Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
This is a follow-on to Bob Tisdale’s recent piece on Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources’ changes to its Great Lakes climate change statement.
If you read his article and didn’t click through to the original article by Lee Bergquist in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinal, you might have missed how significant this change was.
Here it is in pictures: [click each for larger images]
In 2012, the page looked like this:
The red boxed link is to the infamous Wisconsin Climate Change Activity Guide provided as a resource to teachers of grades 7-12. It can still be found cached in the WebArchive [aka the Wayback Machine]. Today, it is no longer linked from the Great Lakes page and the link to it in present time returns “Page Not Found”.
Today:
Instead of the “AGW party line” statement on the 2012 page (which existed until last week), we have a more carefully considered statement:
“The Great Lakes and a changing world
As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The effects of such a change are also being debated but whatever the causes and effects, the DNR’s responsibility is to manage our state’s natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, drought, tornadoes, ice/snow or severe heat. The DNR staff stands ready to adapt our management strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, waterways, plants, wildlife and people who depend on them.”
This is a magnificently crafted statement – and a huge pull-back from heretofore obligatory echoing of the IPCC consensus talking points.
But this is not the only big change I have seen this past week in the presentation of climate change. The big change, if it is in fact an editorial change, appeared in another story previously covered here at WUWT, in the New York Times:
“California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t Back Down to Trump”
By Adam Nagourney and Henry Fountain
Dec. 26, 2016
[This little exerpt:]
“President-elect Donald J. Trump has packed his cabinet with nominees who dispute the science of global warming. He has signaled he will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He has belittled the notion of global warming and attacked policies intended to combat it.”
Three weeks ago, in a news report titled “Energy Trends Outpace Plans for the E.P.A.” (Dec 09, 2016) – by Coral Davenport, this language was used: “President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice of a fossil-fuel advocate and climate-change denier to head the Environmental Protection Agency comes at a moment when the American energy market has already shifted away.”
Nagourney and Fountain don’t use the phrase “climate-change denier” nor the oft-repeated but false notion that the President-elect “believes climate change is a hoax”, rather they use the more correct phrase “dispute the science of climate change”.
In fact, the last times both terms were used in the New York Times, outside of the Opinion page, were in an article by Clifford Krauss and Maggiue Heberman on December 10th, “Exxon Mobil Chief Rises on Secretary of State List“, “…Mr. Trump has called climate change a hoax created by the Chinese for business reasons, and has named a climate change denier, Scott Pruitt…” and in a news review article posted to the NY Times online on Dec 12 : “Climate Change News That Stuck With Us in 2016” in which John Schwartz (a NY Times environmental journalist) is quoted “How do you talk about climate change during a presidential administration that denies it’s happening? President-elect Donald J. Trump has called climate change a hoax…”. (This last did not appear “in print” online until Dec 14 and the entries from various journalists were probably written before the Krauss/Heberman story even though they appear several days later).
It now has been two weeks and counting since such language appeared in any NY Times news article. One can only hope that this represents a change in editorial policy — a change to the style manual of the NY Times.
How long can one of the world’s leading newspapers continue to publicly label US Presidential Cabinet members with the nasty epithet “climate denier” and repeat the untruth that the President-elect believes* that “climate change is a hoax” – something that he has repeatedly denied?
I do not know if this represents a real change at the NY Times but I certainly hope so.
# # # # #
* His official views on climate change are shared here for anyone who cares. He has said “a lot of it” [global warming] “is a hoax” — a matter of opinion shared by many — and he freely admits to once have publicly jokingly tweeted – in 2012 – that it was ‘perpetrated by China to steal our factories’.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I love to read and respond to your comments. I have almost zero interest in US two-party politics, which I consider to be “what’s wrong with the American governmental system”. I will not be discussing the back-and-forth of Republican-vs-Democrat politics, and prefer that it be skipped here.
This essay is about how Climate Change is portrayed in public – on governmental websites like that of the DNR of Wisconsin and in the press. With the Presidential election results expected to deflate and/or depower the pressure to conform to IPCC climate consensus talking points, it will be interesting to see how public statements change and how the press changes its portrayal of the issue in the news.
Please comment with examples that you are seeing in your local papers and on local television.
