what it’s worth. And I should not have put “” around analysis.
“The lefties are wrong basically always. Why do they control so much of the public attention?”
It’s because the Left controls the News Media, and the Entertainment Media, hunter. If you have the Big Megaphone of the MSM, you have enormous influence on the public discourse.
The MSM control the national conversation. Look at how even Fox News gets sucked into covering the issues the MSM bring up and present as important. That’s the News: Whatever the MSM says it is. So Fox News reacts and covers these stories and actually gives them some credence in the process, if they are not careful.
The MSM sets the stage. If they are dishonest or deluded, then they cause great harm to the nation and the world. At the present time, they are wrong most of the time. They are pushing a political agenda not the news.
The MSM sets the stage.
If tThey are dishonest or deluded andthenthey cause great harm to the nation and the world.@ur momisugly TA
“It’s because the Left controls the News Media”
Not in the UK . Here the print media is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing in it’s approach and opinion.
@TA: “It’s because the Left controls the News Media”
Gareth Phillips wrote: “Not in the UK . Here the print media is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing in it’s approach and opinion.”
Well, I’m not nearly as familiar with the UK news media as I am the U.S. news media. I read the Daily Mail online, and it doesn’t seem to be unfriendly to Trump, although they were making fun of him today for misspelling the world “unprecedented” in his latest tweet. He spelled it “unpresidented”. I assume he has been writing “president” for the last few weeks and got the two words confused. 🙂
The Daily Mail is the only publication I have read from the UK that I would consider halfway conservative, but all the others I look at occasionally are always bashing the Right, it seems to me.
And then there is the BBC walking lockstep with the Leftwing Media in the U.S. I think the UK is dominated by the Leftwing News Media, too, even if there are some conservative publications over there.
“Not in the UK . Here the print media is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing in it’s approach and opinion.”
Only to people who believe the ‘Conservatives’ (who, amongst many other crimes, sold the UK into the EU) are right-wing.
“Not in the UK . Here the print media is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing in it’s approach and opinion.”
Only if you’re standing somewhere to the Left of Vladimir Illich Lenin.
Catweazle666
Some facts for you, just because you don’t like them does not make them any more accurate. By the way do you want a link for Torch sales at cheap prices? You would save a fortune on the Parades. ( that’s in response to your comment “Only if you’re standing somewhere to the Left of Vladimir Illich Lenin”)
Maybe you could post evidence of your own that the Newspapers in the UK are not mainly right wing? If so, first read this then tell me where is it wrong. If not, at least base your comments on a scrap of evidence.
– Conservative supporting publications are: The Sun (1,978,702), The Times (396,621), The Telegraph (494,675), the Daily Mail (1,688,727) and the Evening Standard (805,309). ( Right wing)
– The Daily Mirror (992,235) is the only newspaper which openly supports Labour. (Left wing)
– Richard Desmond set his titles,
The Daily Express (457,914)and The Star (425,246) to support UKIP. ( Hard right)
– The Guardian (185,429) was traditionally a Liberal newspaper, but takes an independent line, as do The Independent (61,338) the i (280,351), and the Financial Times (219,444). ( Wishy washy)
– And so, in comparison, for every Mirror (Labour) reader there are 5.4 readers possibly being influenced by the Conservative press.
In context of left / centre / right wing:
There are 33.66 copies of right wing newspapers for every sale of a left-wing one. What is more the Mail, Express and Star are far more right wing than the Guardian is left wing. They support openly fascist groups such as Front National, The EDL and Pergida.
UKIP , supported directly but the Express is also is in alliance with far right groups in the European parliament.
“The lefties are wrong basically always. Why do they control so much of the public attention?” Because they control the MSM.
The climate economic bubble is about to burst. An economic bubble is what it has always been. The housing bubble, the university bubble (student loans) and the climate bubble all have the same thing in common — huge amounts of taxpayer money tossed into them. End the money and the bubble bursts.
