Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A post in The Conversation claims that government officials in red state administrations are sneaking in climate measures disguised as government efficiency drives and pollution mitigation initiatives.
Red state rural America is acting on climate change – without calling it climate change
Author: Rebecca J. Romsdahl
Professor of Environmental Science & Policy, University of North Dakota
February 22, 2017 1.08pm AEDT
President Donald Trump has the environmental community understandably concerned. He and members of his Cabinet have questioned the established science of climate change, and his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA many times and regularly sided with the fossil fuel industry.
Even if the Trump administration withdraws from all international climate negotiations and reduces the EPA to bare bones, the effects of climate change are happening and will continue to build.
In response to real threats and public demand, cities across the United States and around the world are taking action to address climate change. We might think this is happening only in large, coastal cities that are threatened by sea-level rise or hurricanes, like Amsterdam or New York.
Research shows, however, that even in the fly-over red states of the U.S. Great Plains, local leaders in small- to medium-size communities are already grappling with the issue. Although their actions are not always couched in terms of addressing climate change, their strategies can provide insights into how to make progress on climate policy under a Trump administration.
…
The following quotes give a sense of their strategies.
“In terms of economic benefit & resource protection. This framing was deliberate to garner support from residents who did not agree with climate change.”
“We frame the initiative as: energy savings (=$ savings), as smart growth/good planning, and as common sense natural resource management. Climate change is only explicitly referenced in our Climate Protection Plan adopted in 2009. Most initiatives fall under the “sustainability” umbrella term.“
“We mask it with sustainability, we call it P3 (People, Planet, Prosperity)”
…
The abstract of the referenced study;
Planning for climate change across the US Great Plains: Concerns and insights from government decision-makers
While both international and national efforts are being made to assess climate change and mitigate effects, primary impacts will likely be regional. The US Great Plains region is home to a mosaic of unique ecosystems which are at risk from climate change. An exploratory survey of over 900 Great Plains government officials shows concerns for specific natural resources but not global climate change. Local government decision-makers are important sources of initiation for environmental policy; however, less than 20 % of jurisdictions surveyed have developed plans for adapting to or mitigating potential climate change impacts. The continental extremes of seasonal and annual climate variability of the Great Plains can mask the effects of global climate change and likely influences its’ residents lack of concern. The study findings indicate a need to reframe the discussion away from climate change skepticism, toward a focus on possible impacts within current resource management priorities such as drought, so that proactive planning can be addressed.
In my opinion this effort to justify political deception is obscene. Winning electoral office by deceiving voters undermines democracy – it debases the value of casting a vote.
Reframing also potentially leads to serious resource misallocation.
For example, in a deceptive regime of “reframing”, the parameters of civic works projects could be quietly padded, to cope with questionable projections of future climatic extremes which are not justified by the historical record.
If Mayors and other local government officials think future climate change is an issue, they should openly declare their concerns, and let voters decide on the merits of their plans, rather than hiding their true intentions behind a deceptive mask of “reframing”.
Policies which have been carefully crafted to hide their true intent from the electorate is nothing new.
It has always been used, and intended, to hide the truth from the ‘little people’ that the left-wing metrocentric liberal elite consider to be ‘too stupid’ to agree with and go along with.
That has been the approach used to create the EU and is why it is the disaster for the people that it is.
It’s just normal political corruption, brought to a fine art by those on the left.
It’s normal politics. The corruption is inherent.
So time to add to our Green-Left Dictionary?
“reframing” = To Lie, boldly and directly, especially about policy and Global Warning issues.
I have no idea how intelligent people can conclude this is all “normal” . . I actually suspect those who say such things of being propagandists trying to keep the “little people” from taking it seriously.
“In response to real threats and public demand, cities across the United States and around the world are taking action to address climate change.”
If this was true they wouldn’t have to pretend their actions were for something else!
.. and even if Trump does not pull out of all international climate negotiations and reduce the EPA to bare bones, climate will continue to change.
Liberals are the least transparent in their dealings and plans among all varieties of politicians. The core motto is “The ends justify the means.” If you have to cheat to win or get where you want to be, then you probably should not be there in the first place.
In a nutshell, winning or getting elected honestly has the best long term outcome because of the great likelihood that this person would then do what he/she said would be done if elected. Essentially, the win was through logically connected statements and actions and, therefore, what the politician then does will be logical and good, as it was approved by the people.
On the other hand, winning by cheating and lying to the people pretty much requires that you will not be following a logical series of statements or actions. Thus, when this dishonest person wins, what he or she does will not be logically connected to the campaign promises and most likely be against what the people want and/or do real damage in some form.