We just might be seeing the first wave of change.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My stance is simply this: None of the real movers and shakers behind the ‘useful idiots’, ever believed in climate change of the man made sort. It was and is a political and commercial marketing narrative.
By voting in Trump, a new version of what the ‘stupid ordinary man’ is thinking has emerged, in the minds of those who see it that way. AGW doesn’t have traction. So it will be binned, and the useful idiots like Monbiot, and so on who promulgated it, will be quietly dumped, or paid off in some way.
Climate change, the agenda, will never be admitted to be wrong. It will simply fade from public consciousness as the next campaign (probably some kind of ‘global social justice’/migration initiative) replaces it as The Thing Everyone Is Talking About. Climate out of vogue, social justice back in.
Leo Smith ==> A very likely scenario.
I agree. It’s always had an aura of sophistry that non-critical thinkers can cling to and use as a weapon to bash their political enemies. Not to mention the religious overtones and zealotry (“We’re Saving The Planet! What could be more important than that? How could you possibly disagree? You must be evil and therefore need to be destroyed!”).
I’ve been reading “Yahoo News” articles frequently. Check out a POLITICAL story, such as Trump’s cabinet selections, and there are maybe 2000 or 3000 posts. On the other hand, global warming scare stories have maybe 100 or 200 posts. Based on that “Yahoo” sampling method, only a small fraction of the news reading public is concerned about CAGW.
Want a good laugh? I was just browsing around over at George Mason Univ. center for climate change communication. Gosh they are true believers, just consider their “about” paragraph: “As a result of human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – the earth’s climate is becoming dangerously disrupted and destabilized. Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change. To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change.”
Such wonderfully crafted statements. I love the “unbiased communication research” claim. What in the heck do they see that is “dangerously disrupted” about the climate?
John Boles ==> The liberal/progressive universities will be some of the last groups to undergo change. Many of today’s senior professors were teaching assistants in the 60s battling the war in Viet Nam, rioting in the streets, occupying campus buildings, smoking pot and dropping acid in the Quad. They have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the CAGW/Environmental movement and are True Believers, passing on their world view to our impressionable youth. There are none on campus to present contrary views — such contrary views are not allowed and speakers are dis-invited if their views do not match those held by the politically correct.
Kip says “universities will be some of the last groups to undergo change.”
To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, wrong ideas will always persist where results don’t matter!
Well, in the states who have come out against the so-called “Clean Power Plan”, after 24 state officials came out opposing it two weeks ago, 15 have sent Trump a letter, asking him to keep it. So that’s 48% opposed to 30% in favor, with presumably the remaining 22% not caring one way or the other. The worm has turned, in favor of truth, actual science, and progress.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/states-face-off-over-future-obama-global-warming-181843335.html?ref=gs
It was interesting that climate change came up only once in the US presidential debates, when HRC brought it up and Donald Trump deflected the point. The Democrats apparently thought that depicting Trump as a reprobate was a more winning strategy than running on CAGW, which a fair number of Canadian and European politicians still are.
Leo and Alan are exactly right. In infonomic terms, the public perception of any issue is determined by the total potentiation of all the neural networks in all the brains of the population. As both Dr. Adrian Bejan and Scott Adams say, people are programmed to pay attention to what is immediately in front of them and what carries the most “information energy.” It is impossible to maintain a high level of potentiation on any topic over time.
Predicting the ebb and flow of information in society is on the level of predicting the climate – society is a coupled semi-chaotic system, etc. Small input changes, like the ones Kip has alertly pointed out, can make major changes downstream. I predict that the AGW bubble is already collapsing and will do so much faster than anticipated.
Trump’s reaction to the supposed Russian hacking of the election is telling – unlike the traditional politicians engaging in endless pontificating about retaliation, sanctions and such, Trump just says, how about we get on with our lives (and the things that really matter). These kind of simple statements are incredibly powerful.
Markopanama,
There is much that I like about Trump, as long as we can keep him from tweeting out the missile launch codes.
I think the actual code is/was 97 and was found on Hillary’s server somewhere listed under Super_Sekrit_Stuff.
Markopanama I hope you are correct. Living near the Apple as I do, I am concerned that Odumber’s saber rattling will call down a Russian nuke and ruin my lawn.