The student loan program might have worked if a cap had been put on the size of the loans. The colleges and universities would have had to shape their workings to fit that reality. Instead colleges and university realized that they could demand as much money as they wanted and the government would simply up the loans. And like all bubbles the university bubble produces nothing of lasting value.The Tin Man in “The Wizard Of Oz” singing “If I Only Had A Brain” and then receiving a degree from the Wizard epitomizes what four years at our colleges and universities really amount to.
Well, the climate economic bubble is about to burst. Let those who strove so hard to destroy the jobs of others lose their jobs. Now that is what I call social justice.
Eugene WR Gallun
That’s a very good insight on the university scam, and especially good on climate. Follow the money and all of that.
Shot myself in the foot. It is the Scarecrow who sings “If I Only Had A Brain”.
Eugene WR Gallun
Your analogy is perfect …. We’ll overlook overlook that insignificant mistake and thank you for sharing.
We’re running a very real risk of doing the same thing with health care in the US as we did with college education; pricing it out of reach for individuals.
Anytime the government gets involved in subsidizing a thing, the price is distorted and artificially increased. Doing that with education was very bad, doing it with health care will be lethal.
Happening to me now . because of high bp my ins is going from 800/mo to 975.. More than my house payment. What’ll it be next year ? The only thing I can come up with are creative ways to hide income. Or just don’t pay the damn bills.
Joe, seriously consider buying drugs from India or some other non-us source. Most high BP meds are out of patent. Atenolol and Amlodipine should cost pennies a day.
They can’t “cure” high BP. We’re all being rapped by government subsidized health care and that was the plan all along. Trump isn’t going to reverse it, the damage is done (as you’ve experienced and as I have). He might stop it from getting worse but I very much doubt he can roll it back. Obama screwed us blue then tattooed our asses. Everyone in the country with a “pre-existing condition” has now been weighed, measured and found wanting. Oh joyous day!
The laws of physics didn’t change on election day.
mod: better delete this AS FAST AS YOU CAN, lest you ruin your echo chamber here.
[Who claims they did? However the politics have. . . mod]
NO, AK, the laws didn’t change- negative feedbacks still exist and are cooling the climate; hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing; the stratosphere is not cooling; both poles are not melting equally; the tropical hot spot has never materialized….
Have you forgotten to take your nice medication again, AK?
That’s naughty, your mummy will be cross!
“I can’t see humans existing within 10 years. We can do nothing to stop the planet becoming too hot to grow food and support life. It is already happening and we have less than a decade left.”
— Guy McPherson (Prof of Biology, U AZ, retired).
Starvation, dehydration, disease, and exposure will lead the way, he said.
Mr McPherson cites scientific data including tipping points, positive feedback systems and exponential growth to back up his claims.
As that’s the case & the science is settled why do they keep asking for more grants & taxes ????
they should spend the next 10 years having fun.
We have to support many more brainy Professors. The faculty is more than 90% leftist.They teach ideology, not science or arts. American Wahhabi preachers.
Because they can’t they are going extinct. Sad to see a well-beloved adversary passing away just because of a lack of adaptation skills.
Climate change activism may have failed to convince the public but in the UK it has left the legacy of a failed energy policy costing £219 billion.
“Climate change activism may have failed to convince the public but in the UK it has left the legacy of a failed energy policy costing £219 billion.”
Climate change activism has been just successful enough to screw everything up bigtime.
The one problem that folks here have overlooked is that the left control the mainstream media and the public schools. I know many otherwise normal people who have been told all their lives by “authorities” that CO2 warms the planet and that if we keep producing CO2 then the planet will keep getting warmer. This meme is ingrained in them now and I figure they will go to their grave believing that.
I think the reason the people (banned here) that attacked the CO2 controversy via thermodynamics was that they figure it will take a major sea change to deprogram the sheep. (but I could be wrong, as motive is hard to assign anytime)
I also did not see anyone mention that the Republican establishment hates Trump and worked against him the whole election cycle. I doubt they will wake up Christmas morning and love the guy. Trump has his work cut out for him.
