Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.
Trump’s Paris exit: climate science denial industry has just had its greatest victory
Graham Readfearn
Trump’s confirmed withdrawal from the United Nation’s Paris climate deal shows it’s time to get to grips with the climate science denial industry.
Moments before the US president, Donald Trump, strode into the Rose Garden, TV cameras pictured his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, shaking hands and looking generally pleased with himself.
Bannon once called global warming a “manufactured crisis”.
Bannon, with Trump’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, were among the loudest and most forceful voices in Trump’s ear, imploring the president to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.
During his speech, Trump claimed the Paris deal was bad for America. The themes were economic, but the speech was laced with jingoistic protectionism.
“Our withdrawal represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” he said.
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
…
So what comes next? Hopefully, one realisation will be this.
Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.
They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.
It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.
Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause? My guess is the reality is simply too hard for greens to swallow.
The climate alarmist cause is failing because it is based on a false premise. The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.
No amount of green money, psychological “inoculations”, propaganda and tub thumping can hide this simple fact from ordinary people who have access to the evidence.
Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
I look forward to there now being a mature, adult debate about this issue in the USA. My only fear is that this gets smothered by virtue signalling media folks and doesn’t reach the UK.
We are constantly told this issue just a matter of basic physics, and there is overwhelming supporting evidence.
If it’s just basic physics, it should be easy to explain. If the evidence is overwhelming, it should be easy to present persuasively.
But anybody who dares to ask an awkward question is immediately condemned for expressing a non-expert opinion.
If only experts can understand it, it cannot be just basic physics. And if the evidence cannot be presented persuasively, it cannot be overwhelming.
That.
Well, as I found out, it is basic physics and easy to explain. So I did it..
https://de.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
Remember to capitalize: Basic Physics, not just basic physics. There’s nothing basic about the physics of climate. But when you want to insult your opponents, you put a sneer and say Basic Physics; maybe draw out the BAAsic physics!
Indur Goklany asks: “Does insulting one’s opponent win the argument?”
It works on 40 to 60 percent of the population. It doesn’t matter if you actually “win” anything; what matters is what your target audience perceives, strength versus weakness. In the scenario I describe, the idea is to cast “Basic Physics” as a natural Good, and anyone that does not comprehend Basic Physics is an idiot, which is cast as naturally Bad.
You have doubtless noticed that in nearly every instance where “Basic Physics” is proclaimed, no example is offered of what exactly *is* Basic Physics, neither does it matter. It is whatever I want it to be Right Now.
This suggests a good response is to ask “describe this basic physics” and it’s off to the races.
A few questions for our alarmist friends on here.
What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord? Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act? Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can’t we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.
The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?
Don’t forget our switch from coal to gas for electricity.
But you’re right, we don’t need to be told what to do by anybody else, we can do good things off our own bat.
The switch from coal to natural gas was probably the biggest factor.
Now, to your question “[w]hy do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?” This was explained on the radio yesterday (less than an hour after the POTUS announced the US’ intention to leave the Paris Accord) – because the USA was the world’s greatest CO2 polluter, and that has damaged and is still damaging, and will forevermore damage the developing nations, it is our responsibility to pay them to recover from all the damages we inflicted. It’s so simple.
Jim,
Except that the US absorbs all that it emits, and China has passed us without any required reductions before 2030.
Simple … they need somebody to pay the rest of the world.
BINGO!
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it’s plant food. If it were Tucker, every breath you take or have ever taken would be considered as polluting & I’m not talking halitosis. Therefore, whether the USA has reduced Carbon Dioxide emissions by 18% or not, is irrelevant. Burning coal to produce electricity is sensible. That’s not my opinion, but Merkel’s government in Germany. She closed 8 nuclear power stations in the wake of Fukushima, but between 2011 and 2015 Germany opened 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. The output of these new units matches the combined output of all Germany’s solar & wind farms. However, investment decisions for these new coal fired power stations were made between 2005 & 2008.
https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Carbon Dioxide it not the problem, it’s green socialism & the sooner it’s stamped out, the better it will be for the poorer nations of the world. Africa needs cheap electricity & the nation that delivers that will win the hearts & minds of Africa. So far, that is China. The West ignores this at its peril.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/05/iea-china-has-built-a-third-of-africas-power-capacity/
It is perfectly possible to accept the science and still reject the proposed solutions. The Greens and Alarmists seem to ignore this – deny it if you will,
Even if I believed in all the climate science, I am utterly unconvinced by the politics and economics. And both have been imposed without any real discussion or debate, and with a fair few lies about both how bad it will be if we do nothing and what it will cost to solve the problem.
What we are seeing is not so much a rejection of science, but a growing understanding from people that the solution is going to cost them money, jobs and sovereignty, and lead to despoliation of the countryside and a disregard for other environmental issues. Oh, and a few getting rich at our expense.
In other words, the Greens and Progressives are losing the political argument, as they always do once implementation of their ideas occurs.
The trick is to kill their ideas before the implementation, thus preventing the damage instead of having to cope with it afterwards. We’re not doing so good on that score!
I think there’ll be some rehabilitation of geoengineering. It has been too summarily dismissed.
Actually the issue for me is not that there may be an impact from CO2 emissions but the claim in the Guardian article that we reject the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
This all hinges around materiality of the change, I still cant believe that there is any measurable impact.
The final weakness is the grasping for evidence when the 0.7C since 1850 is rolled out and we know that the first 100 years of that time period were subject to just 10% of the present day human tally of CO2 emissions.
Why not talk about the temperature change post 1950 and the rate of change increase since then relative to the 1850 to 1950 period. the word dangerous would soon be lost.
So, in this industry what union can I join?
The foundation for Trump’s dismissal of the Paris deal – and for the people who pushed him the hardest to do it – is the rejection of the science linking fossil-fuel burning to dangerous climate change.