‘Odumber’s saber rattling” – ha ha.
I doubt the Kremlin has ever cared what Odummber thinks (if that’s the right term) about much of anything other than if he will actually sign sanctions legislation.
Odumber is a wus; why would the Russians want him (or for that matter, Hillary) out of the way? Like they say in Syria, N Korea & Iran “nothing could possibly be better than Odumber”.
The real test will be when National Geographic stops prominently displaying idiot articles like their recent one by Leonardo Dicaprio flaunting his high school laureates and expounding on climate change. Even my favorite magazine, Astronomy, bows to the CO2 gods. Of course there is plenty of consensus science in cosmology as well. And I miss my Scientific American subscription which I cancelled long ago when they jumped on the moron bang wagon. Unfortunately, since the dawn of climate science, such as it now is, I believe tha all science has taken a real hit and now exhibits its own degree of fake news.
Jim G1 ==> NatGeo has become, unfortunately, the “Popular Science” of our day — losing its original scientific rigor and swinging wildly to the side of political correctness. Like NPR, PBS and the like, its ranks have been selected for their world view which must conform to the most liberal and progressive thoughts of the day.
Scientific American has become a double oxymoron — it does not embody the ethics of Science nor the values of America.
Of course Kip, you could be merely exposing the minority opinion, and NPR, PBS, Sciam et. al. could be reporting the prevailing scientific viewpoint which you seem to reject.
Rob Bradley ==> The deterioration of scientific standards of both NatGeo and SciAm is a matter of opinion, but I am certainly not the only person to express such. It is not a single-issue matter.
SciAm showed its true colors in the Mims incident years ago. Scientific Political Correctness trumps qualifications, ability, and religious freedom. (Thus, its very name is a double oxymoron).
NatGeo has been a scientific joke for years — jumping on whatever band-wagon issue will sell magazines.
NatGeo is still the torch-bearer for scientific and nature photography.
Kip, you say: ” I am certainly not the only person to express such.” I agree with your observation that you aren’t the only one, however, you and others that express that are in the minority.
Kip: But their Bigfoot documentary was real science!
And come to think of it, CAGW does remind me a lot of belief in mystical monsters.
Piper ==> The Bigfoot thing was the History [sic] Channel….but I get your point.
Rob ==> Of course, for SciAm, there was this: “Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues“
Rob, I can assure you that Kip is not in the minority.
The claim that a vast majority of scientists believe that CO2 is a strong enough green house gas to cause serious problems has been well and thoroughly refuted.
Of course those who make their living off of scaring others keep pushing the lie.
MARKW, waving your hands doesn’t mean much of anything. When scientific studies on the views of the climate scientist cohort align with your opinion, I’ll consider your view that Kip is not a member of the minority. Up until then, if you think blog posts refute existing studies…..good luck in your science career.
Kip, posting a link to a blog that is a member of the “echo chamber” you inhabit as evidence? Really? Are you kidding?
Rob ==> I am happy to discuss the issues raised in my essay — but I do not engage in the silly Climate Wars either in comments nor in my essays.
I’m with you on that Kip, I wouldn’t want to fight a war when I was on the losing side.
the losing side will be science in general. sadly it will deserve the metaphorical kicking it will get.
Bit chilly,
My point exactly in previous comment, science in general, is already the looser as so called climate science has already desecrated much of it by becoming the home for consensus science, poor statistical anaysis and politically motivated funding. Skeptical science is out the window. Though in reality skeptics have always had a hard time being heard.
Wow! We seem to have a whole new set of trolls. I guess Griff went the way of what he thinks is happening to the polar bears.
“Javert Chip December 30, 2016 at 5:53 pm wrote: “Wow! We seem to have a whole new set of trolls.”
There do seem to be a few new names popping up on the alarmist side at this website. I suppose that might happen because some people see the way it looks like Trump is going with CAGW, and they don’t like it, and have decided to weigh in on the subject publicly, and what better place to do that than WUWT.
I suppose we will get some organized alarmist pushback, too, as the debate heats up.
It’s a teaching moment. 🙂
“Even my favorite magazine, Astronomy, bows to the CO2 gods.”