And a final note while I am typing this morning. After studying this issue since the great “a new ice age is coming” scare of the 70s, I can say that the evidence is that CO2 should be about 3 to 4 times higher than what it is now for life to flourish. Plants love CO2 and so do people. Some endocrinologists claim that higher CO2 levels are protective of health. (I live at sea level so I hope that one is dead wrong!)
Some endocrinologists claim that higher CO2 levels are protective of health. (I live at sea level so I hope that one is dead wrong!)
——————-
You got some ‘splainin’ to do.
Eric Simpson is worried about Rex Tillerson. Mr Trump has proposed many climate skeptics to his cabinet, and Tillerson has run Exxon for the last 10 years when it has been a target for the left. Of course he has made some statements to defend his corporation. This is like the opposite of the journal Climate Research a few years ago. There were 9 out of 10 editors who were warmists. The exception was Chris De Freitas and the left wanted him out. Having a majority of 9 out of 10 editors wasn’t good enough for them. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/the-tribalistic-corruption-of-peer-review-the-chris-de-freitas-incident/
Now with a President Elect who is a skeptic, and with many skeptics nominated for cabinet positions, your worry is that Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, is a problem? Are you really worried about one possible (unlikely) slightly warmist voice amongst a predominantly skeptic cabinet?
I suggest you find something else to stress about. Exxon produced a hard response to the made up story that they somehow knew definitively about climate change 30 or 40 years ago. They pushed back on the attack by a group of AG’s.
In my experience in the oil industry, there are obviously people within the staff who believe in climate change but probably the majority are skeptic. That is why some companies will have a renewables department, or will report their carbon footprint. Remember also that oil companies who retail gasoline have to consider their customers. All have to consider their shareholders, and so their public perception is important. That does not mean that someone like Tillerson is a warmist.
are you really not worried that truth is such a precious commodity nobody can afford it?
and i bet you thought you were defending some virtue…lol
The comments are quite revealing and I must say:-
Steve Heins makes SPLENDID comment: his short summary is oh so true.
Eugene W R Gallun also (as usual) has it absolutely bloody SPOT ON.
As for the “language” comment from Steve Case, at 6.41 p.m. yesterday, he may well have a point. It is indeed ALL ABOUT the “language” !
The “language” trends of WUWT have their peculiarities in the “approving” and the “blocking” of certain words, however, the resulting “comments” are, and will of course only ever be mere opinion.
The following item is in the HUMOROUS history category and a little “off topic” but I just couldn’t resist it (again). The words are not mine; they belong to a famous person.
HE WRITES …
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was
precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person
And as a final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
END OF PASTE.
Regards,
WL
Nice, Warren.
Just a head’s up: “The “language” trends of WUWT have their peculiarities in the “approving” and the “blocking” of certain words,”
That’s the doing of WordPress. Keeps the mods busy bailing comments out of jail.
The fall of Rome is of more concern now as it was the first time.
the Fall of Rome
1940
W H Auden
The piers are pummelled by the waves;
In a lonely field the rain
Lashes an abandoned train;
Outlaws fill the mountain caves.
Fantastic grow the evening gowns;
Agents of the Fisc pursue
Absconding tax-defaulters through
The sewers of provincial towns.
Private rites of magic send
The temple prostitutes to sleep;
All the literati keep
An imaginary friend.
Cerebrotonic Cato may
Extol the Ancient Disciplines,
But the muscle-bound Marines
Mutiny for food and pay.
Caesar’s double-bed is warm
As an unimportant clerk
Writes I DO NOT LIKE MY WORK
On a pink official form.
Unendowed with wealth or pity,
Little birds with scarlet legs,
Sitting on their speckled eggs,
Eye each flu-infected city.
Altogether elsewhere, vast
Herds of reindeer move across
Miles and miles of golden moss,
Silently and very fast.
Good, funny post, Warren.
Thanks Warren. I really did laugh out loud.
Start with changing the textbooks in the school system and in 8 years you have solved the problem with a new educated generation.