Stop with all this making sense stuff! You’re threatening peoples’ phoney-baloney jobs!
Energy conservation has always been a good idea even before climate change became an issue, and it did not stop being a good idea just because the climate change (or global warming as it was called before) issue came up. It has always been, and always will be, a good idea to reduce cost and pollution.
Energy conservation is a good idea, but only up to a point.
Ditto reducing cost and pollution.
Donald, if the expense is for a one-time cost that exceeds the energy savings over the life of the item, then it is a poor decision on economic grounds.
That is what so many of these authorities do, oversell the long term benefit while playing down or ignoring the fact the accounts never balance. You can only justify most of these expenditures if you are attempting to debt-enslave the community and cement your ideology’s permanent grip on complete control of the people.
When one does the sums, one finds that very few “sustainable” projects actually are sustainable, but do an excellent job of limiting the choices of citizens.
@Donald Your assuming that the goal is to actually conserve energy, reduce pollution and protect the environment from damage; most alarmists would gladly sacrifice all to advance their agenda du jour. If you doubt me, just look at the ecological disaster left at the Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters camp.
Well when I studied thermodynamics and such; even basic physics, Energy Conservation was considered mandatory.
In fact it was forbidden to not conserve energy, no matter how inefficient you were.
G
This sounds to me like ICLEI ( http://www.iclei.org/ ) and Agenda 21 who both infitrate at the local government and social level.
I describe this as it happens in my city at https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2012/11/29/hello-world/
There are other relevant posts there, including how these things have infiltrated our school curriculum etc.
I recommend searching your local, provincial and/or state government websites for these key words.
ICLEI, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, sustainability, ICLEI.
Also try checking on http://www.iclei.org/ whether your city is listed as a member.
Cheers
Roger
The European union conceived as a soviet style super state, was sold to us Brits as a ‘common market’
Oh well, we knew what was what then
As my grandpappy always used to say, (in a thick Eastern European accent) “They are all crooks.”
The Red State – Blue State thing is the real misdirection; linked as it is to the “Electoral College” by means of which, the States of the USA choose their Grand Poo Bah leader (AKA The POTUS).
The left of course would like to see the end of the Electoral College, as being contrary to the “one man-one vote” concept.
Excuse me sir; but isn’t the Senate also contrary to the one man-one vote concept ??
But Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by almost 2 million votes. Well actually there isn’t any “popular vote”, and as it happens according to a recent MSM news broadcast of the results of a survey; there are at least 2 million non citizens of the USA who are illegally registered to vote.
How about that. Now I don’t believe the survey reveals or even suggests that all two million of those illegal voters voted for Clinton. But it does sort of gibe with what the Trump Camp claimed, that the left pooh poohed as “Fake News.” No it was quite real news as that survey demonstrated.
But meanwhile back at the red state blue state.
How about a RED COUNTY – BLUE COUNTY election result.
Even in Presidential elections, people tend to vote their local issues first, before anything of grander scale.
And overwhelmingly, the 2016 election was an overwhelming Red County affair.
I don’t have the statistics; but a casual glance at a map suggests somewhere between 90-10 red-blue, and maybe 95-05 red-blue.
They seem too embarrassed to print the numbers.
What is happening now, is NO surprise. The new administration is setting out to do what the communities in the USA sent them to do.
G
Hardly surprising. People have been routinely brainwashed for decades with this hysterical bs now and they are simply incapable of stopping. You may as well ask them to stop breathing. They fundamentally believe that unless they do this then the World will end. The poor dears really do see themselves as so many little Flash Gordons to Trump’s Ming the Merciless.
justified by the historical record.????
Projecting the future will be like the past is a model.
If you use that model we need to prepare for much warmer and much colder… much wetter and much more dry.
If you actually plan for the past you spend more… not less.
No, Mosh, you plan for things to carry on much as they have done for decades if not centuries.
Temperatures will vary in pretty much the same narrow band over the next 100 years as they have over the last 100 years. Sea level will continue to rise at about 1.5mm a year. Polar bears will continue to survive and thrive as they have been doing for decades. Arctic ice will expand and contract according to whichever weather (w-e-a-t-h-e-r: you remember the word) pattern happens to be in the ascendancy.
You and your pals have still not produced a scrap of evidence that justifies the sort of level of panic you are encouraging and the most recent evidence, daily listed by Pierre Gosselin on his blog, suggests that the whole concept of man-made global warming based on CO2 is a busted flush. It simply isn’t happening, except in your fevered imaginations and the dark recesses of your computer models.
Come and join us in the real world, Mosh. It’s quite fun here, honest!
“Come and join us in the real world, Mosh.”