Astronomy doesn’t do much preaching on CO2. I have seen a couple of off-hand remarks on the subject by the editor, and he wrote an entire opinion article that chided CAGW skeptics a little, and I saw one letter to the editor complaining about the editor bringing CAGW into the magazine. Other than that, I haven’t seen much of anything about CAGW in Astronomy.
That’s a good thing because I cancelled my subscriptions to Scientific American and Science News specifically because they kept pushing the CAGW theme even though they never provided any evidence of such.
I started off interested in the subject and what they had to say, and each new article on CAGW that would come out I would eagerly read hoping to finally get some proof that CAGW was real, and I *never* read an article that provided that proof.
After I realized how they were playing the game (speculating instead of proving), I started getting angry every time I would see another such article, to the point that I finally cancelled that reading material.
I can see where Scientific American and Science News would include CAGW in their coverage since they are general science magazines, although I disagreed with their take on the subject, but Astronomy has no excuse for introducing CAGW into their magazine. They should stick to astronomy. If they ever do go on a CAGW crusade, I’ll be cancelling that subscription, too. The Astronomy editor should keep his opinions on CAGW to himself and out of the magazine.
About 2 years ago, I sent a communication to Environment Canada asking what the budget for climate change was within that government department. I received a reply that stated that there was no budget nor were there any expenditures concerning climate change studies. Recently, I listened to a report on the climate in which the person interviewed was referred to as the representative of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
More brazen now under Trudeau than they dared to be under Harper, hopefully this tendency can be reversed with a good example from our 11th province to the south 😉
You should ask again with a sample of the report showing openly the activity of Climat change. They might give you a real response.
UPDATE: Climate Witch Hunt adds Maine AG…
http://www.centralmaine.com/2016/12/29/maines-attorney-general-signs-letter-to-trump-on-climate-change/
The NYT is and will always be complete sh/t. I would not let my dog do his business on the NYT for fear his paws would get infected. That they may have changed their style manual to back slightly away from their progressive warmist rhetoric changes nothing. The NYT is #FakeNews
I just saw the article in the news and came here to see if you’ve caught it and you did! WOOHOO!
As a resident of WI, I can tell you this is fantastic news. I know more than a few in the DNR and they are mostly skeptics.
This is the 1st step, even if it is a CYA move to keep federal funding in light of the political arena, next is the University of WI system. It’ll trickle or possibly flood down the food chain.
Worth a watch and excellent talk
https://plus.google.com/+LorriAnderson/posts/NJP4HTrm4ED?_utm_source=199-1-1
Time mark 2:10 “…and whether warming is dangerous …?”
B I N G O !
And her call for more study of “natural variability” at 2m26s.
More funding to those who were marginalised for their views about natural variability. Segregate those sufferers and bring their stories of sufferings to limelights. They deserve special recognition for their service to science. Their integrity to science should be rewarded with enough funding to carry their research ideas. They should receive similar support like other researchers for career progression and never be secluded from the system.
It is the time now !!
Adding to this, … here’s a link to another former alarmist scientist telling why he changed his mind:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/
Adding still more, … here’s a link to a former Greenpeace alarmist scientist telling why he changed HIS mind:
https://www.cfact.org/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-warming-fears/
Uh, no, nothing’s changing. In fact, the chorus of squealing & crying will reach unimaginable heights when/if Trump proposes to cut funding for the CAGW ho*x.
Not till Jan. 20th when the coast is clear to think and speak freely
All future press conferences held by Trump over the the next four years need to be held outdoors in Minot, ND or Fairbanks in January and February. He could fly in to the airbases there.
I think there is an opportunity here to bombard local and regional governments and news organizations with a one-two punch as follows:
” Given nearly twenty years of no warming trend globally and Wisconsin and Washington opening the door to official questioning of the reality of Climate Change, what steps is your organization taking to keep pace with the evolving new thinking? More and more scientists are expressing skepticism about the IPCC position.”
As a “climate war” veteran of ten years, fighting mostly in the non-scientist realms of social media, I cannot stress enough how horribly I felt/feel the scientist end of the battles going on “above” me kept screwing up by accepting and adopting obviously inappropriate lingo . . it must have been a thousand times that I wanted to SCREAM at the geek friendlies to stop using idiotic nonsensical terms like “climate skeptic” in there discussions, about themselves, and people like me.