They’ll decide what’s true and what’s not or else…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/germany-threatens-big-fines-for-facebook-over-the-proliferation-of-fake-news/news-story/b641fadc84e53a927b5c11616e3aabf5
and just like the Long March through the education system-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/the-left-tightens-grip-on-facebook/news-story/6583345ef73058fbda3d8b6a7b3c0a7e
“You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. “ = Fake News
‘I can’t see humans existing within 10 years. We can do nothing to stop the planet becoming too hot to grow food and support life.’ = Fake news. “Fake News”: New name for propaganda.
I read Phil’s articles in Slate regularly. He’s great when he sticks to astronomy. Lately he’s been opting to write more AGW propaganda. He ought to know better. Well, he probably does. The earth is doomed, after all, but not because of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are a few questions I’d like to ask him. Probably several, but let’s start with these.
“Phil, do you think that Earth will ever have another ice age?”
“Phil, do you know for sure that the polar sea ice observations are not explained by cyclic phenomena such as AMO/PDO”?
“Phil, how come Earth didn’t burn up when the CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now?”
The so-called liberals have great contempt for conservatives. They think the conservatives are simple minded and incapable of analytical thought.
Here’s an article that points out that, fairly applying the same criteria, the liberals do no better than conservatives.
Anyone who has seen the machinations of the social justice warriors will be surprised that there is any difficulty finding Left-Wing Authoritarianism. When all the people doing the research are left-wing, it is unsurprising that the results have a strong left-wing bias.
“When all the people doing the research are left-wing, it is unsurprising that the results have a strong left-wing bias.”
That also applies to the MSM. When all the people doing news are leftwing, you get a leftwing bias to the news.
People figure out soon enough that they are being lied to. Even in the Soviet Union, with its government controlled media, people had ways of getting the truth out.
I know with 97% certainty that the left is going to say we have this “green infrastructure” currently in place that consists of skilled labor, green companies, scientists, etc. and if Trump dismantles the infrastructure we are never going to get it back should we ever need it, on the basis it will be to expensive/impossible to recreate. The onus is then going to be put on the deniers to prove they will never need the “green infrastructure” and since they can’t prove that, the “green infrastructure” stays in place at standby at some percentage of what it was, say 33% funding or so.
Same argument when the USSR collapsed so we didn’t need submarines so much anymore, but the submarine program wasn’t completely such down because it was such a specialized area if it was shut down all the suppliers and expertise would go down with the ship and you would never get it back. And you cant prove you will never need subs again. So existing stuff in progress was finished and future stuff got scaled way back but not eliminated.
And this is probably why the warmists dont share information either, information is power and if information is shared and understood by many then you have a harder time making the above argument.
Scott I think that’s the extortion/blackmail approach. We either throw good money after bad or shut them down and let them find productive jobs. The second alternative makes the only sense economically; if we ever need them again we’ll pay for them in adjusted dollars sometime in the future. In the meantime we don’t pay them. This is exactly how NASA funds large projects so they should understand.
But it is painfully obvious that the worst-case scenarios are *not* happening. The doomsday predictions have already failed. The recent freak El-Nino just gave the doomsters one more opportunity to fool the gullible, and they milked it for all it was worth. In the end, this will prove nothing more than a dead cat bounce.
There will be no need to “restart” the debate. “Catastrophic climate change” may at some point have been a defensible hypothesis, but in recent years it has turned into a baseless hysteria propped up by fraudulent science and cynical propaganda. It has already claimed far too much time in the spotlight. There are real problems in the world that concern real people, and which are in much more urgent need of debate. Trump won because he dared talk openly about some of them.
Michael,
“But it is painfully obvious that the worst-case scenarios are *not* happening.”
Because it is too soon. The worst case scenarios for the next 50 years or so are almost entirely built on RCP8.5 — the worst case of the four scenarios used in AR5. The CO2 emission levels forecast in the RCP’s do not differ significantly until after 2030. They have a range of 2% between best and worst by 2020, 5% by 2030, 18% by 2050, and 55% by 2100.
“The doomsday predictions have already failed.”