He can’t. Even with conscience it would take some gumption and a higher than normal willing ability to lose the money and status offered in his “profession” and move over. But he’s not alone, few have the nagging psychological moral correction of an Eschenbach, so Mosh has convinced himself that his is the correct path. This is why a higher level oversight that puts necessary corrective rules in place is sometimes required (as in the banking system). Hopefully such corrective oversight for climastrology is about to occur with Trump.
It’s called “Leading beyond authority”
http://commonpurpose.org/united-states/
Also known as the Peter principle.
I suppose in this day and age we should call the age-old practice of deceiving the electorate – promising the undeliverable, or promising with no intention of delivery etc etc – something like ‘fake policies’
In one of the most blatant examples of broken promises, Labour pledged in 2005 to put the European Union Constitution to a referendum in Britain. However, two years later the government forced through the Lisbon Treaty – substantially the same as the Constitution – without a public vote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7628796/General-Election-2010-Labours-broken-manifesto-pledges.html
There isn’t much new under the Sun.
As Harry S Truman said, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you don’t know.”
If you are happy with your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor.
Your annual family insurance costs will be reduced by $2,500.00.
Ha! How about:
“There will be no carbon tax under any government I run”?
The province of Ontario in Canada is the poster boy for what happens when environmentalism is disguised as good financial policy.
The Liberal government is in deep trouble because electricity prices have more than doubled. Recent polls indicate that they will be wiped out in the next election.
They promised that getting rid of the coal plants would decrease pollution and save billions of dollars in health care costs. That hasn’t happened. Any observed reduction in pollution is probably due to efforts across the border in America. The reduced health costs haven’t materialized.
They promised an employment boom as renewable energy jobs kicked in. Those jobs are nowhere to be seen.
The high electricity rates are driving jobs out of the province. They are directly hurting poor people who have to choose between paying for electricity and paying rent.
Any politician who wants to fight green fraud has only to look to Ontario to get all the ammunition needed to expose the lies being told to their local voters. link Environmentally minded politicians who don’t want to commit political suicide should take a lesson from their northern cousins. The chickens can come home to roost rather quickly.
It’s called “putting lipstick on a pig”.
What is wrong with the link to that page? The page will not load. Otherwise cheerful news.
So I googled Global news and got the page to immediately load. Something is wrong with your above link.
Also, on the front page they show most popular stories with the lead one being the story that Vancouver could be like San Diego by 2050, but that link leads to 404. I see no sign of the story about electricity prices having doubled. What’s up with that?
I’m not sure what’s going on with the links. They work OK with my browser. Anyway, here they are as URLs.
Polls: http://globalnews.ca/news/3050654/grim-outlook-for-premier-kathleen-wynne-ontario-liberals-in-2018-election-poll/
Electricity Boondoggle: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/boondoggle-how-ontarios-pursuit-of-renewable-energy-broke-the-provinces-electricity-system
@commie Bob…That worked like a charm. I wonder what happened the first time around? Thanks for the new links.
Lorrie Goldstein has been banging on about this for years.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?complete=0&hl=en&ei=8lKNWKmzJofmmAGwxKKICQ#complete=0&hl=en&q=site:torontosun.com+lorrie+goldstein/electricity&*
I loved seeing the expression [its’] in the summary. That construction is in the plural possessive form. The plural of [it] is [they] or [them]. There is no such word as its’. Such carelessness or ignorance reveals the potential faultiness of the article. The article, in turn, reveals the fundamental dishonesty of the Left in all its works and all its ways. I hope local and state authorities are awake and alert, to catch this sort of subterfuge and prevent or counteract it.
The continental extremes of seasonal and annual climate variability of the Great Plains can mask the effects of global climate change and likely influences its’ residents lack of concern.
Somewhat verbose.
I’m not sure if you’re correct but the way they wrote it bends the English language.
its’ is not a word. This does show a certain carelessness and disrespect for the reader. The abstract of a scientific paper should be faultless otherwise why on earth should anyone read any more? This kind of common mistake demonstrates that we are dealing with a low quality journal, a low quality paper, and a careless author.
So read it for what it says. Then, after nitpicking at an apostrophe, say WHY would the residents of the Great Plains be concerned about a 3 degree rise in temperature when they probably are living, daily, with a 30 or more degree change in temperature from mins to maxs. WHY would anyone be concerned? I’ve lived with temperature swings from the 60s to the 110s over the course of 24 hours – yes that isn’t centigrade – so why would I be concerned with a 3 degree rise over 100 years?
The trouble is, I am not seeing any change in the “average high temperature,” only the average temperature, which means that the temperature change is on the minimum side. IF there was global warming of the type that would turn Earth into a sauna, there would have to be a rise in daily HIGH temperatures that we could see.