No, geeks, I wanted to tell you, I am not skeptical of climate, and neither are you . . and to denounce *you* for labeling us like that . . you crippled the efforts to support what you were doing, by blithely accepting nonsensical labels, I believe, and this war might have been effectively won back in 2009-10, or as the “pause” stretched into the high teens, had you simply used the opportunity “climate-gate” afforded us to dump the dopey talk-talk . .
Down there, in those trenches, I held my ground . . and it often worked (I sensed) to get people to think more carefully about what the mass media was blabbering at us . . but I sure wished I had some more authoritative voices to quote, rather than so many voices mimicking the grotesque mislabeling . .
John Knight,
Nothing wrong with being labeled a skeptic, real scientists are always skeptical. It, along with good data, are the root of science.
Are you skeptical of climate, Jim?
An even more counterproductive label, I feel, is “Climate science skeptic” . . It makes the IPCC/CAGW clan into climate science itself, linguistically speaking. . but it was climate science that made me skeptical of them!! . . They are NOT climate science, so it makes no sense (unless you’re truly desperate to save on key strokes ; ) to label yourself a climate science skeptic . . it just makes you look anti-science or dumb, frankly, to many civilians . . and quite possibly some not too involved scientists . .
John,
I am anti-word parsing.
Kinda makes you a sitting duck for clever propagandists, don’t ya think?
I appreciate Anthony’s efforts to keep party politics out the issue. The problem with that is that this issue has been purely political for about 20 years now, starting at the moment that Bill Clinton signed on to the flawed Kyoto treaty and the left went “all-in” on the claim that all of their opponents were anti-science.
(the now forgotten stem cell fight was another part of that claim; not so surprisingly it’s turned out that adult stem cells are just as useful as fetal stem cells)
And now the left has accepted the hard core “warming will be TEOTWAWKI” position as dogma, which is because the left has now become a completely dogmatic movement that brooks no internal opposition.
The only way that rational belief and healthy skepticism in the climate science movement will ever become the norm will be when the left is Defeated, Utterly. Dogma does not change by argument, Dogma can only be defeated.
And that means the fight is going to take place on the Political plane, and always will. When the political fight is won, then the scientific fight will be won shortly after. That order cannot be reversed.
Fortunately, recent events are very hopeful.
Kip, I certainly hope you’re right about the NYT. If they permanently tone down their rhetoric about Trump and his appointees being deniers, then that would be a hugely influential move. As the world’s premier newspaper, it would signal to the world (of journalism anyway) that a more “nuanced” approach to the subject is overdue.
Like most things, I’m skeptical about this. If NYT indeed changed in this way, does this mean that their editorial policy concerning climate change in general has changed? Or have they merely adopted a less pejorative approach to Donald Trump and his “policies”? My guess would be that they’re giving the President-elect the benefit of the doubt until he proves them wrong – itself a positive development.
One thought that keeps crossing my mind is that the “denier” label, pejorative though it is, unfortunately correctly applies to quite a large number of people. I assume that “denier” in the climate arena means someone who denies the basic science of climate change – i.e. the notion that increased airborne CO2 leads to increased temperatures. Let’s call this the GHE.
This blog and all skeptic blogs are replete with GHE deniers, which results in a huge amount of time and energy wasted commenting on questionable science. Many of these denizens have worked out impressive scientific arguments of why GHE either exists only in the lab or is non-existent even in the lab. I’m all for the First Amendment, but my eyes quickly glaze over when I see this discussion.
My only point is that “denier” applies correctly to a lot of people, and that if skeptics object to use of the term then they should examine their own views to see if it applies to them. Arguing that the term itself should be forbidden is another form of denial.
And words matter, of course. Bloggers and journalists should use words and terms correctly, particularly if they carry emotional baggage. Maybe this is what motivates the NYT.
scraft1 ==> The “trend” is still holding — no usage of the “climate change denier” label and no “Trumpo says climate change is a hoax” (in news stories) since mid-December. (There was one re-printed AP story that used the hoax quip.) Time will tell.