Since almost all of those in the peer-reviewed literature are based on RCP8.5, it is far too early to draw conclusions. The assumptions in RCP8.5 — esp about trends in technology and population necessary to produce such a high forcing level — look increasingly unlikey. But declaring “failure” is premature.
Please hold your horses. We elected Donald J. Trump, not Robin Hood.
Look Out…! Too late. Friar Tuck stole your horses.
The new breed of leftists don’t know how to adapt. Look at Obama — he is incapable of compromise and anger/ridicule was his response to differing opinions. Expect doubling down from the left.
Security for Trump needs to be extremely tight.
In a way, the liberals are starting to wise up. Ever since the election we have been hearing folks telling us how the Democrat party betrayed the working class.
This morning I heard an interview with Michael Sandel. He points out that liberal democracies have lost their moral compass. In another place he points out that:
John Ralston Saul pointed out the same thing in Voltaire’s Bastards in 1992.
I suggest to all my liberal friends that they read Listen Liberal which well documents how the Democrat party betrayed the working class.
I think President Trump’s election may be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrat party. It’s just the kick upside the head that they need.
I have no hope that the Democrat Party will ever live in the real world. The weaker and less influential they are, the safer we are. Let’s hope they continue to implode.
I have heard a few Demcrats in the last few days, trying to make a fair accessment of what has happened to them, but only just a few. The rest are too busy hating Trump and the Right, for self-examination. They still think they have been cheated out of something.
The modern Democrat party is a loose collection of special-interest groups competing for power, plus the few working-class Americans who haven’t wised up yet. Trying to bring the working-class back would require abandoning most of their existing power base.
Yep. They feel entitled.
Do let’s look at this question honestly. Do liberals impose “a morality of rules”? No. Liberals don’t do that. Totalitarian socialists do that. So can we, at the very least, agree on basic terms?
———
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
• ( Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
• ( Liberal) (in the UK) of or relating to the Liberal Democrat Party : the Liberal leader.
• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
Apparently not. Here’s another definition.
Here’s another.
Dictionaries usually don’t do a good job of keeping up with definitions as they change. One of my favourites is fulsome. Dictionaries have it meaning excessively complimentary or flattering, sometimes it means insincere, or even disgusting. These days lots of people think it means complete as in “a fulsome discussion”. link
I’ll go just a bit further and say that every distinguished and successful scientist ever known in history was a liberal by the first definition of the word. Every last one. If you aren’t a liberal, you can’t be a scientist. Period. No exceptions.
Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know? BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the biospheric carbon cycle.
Mankind’s modelled additional atmospheric CO2 power flux (W/m^2, watt is power, energy over time) between 1750 and 2011, 261 years, is 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo reflects 100 W/m^2 (+/- 30 & can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 (+/- 8). Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.
One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net W/m^2 balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses included in the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming (+/- 12.3 W/m^2). Of course Dr. Trenberth says they are wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years. (“All of the net TOA imbalances are not tenable and all except CFSR imply a cooling of the planet that clearly has not occurred.”) Except it also hasn’t gotten hotter.
Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.
Awesome report… Thank you !
Do you know of any serious research being done on utilizing volcanic heat for energy ? Also, is there serious science looking into removing toxic gas at volcanoes?
I think insults in debates are a problem, I prefer satire if one in annoyed enough. However , a brief glance through the posts on this site and elsewhere will elegantly demonstrates that insulting your opponents is not just a prerogative of supporters of mainstream climate science. The sceptic writers here seem to give as good as they get and more besides to anyone who dares offer an alternate viewpoint to their belief systems. I think the responses to ‘Griff’ are a case in point.
People who live in glass houses, like you and your fellow traveler Griff…
“sceptic writers” have a belief system? 🤦
The gentleman always prefers satire remember, but he may be a tad confused with its irony handmaiden occasionally.
“I think insults in debates are a problem,”
And yet you have no problem insulting the intelligence, knowledge and experience of the other contributors to this blog with your straw men, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad populum, plain downright mendacity and disingenuous attempts to disrupt debate, do you?