Practically every month last year Phoenix had a new high average temperature, but there was nothing new under the Sun regarding daily highs which weren’t as high as normal, yet the average temperature was higher due to overnight lows not getting as low as they used to. Does NOT sound like warming to me beyond urban heat. The whole “average temperature rising” crap is so misleading.
Again, here in Phoenix the day highs were not as hot as they have been even though they started from a higher overnight temperature. It speaks to the fact that there has to be less total heat coming in from the Sun – if you are starting from a higher point and applying the same heat, you should end with a higher high temperature, not a lower high temperature.
Tom O – so many have observed the same thing. Have downloaded lots of Environment Canada data and generally speaking, it is less cold, not warmer. Bob Tisdale’s book “Global Warming and the Illusion of Control” – Figure 1.26-14 from Berkley Earth shows that Minumum Temperatures are increasing more than Maximum Temperatures. And though I may be interpreting things, Figure 1.26-15 shows how the models and reality diverge, particularly in the northern hemisphere.
Observations of others note that those of us on the high plains of the continent are used to high variations in temperature. A few degrees one way or the other doesn’t seem to be an issue. In fact, a little less cold makes both me and my animals happier and there is still lots of snow in the mountains. With risk of repaeting what I have previously posted, here is 125 years of data from Medicine Hat in southern Alberta. Not much to worry about.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/73bzb5btpja32ms/MedicineHatExtremes.tiff?dl=0
Jesuitical, Talmudish, or Clintonesque perhaps. link
“… reveals the potential faultiness of the article.”
Beyond revealing that the author, Rebecca J. Romsdahl, did not have my wife read the text prior to publishing, using ” its’ ” reveals very little.
I hate rogue apostrophe’s !
“In response to real threats and public demand, cities across the United States and around the world are taking action to address climate change. We might think this is happening only in large, coastal cities that are threatened by sea-level rise or hurricanes, like Amsterdam or New York.
“Amsterdam threatened by sea level rise”
WR: “Real threat” – Hahahaha. They made my day! Best joke.No one in Holland is worried. I am living most of my life some meters below sea level and we are doing fine here. Expected for the rest of this century: 20 cm sea level rise. Well, raising the dikes with 20 cm in a whole century: no problem!
I am skeptical:
Of CO2’s strong climate effect.
Of current, historical and future climate measurements and calculations (divinations).
Of giving governments trillions of dollars as a new revenue stream to stop climate change.
Of giving Wall Street fat cats trillions of dollars to stop climate change.
Mostly, I’m skeptical of the intentions of leaders of the Global Warming Movement.
Up to this point in time the effects of using fossil fuels has been absolutely positive for mankind. No ifs, ands or buts.
I doubt we can control our climate but, over time we can adapt to nearly anything.
Governments have pissed away trillions of dollars and have little to show for it.
New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, Miami, NYC, just about everywhere in CA all singing the “I Got Them Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming Blues” while doing little or nothing to protect themselves from bad weather.
I do not believe co2 is causing “climate change” and has nothing to do with hurricanes. If anything, almost all hurricanes have drifted into the Atlantic. I wander if the planet has warmed over the past 20 years.
Hurricanes will hit our coastlines. But being a resident of coastal Louisiana and having experienced hurricanes, it is impossible to completely protect property in our low lying parishes from flooding, whether it be tidal surges or heavy rains. Here in Terrebonne Parish, We have spent millions to build levees and bayou (River) control structures to prevent flooding. If water breaches any part of this system, flooding will occur. Think Katrina.
Short of levees how do we offer protection. Would you pay to move tens of thousands from the coast? Florida, gulf coast, Atlantic coast.
Actually there is a Louisiana plan, perhaps, the word perhaps to be strongly emphasized, having enough sense rooted in the geology of the Mississippi River deltaic plain. Much money was spent mapping sand deposits on the continental shelf for possible coastal rebuilding, but subsidence and other factors (like cost) intrude. It is an exceptionally difficult and emotional situation with people tied tightly to their home, ephemeral as it may be. It should be easy to find links. Note that it is still a draft.
2017 Draft Plan Release State of Louisiana, Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast
There was a suggestion in an evaluation that the modelers get out in the field where the data is actually collected. Sinking in the mud and measurements taken on a rocking boat help bring about reality if they will really do it.
Ensure there is a future Holland able to raise the dikes, Wim Röst. Vote for Geert Wilders in March.
Although I’ve heard parts of Holland have experienced straight lines wind in excess of hurricane force, I’ve never heard of Holland actually experiencing a hurricane. So, I’m curious, has Holland (much less Amsterdam) ever even experienced a hurricane making landfall at any point in recorded history?