The nearest large city, for us, is Houston. It may surprise some, but it is a pretty liberal city with a liberal newspaper the Houston Chronicle. The most recent article on climate change is this one: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/The-conservative-push-to-convert-conservatives-on-9461552.php
They only interview alarmists who talk about how they are working to change conservative minds on climate change. The closest they come to a dissenting view is our (The Woodlands, Texas) US Representative Kevin Brady (Ways and Means Chairman), who would have none of it. Some of those interviewed work (or have worked) for Exxon and BP.
I would not expect the Chronicle to change its view for a long time, but the public here is generally skeptical of an imminent man-made climate disaster. Scientists and engineers are pretty easy to persuade with data and logic. The general public will listen to reason. The media are very hard to persuade, they love their cherry-picked sources. Politicians would rather jump off a cliff than change their minds, you have to vote them out to get change.
It has been a long time since the Chronicle published a story on the subject, maybe the election results affected their enthusiasm for a climate disaster. BTW, Houston went for Clinton 54-42%. Texas went for Trump 53-43%. Montgomery County (where I live) went Trump 74-23%.
Sheila Jackson Lee is Houston’s representative – nuff’ said. Texas is kind of odd – Inner city Houston, Inner City Dallas, and all of Austin are effectively hard-left political ghettos which exist like tumors inside the larger, conservative political body.
CBC (Toronto CBC 1) went full-alarm this morning with a story on an island off the coast of Prince Edward Island, saying that sea levels might rise by as much as 3 metres in the coming 85 years. “So how would that affect the people on the island if it rose 3 metres?” the interviewer asked.
They are doubling down, the CBC is, hoping to scoff their way into the hearts and minds of the long-suffering public. Carbon cap-and-trade starts tomorrow. The plan is to raise $1bn to subsidise renewables (net loss) beyond the damage caused by the marginal cost of public funds. The current estimate of economic damage (McKitrick 2016) from raising that amount of additional tax will be $6.3bn, plus the loss on the ‘renewables’. There is nothing more renewable in Ontario than the tax dollar. No matter how dumb and ill-considered the plan, those dollars keep on coming. It is another miracle of post-normal economic science.
It is the relevant editor that sets the tone/tenor of a media outlet. Until the editor changes his views on a subject or is replaced by someone with a different take on things the newspaper’s / network’s stance on a given subject matter will not change.
E.g. until Geoff Carr is replaced at the Economist and Clive Cookson at the Financial times these papers will not change their alarmist climate establishment CACC editorial line. Same thing goes for the BBC in the UK and the CBC in Canada. All four media outlets mentioned have explicit policies censoring skeptics including on their blog / comment pages [I cancelled my subscription to the FT after a very public comment spat with Cookson and his boss].
I’m glad to see the changes in Wisconsin but wouldn’t hold my breath on the NYT switching away from its champagne socialist the-science-is-settled-and all-those-who-don’t-agree-are-deniers editorial stance any time soon.
IMO, Trump’s election is effectively the end of the road for the catastrophic global warming crowd. I hold with those who believe we have just been in a natural warming cycle that will switch to a cooling phase eventually. That being the case, all we had to do was delay, as much as possible, anything to ‘fix’ the problem of CAGW and the economic damage that would ensue. The argument would end once nature had its say.
I feel reasonably certain that the US government’s push to issue climate change regulation will at least be stalled, if not rolled back, for at least four years. I have hopes that by that time, no one will be able to deny that the earth has begun a cooling phase, and warming is not the problem people thought it was. The editors can change their positions, be considered irrelevant, global cooling climate deniers, or more likely, quietly retire.
To paraphrase Lenin, “You may not be interested in (politics), but (politics) is interested in you.” Good luck with that Kim. It’s kinda how we got to this point with faked science.
The thing that puzzles me is that this is the wrong way round.
I would much more expect to see the Climate Change policies being gradually diluted or withdrawn – while the language and the hype remains exactly the same. After all, it’s the hype that brings in the money and provides the cushy jobs…
Just read Steyn’s book Disgrace to the Profession. I knew the Stick was bad, but not that it was total garbage and has been essentially “disappeared” from the IPCC report.
This is a rotten house of cards. Kick it over. “Disappear it” like the Stick. No prisoners.