Your friend Griff’s ridiculous attempt to malign the reputation and scientific credibility of Doctor Susan Crockford was yet another insult not only to the good lady herself, but to the intelligence every user of the blog who has the wit to visit her web site and acquaint themselves of her qualifications.
There’s more ways to insult someone other than name calling, sunshine, and you are a well practised exponent of them.
Passive aggression is another of your stock-in-trades too, of course.
Like all Lefties, you think everyone else except your fellows is stupid, and that’s why you lost both the EU referendum and the US Presidential election.
Well done cat. TY. Ya see the progressives cry foul when you call them on their DISINGENUOUS shit. They do it everytime on just about every issue they engage with.
Gareth, my old Dad used to have a saying; “A rat smells his own hole first”. I’ve found that true of every class of liar and snake oil salesman I’ve ever encountered. They all, to a person, accuse their opponents of their own weaknesses and underhanded tactics.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
“…supporters of mainstream climate science.”
Scintillating satire at it’s best and point taken.
Can I thank you all profusely for illustrating the accuracy of my observation in such a forthright manner. You are too kind!
No. I don’t think you can. Profusely or otherwise. May you? That’s a different question.
Clipe
I suspect we are separated by a common language. However I’m writing in my second. Nadoleg Llawen i chi ac ewch Teulu a Blwyddin Newydd Da. Cael amser da dros Nadoleg ! You can use Google to translate, but be careful, I shall check you grammar!
That should be ‘your’ I blame my dying Macbook keyboard. 🙂
Conclusions…Depending on how the climate changes, we might all pay for it. It might be difficult to restart the debate if evidence appears suggesting the worst-case scenarios are happening.
The warmer the better in my opinion.
Sincerely,
Tom in Minnesota
“The warmer the better in my opinion.”
Really. It was 7 degrees F this morning at my house. I know a lot of others are a lot colder, but 7 degrees is cold enough for me. 🙂
Tom S.,
“The warmer the better in my opinion. ”
First, people in already hot areas don’t share your opinion of warming.
Second, it is not just a matter of warming. The relevant question concerns changes in precipitation (e.g., storms, droughts) and a wide range of extreme weather. The models’ predictions will be proved wrong or right — but the wrong outcome would have real consequences.
Well Larry, I moved 250 miles south last year because I’m sick and tired of being the canary in this coal mine and I’m just too damned old to live in freezing conditions for 9 months a year anymore. I voted with my feet.
You go ahead and buy property in Alberta if you really think its about to become prime real estate. More power to you. I’m selling, I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage people betting against me would I?
Bartleby,
“You go ahead and buy property in Alberta if you really think its about to become prime real estate.”
Please at least pretend to respond to what I said. Your reply is troll material.
And now we approach the time where ‘fake news’ is outlawed along with any criticism of the 97% and their policies. Probably some Russian plot you understand …
Damned Russians. Never could trust the Russ. You know they harbor polar bears? They eat cabbage? And they hack Hillary’s eMail, God only knows why. Satan incarnate those Russ. There oughta be a law… /sarc
I answered one of Plait’s rants a year ago with an IPCC AR5 link which showed he was mistaken. Guess what happened the next time I tried to comment? My comment was refused, and I have not been able to comment since! “Slate” and Plait censor comments, and I have avoided reading their publication now for over a year.
Doug,
That’s something I’ve experienced several times when posting science (i.e., links to peer-reviewed research) on Leftist website, such as Brad DeLong’s. It upsets the faithful, and so they block it. That tells us much about those that do this.
Doug you aren’t alone. I’ve had the same experience with Ars Technica, Wired, Scientific American, Slate and HuffPo. In each example I was attempting to rebut using links to refereed journal articles. The most egregious was when the Science editor for Ars banned me for posting a link to the radiocarbon.org website in response to a person who questioned the error in 14C dating methods.
There aren’t any applicable laws really. They own the websites and they know (apparently) they have no obligation to host dissenting opinion.