The only actual hurricane that I know that ever made landfall in Europe was Hurricane Debbie in 1961. Even this is in dispute. It’s commonly argued Debbie deteriorated into an extratropical cyclone before making landfall… although offshore gusts of 114 mph were reported when Debbie made land fall.
I wonder what the chances are of this sort of ignorance and stupidity dying out in a few more years, as even more proof is shown for ‘climate change’ not to be happening by the activities of man? It makes me feel totally exasperated with a strong desire to want to shake them until their teeth drop out!
Reading these comments on this article I somehow came about, I am feeling exactly the same way about everyone posting about climate change being a hoax.
I care for the environment, sustainability, and the proper use of commas. (And, if you noticed, I am an avid believer in the Oxford comma.)
I want to cry reading these comments because I don’t understand how a disregard for environmental and social wellbeing in places that are ill-equipped for droughts, floods, etc., can sit well with you at night.
To be honest, though, it’s not about if we’re “causing climate change.” It’s about whether our actions have the capacity to affect the *rate* at which climate is changing.
And even beyond that, it’s about admitting that our actions can have impacts completely disconnected from our personal experiences.
How can you not care about how your actions are affecting both human and non-human life around the globe??
But this exactly how Agenda 21 is meant to function.
Spot on!
This is the frustrating part. Even in your quote there is the assumption that climate change is something that humans have anything to do with. The deliberate use of imprecise language either because the user hasn’t got the capability to understand or is a malfeasant using neuro-linguistic programming to convince the previous user without the capability.
Every projection used by the alarmists about anthropogenic global warming have been proven false. Balloon sondes show the dry lapse rate has not altered. Models are based on ‘instantaneous’ addition of CO2 to ‘slab’ atmospheres with no convection. The ‘warming’ is based on homogenized temperatures despite atmospheric temperature being the wrong metric for heat content, but the warming comes from obvious changes to actual observations and invented observations for areas without actual observations all homogenization software and its results – totally unvalidated. Yet nobody apart perhaps from the new Science Adviser to the President seems to want to ask very basic simple questions in precise language and insist on responses. https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10154599289726939/
The Emerged Left is retreating to deception and lies and misdirections. However, having shown themselves publicly for the last few years to the point where most voters have rejected their narratives, it isn’t likely for the Left to successfully reapply these ruses. Some will be duped but not many. For example, how many couples that have divorced remarry the person they divorced? For the Biblical minded, see Acts 9:18.
One major difference in local government vs national government in the US is
that I know and can talk to my county chairman and state representatives.
In the past 10 years, I have had only one meeting with my congressman and
have not even been able to to get a senator on the phone.
One active, informed, person can make a much greater impact on state policy
than on national policy.
For the past 30 years, one of my interests has been to make government
aware of stupid policies and laws. I have influenced a surprising number of
changes.
Our readership has the brain power and we seem to have a large number
of retirees. Time and knowledge and persistence is required. I once sat in
a subcommittee hearing room every day for three weeks to stop a ridiculous
state regulation.
With Pruitt at EPA, it should be very much easier to effect change now, and
what better legacy could we leave our grandchildren?
To be fair, if your senator had to answer phone calls from all constituents, they would never have time for anything else!
Like raising money for reelection.
I have been to a few public meetings. There is a shortage of well informed citizens. If you want politicians to listen, it helps more to have something to say.
And you have a problem with that ??
g
‘……the effects of climate change are happening and will continue to build.’
Really? They keep saying these words and I’m STILL waiting to see what exceptional weather events have occurred that can be directly attributed as a consequence of long-term ‘climate change’. Seriously, where are these ‘effects’ and where can we view them?
Local politicians are suckers for PPP (Programs Pretending Progress)
I’m going to bet its liberal politicians in Red states who are in their last term … soon to be kicked out …
Evidence to back up your claim?
Experience. Years and years of experience.
Wishful thinking. The earlier post regarding Ontario is spot in and would probably be seconded by our mates in South Austrailia. Promises made based on loose studies of projected health benefits are poor grounds forpublic policy making. Just admit that you have an ideological objective and let the voters decide.
Socialism is the ideology of deceit….. Reframing is normal. Indeed they relabel and change the meaning of words all the time. As Orwell said. “Control the language, control the thinking”.
… Take “liberal” for example. Most Democrats call themselves “liberal”, but they are not liberals, they are Socialists promoting Socialism. Liberalism never stood for big government, taxation without representation, censorship and unfettered bureaucratic power…. The founding fathers were classical liberals…. The Democrats, however, are just dyed in the wool Socialists. Everything they say, is designed to deceive while advancing State power over the individual…. They even lie to themselves.
“Reframing” is natural to them.
Excellent comment, J.H.
And the worst part is that often they believe their own lies. Or maybe it’s postmodernism’s fault – “Well, I don’t believe that, but someone else does, therefore it must be true!”
As a young voter I would call myself a liberal republican. Since many of the changes have worked so well, I am now a conservative.
Did we need to make changes to improve air and water quality? Yes and the changes worked.
First, I do not think CAGW is a problems. Second the loons who think it is a problem are totally ineffective with their solutions.
Here is reality and I suggest a great quote for our masthead “The future ain’t what it used to be” Scott Pruitt Administrator of the EPA.
I have no problem with local action targeting a local environmental issue, provided the financial value of benefits is demonstrably greater than cost of action.
However, mitigating CO2 emissions alone clearly does not fall into this category, because local benefits, if any, are negligibly small, while cost of action is surely greater than zero.
Therefore this kind of thing is a net drain on taxpayer’s money, not a good constellation for local governments. Wherever it occurs nonetheless, it should be communicated as such to the electorate.
He and members of his Cabinet have questioned the
establishedestablishment science of climate change….The entire CAGW (now called ‘climate change’), scam is exactly that and that’s what the misanthropic society wrecking greens invented the whole hoax to do – hide their (real) ‘plan’ behind the CAGW mask. Plan: Destroy our civilisation by destroying capitalism, so they can then control everything we do, including our very thoughts, from their Socialist totalitarian regime in the UN under their global socialist governance.
The socialist watermelons hate capitalism – it enables the little people (us) to enjoy financial independence and personal freedom of choice and of speech. Too difficult to control! Much easier if we the UN world government have all the money and freedom, while the serfs are all equally poor and hopeless…
Plan overview: Invent a global (non)problem – such as convince the naive sheeple the earth’s climate is ‘catastrophically out of control’ and is caused by humans burning too much coal ,oil and gas and destroying the atmosphere with ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions from said fossil fuel burning). Global (non)problem of CAGW needs a global solution, that can only be effected by a system of totalitarian global governance and control headquartered in the UN.
Just google: ‘Christiana Figueres global warming scare’.
It might be the year 2017 AD, but were already back to 1984 (Orwellian era).
Here in Pennsylvania framing has been an effective political ploy for decades. “It’s for the children” has been the marketing scheme for numerous taj mahals built for the teachers unions. Bigger facilities with more complex and expensive elective curriculum options are built, requiring more instructors and more administrators while the students graduate without knowing the basics of readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic.
Thoughtful “investments” have been the rhetorical cover for federal government spending since Clinton adopted the new lexicon.
This is not by chance or accident. It is part of a program. As I have said many times on this site: Please take a serious look at what is being shoved into every government organization in the name of Sustainability! Look at the source of the Sustainability program. (Hint UN). Look at the university courses, degrees and Programs on Sustainability. Look at the roots of the efficiency requirements programs for electrical devices, homes, trailer s, everything you buy. Even Obama issued an EO on Sustainability requirements an the need for every federal government department or agency to establish a Sustainability Program. Compare these programs to the UN Sustainability Program. And it started in the US at least twenty years ago.
PS: Google the name of any large university and Sustainability Major. Even your Alma Mater.
Usurbrain,
http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
I did it though I knew the result beforehand as my alma mater, the old case institute of technology, no longer exists. It amalgamated with the liberal arts western reserve college many years ago and sunk to a ranking of about 50+ from one of the top engineering schools in the country along with MIT and caltech when I attended. And sure enough, you were right. Of course, the criteria upon which rankings are now based are also so politically correct that it is hard to tell what is really going on. Though, the old high standards for admission and need for brains and hard work to actually graduate have definitely dissipated from what I have been able to discern. So, I suppose sustainability is an important buzzword for them now.
Above is all one needs to know about global warming, climate change, or whatever the hell they are calling it now. And this information has been available for some time now. I am sure Nahle is now a persona non grata amongst the cerebral elite.
I did and was very impressed. Some very good engineering programs.
My senior project as a mechanical engineer was helping Indiana corn framers use less energy drying corn. At the time, corn was rotting in the fields because of the fields because of the energy crisis.
My frustration is that good engineering solutions are rejected by Carter/Clinton/Obama. It is the idiots that have given being more sustainable a bad rap.
If fact the title of the programs was the same as on my 1999 marketing plan, Sustainable Energy Systems. And no wind and solar are not what I was marketing because, those systems are not sustainable.
Propaganda remains the meat and potatoes of governance. Always has, always will. It is the only way politicians know how to get their bread and butter. It is left to the people to be able to smell it and act accordingly.
You’re absolutely right, Trump’s governance is an excellent example of that.
Be careful Chris. Your starting to sound bitter. To bad the public is starting to see through the scams of the Democrats and the left.
Sounds like you are not in favour of democracy Chris, unless it’s of the democrat type.
Ditto+
Point aptly demonstrated.
Hear hear!
Consider the source: Rebecca J. Romsdahl, Professor of Environmental Science & Policy, University of North Dakota.
Is that virtue signaling or an appeal to authority? Or just someone waving a Ph.D. in our faces?
“Is that virtue signaling or an appeal to authority?”
Oh, I think it is definitely virtue signaling.
I’m thinking about starting up a little business making flags and pennants with the words “Bask in My Virtue!” printed on them. I bet I could sell millions of them to the Loony Lefties out there! Josh ought to do a cartoon.
Every time you see a celebrity or politician shooting off their mouths about how terrible it is to be governed by Trump, imagine them standing there waving their “Bask in My Virtue” flag back and forth as they speak.
Does she have a mixed major, or a mixed-up major?
She just got back from the pipeline protest and didn’t have a lot of time to proof read. (Also guilty)
It’s UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives festering in your towns and cities:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/iclei-when-they-say-local-they-mean-it.html
Unelected officials making “sustainability” regulations in your town/county.
No, the climate kooks are so crazy they think anything to do with energy, infrastructure or environment is all about “cliamte change”. Which is a nice opportunity to point out the illogical circular thinking involved in “climate change”. The intellectual thievery of the climate obsessed is breath taking. “Climate change” is a near meaningless term- the climate has changed since there has been a climate. They co-opted the term after their earlier marketing effort “global warming” failed. The central kernel of this entire social mania is why has it persisted in the face of failed predictions, exposed corruption, self dealing, rent seeking, obvious hysteria mongering, and vast sums of wasted money?
As long as the local politicians, voted in by local people, use local taxes to do their dirty work. Then it is down to the locals to sort it out.
All we can do is make sure the locals understand what is going on in their name.
I agree with you, Steve. If the locals want to blow their own money on something, that’s alright with me, no matter what they waste it on.
Rebecca needs to be challenged over her rdiiculous and scientifically nonsensical claim that droughts, etc are the result of global warming.
Sometimes progress is actually positive progress driven by development and rational response to risk. Although, I wouldn’t underestimate progressive corruption that is primarily driven by secular incentives.
Diversity is actually [class] diversity or judging people by the “color of their skin”, that denies the dignity of individual human lives.
“=” is congruence or selective exclusion.
Welfare is a smoothing function and profit-skimming mechanism (e.g. redistributive change), that sustains high-density population centers, suppresses the masses, and in the long-term is a first-order cause of spiritual destruction and dysfunction.
Social justice adventures are elective wars with delegated responsibility that are first-order causes of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform including refugee crises.
A baby, a human baby, is actually a baby, and not a colorful clump of cells delivered by a stork. The fantasy of spontaneous human conception or viability originates in the the twilight fringe (a.k.a. penumbra).
What other efforts to reframe, especially liberal departures from science and morality, have they undertaken?
My father used to tell me that he got me from Sears.
If the Leftwingers revealed their goals in plain English to the American public they would be hung by the heels from the nearest lamp post. PS I’m west of the Mississippi so I can say “hung”.
i agree with those who say that duplicity like this an old and ongoing practice among politicians – it’s futile to try to implant a conscience in politicians – it be better in the long term to train the citizenry to be smarter and less gullible
Same whine, new bottle.
(See what I did there?)
Max – magic. Marvellous.
Auto
State’s departments, counties, cities, and all their sub-agencies have had to respond to “global warming” infused requests or directives. Regardless of what needs done, say constructing a new traffic roundabout, indicating it will reduce “carbon” pollution has been a better justification than that the 4-way Stop intersection was beyond its ‘best-by’ date. A highway official would not omit this important “fact” and concede the X number of points to a more attentive proposer.
From the article: “however, less than 20 % of jurisdictions surveyed have developed plans for adapting to or mitigating potential climate change impacts.”
Which just goes to show how low climate change is on the agenda of most of the jurisdictions in the United States.
Hide the intention.
Hide the design!
Hide the Decline!
Then decline the FOIA.
As they say in Wikipedia: “citation needed.”
Climate changes. Always has. Always will.
A cool summer. A hot summer. A warm winter. A cold winter. (With an occasional “blistering summer” and “brutal winter” thrown in.) Nothing really new. Some of us have even lived long enough to have experienced all of them.
Some political climate scientist and politicians say Man has now caused what has always happened. And only they can stop it! They just need to be given more control over energy generation and which bathroom you can use. Or just “you”.
I know I don’t come across as the kind of individual to do this kind of thing but, trust me, I used to make my living through armed bank robbery. They used to call me ‘Tommy Gun Judd’. Now, I had an airtight defense that worked like a dream.
I always claimed that I was merely reframing the issue of currency allocation.
Statute of limitations expired?
Bill and Hillary hope so.
It could be opposite. The plans were ok, but in the spirit of time they were puffed up with some climate change. Now they just leave the climate change green wash and call it what it was. ??
There are lobbyist lies in 50 shades of grey and receptive elective officials for most of the shades.
And there might be receptive officials’ palms . . . .
Auto – not at all cynical.
Fly-over states are just as much in love with federal dollars for “energy efficiency” as blue states. Handouts are handouts. Call it “sustainable” if it gets the tax increases and locks people into choices—that’s the end goal. The end is all that counts.
Education on true energy efficiency is needed. Light bulbs changes do not save the planet, just make light bulbs cost $4.50 each. I watch the power company promote outright fiction on energy saving ideas. If people could do math and actually checked what household devices use how much electricity AND know what the cost of their energy per unit was, the deception would be immediately visible.
I’m not sure what deception you refer to (I can believe one exists, though), but I CAN tell you that I deliberately buy white goods with low ‘energy star’ ratings because they actualy WORK, unlike highly rated goods. We are being conned into paying the same for less electricity to do the same job less well, and it’s a crock!
The Greenies/Warmistas waste your money on climate-boondoggles and call them savings to lull you back to sleep. They frame their agenda to gain support from non-‘climate-change’-believing citizens.
They frame initiatives as energy savings based on fictitious nameplate figures. They call public waste of money ‘smart growth/good planning/sustainable’ and ‘resource management’.
‘Climate change’ and ‘Global Warming’ are off the menu and are never named. “Sustainability” is the big new term.
Do a search on “Environmental Management System”.
Lot’s of local areas have bought into it.
I had a link to its history but it now returns a blank.
It led back to, guess where? The UN.
The author has just discovered A@end5 toody one. Yeah, it was a motherhood type document with a terminal venom that seals the deal at a certain point. Takes away management of even farmers watering ponds and gets them to agree to not cut trees in the front 20 acres – then it becomes law. For an expert on how to use democratic institutions to convert to c0mmeehood Google: …
and not a shot was fired
see how a Czech commee called Jan Kozak used the democratic system to install its replacement. Amazon.com was selling the book for about $1.50 a few years ago until it caught on with millennials and now its gone up in price. Probably became a textbook at Harvard political science faculty and gave birth to the Occupy Wall Street and protests to demand an end to capitalism.
The research the above article linked to, is not research.
It does border on fake news.
Meaning that one in five cities, since most of the article is written about cities, responded that they have ‘plans’ for adapting or mitigating impacts.
It is likely, that Republican areas plan to ‘ignore’ climate change as their mitigation.
It is also likely that any ‘jurisdictions’ responding with actual plans for ‘clean energy’ have investors responding to the allure of free money via subsidies. i.e. if that jurisdiction doesn’t have cheap wood to chop up for pellets to sell to Euro-loons.
So, the fly over jurisdictions did respond, with yawns, “go away, you bother me.”, and noncommittal shrugs of the shoulder.
Yet, the researchers wrote what they, personally, believe is a positive spin on the Great Plains total lack of respect and consideration for alarmist science.
That leaves what is genuine across America in this research:
There are jurisdictions throughout the Great Plains.
When temperatures may reach 90+°F (32+°C), yet drop to near freezing during the night. Or reach 115+°F (46+°C) in summer while dropping -40°F ( -40°C) during the winter; residents are very unlikely to consider NASA/NOAA’s alarmist claims regarding a fraction of a degree rise, untoward at all.
Most of these people learn to read thermometers at a very early age. Claiming temperature accuracy to the hundredths is akin to crystal ball reading.
Interesting.
I’m a US citizen. Born and raised. I work in and for a large US city. I pay income tax to that city but I don’t live in that city. I can’t vote in that city’s elections.
Something doesn’t seem right about that.
I wonder how local politics would change if local income tax went to where one lived rather than where they worked?
Unfortunately, the law supports localities charging sales and income taxes on workers who can’t find jobs where they live.
Nor do they want to give any credit for people who were enticed to move nearby so they can work in the city; only to discover the big city wants a cut of the salaries.
Is this article seriously criticising local govts for energy efficiency / savings measures because they didn’t CALL them AGW policy??