============
this is a fundamental error. the worst case projection shows that the risk is 0.3C from US withdrawal. Does anyone seriously think 0.3C temperature change is dangerous? It is the same change you get by moving 150 feet lower down a hillside. Few if any human beings can detect such a change without instruments.
calling a 0.3C change in temperature dangerous is not science.
And BTW, the 0.3C change is based on the grossly overestimated climate sensitivity proclaimed by the IPCC. In reality, it would be far less.
The most remarkable statement comes in another piece today:
“Even a flattening of the decline in US carbon emissions – if not compensated for by other nations – will slow progress and might bump up global warming by a tenth of a degree or two. That could be enough to push the most vulnerable nations under the waves of a rising ocean.”
One or two tenths of a degree warming will push vulnerable nations under the waves? This will happen because the US fails to meet its commitments, which are to lower emissions by some 2 billion tons, from a total now of a bit over 5 billion.
On the other hand, the continuing emissions of 10 billion tons by the Chinese, and their published intentions to raise this number to 15 billion, what effect will that have?
“Most remarkable is China, the world’s biggest polluter, which has transitioned from climate laggard to climate leader in recent years.”
That’s right. If you are the US and you fail to reduce by 2 billion tons, you are pushing vulnerable nations under the waves. If you are China and you raise emissions by 5 billion tons, you are transitioning to climate leader.
It is complete insanity.
Source, please.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-pullout-us-impact
“will slow progress” – a desired progress toward zero. It is nice to see a progressive goal stated so openly.
Guys, guys, guys… Rememer, this whole climate scare thing is, and has been, a WAR. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord is just one BATTLE won. There are many battles ahead. Also keep in mind that our friend Trump is a politician – and politicians tend to change their minds (when it suits them).
Cutting off a promised stream of free money to others always involves a lot of yelling and name calling, for a few days anyway. Trump could have gone further to list what Americans already pay for in the ARGO system, satellites, and the climate research industrial complex that ranges from real science all the way to funded theater performances and poetry about global warming. Those who are still underemployed in America need to see all of that to go with what they already see in the the foreign workforce in their communities.
I’m troubled. I don’t like Trump’s supporting argument, which is that the “deal” is a bad one for the U.S. He did not tackle the flawed science and as I monitor the news cycle, I see NOBODY arguing the science.
We need the flawed science EXPOSED if we want public sentiment to swing our way.
(Sorry about the shouting).
Clearly, Trump is not a climate scientist. He is merely a politician. Worse still, he has a responsibility and takes it seriously.
+10
@Oatley-I agree. He certainly could have stated that there has been no warming for almost 20 years and that the theory cannot explain that. That alone may have put the Alarmists on their heels or provoked a useful argument on the science.
He should set up a White House site where a team of skeptics could counter warmist arguments.
Roger Knights
June 2, 2017 at 11:31 am
He should set up a White House site where a team of skeptics could counter warmist arguments.
—————–
Actually that can not be done, and it is not even necessary.
There in the Congress,,,,,,,, the distinguished USA scientist have already spoken and clearly….that is it.
Any one that thinks that this is not enough, for what ever reason, can get their bum and get before Congress and testify….. as simple as that…….
Congressional testimonies are a very serious matter to consider……The megaphones in the street or from MSM are just noise compared to it…….PUB “science” is just that, no more no less…..
Sorry it seems to be a done deal already as far as USA and it’s constitution concerned…..
No guts, unfortunately no case….regardless of how much noise or shouting, or praying to whatever for the and of AGW, even in a heavy snowing day..:P
cheers
The public is not very aware of congressional testimony—and there is lots of warmist testimony too. The court of public opinion is in session, and it’s important politically to Trump (see below). He needs to let his allies use his bully pulpit to defend what he’s done or his party will suffer.
The deal was so bad, there was no need to address the broken science to justify withdrawal. Pruitt, and I suspect Bannon, do seem to grasp how broken the science is, however; the broken science has become the status quo and will be difficult to diffuse, so it was a good decision to show how bad the accord was, even based on the flawed science that dramatically over estimates the effect of CO2 emissions.
This might be what is sometimes call DJT’s 4-d chess. It appears a blunder avoiding the science fraud and offering “renegotiation’s”. How is validating the fraud of your adversary ever a good idea?
Time and again The Donald has put out inane arguments devoid of objective logic only win by encouraging his enemies to destroy themselves in reaction. Maybe keeping the academic left climate cartel around serves a political purpose or maybe it’s been calculated that totally dismantling and destroying the Greenshirt left costs more politically then its worth. Post exit they may well destroy themselves trying to remain authoritative, I can imagine this likely in fact. You take kingly climate authority away you have bunch of later middle aged academic hipsters with an ancient and stale set of talking points. AGW is really old in the contrived political talking points world. They’ve been at hard since the 70’s effectively. Balding, overweight, rotting teeth with a pony tale just isn’t that politically hot and now with the exit they are confirmed LOSERS. Perhaps DJT is right and realizes they don’t even merit special targeting. The core greenshirts are dying in nursing homes soon enough. Also, perhaps a new wave Democrat leader will connect the dots and realize aligning with the UN world rule, anti-American left wasn’t the best strategy to begin with.
I know this, DJT isn’t going to cut off the billions in green subside fraud and deal with the natural market force unemployment and public equity devastation. He’s not going to wear that yolk around his neck. The scammers are safe for the moment. It will take $1 a gallon gas prices to do that handy work, not pulling the solar panel subsides from the government. You know he made that calculation by endorsing the corn factors and ethanol crony fraud.
I thought the economic, sovereignty speech half a loaf myself. Obviously they made their political calculation and went this route. Without the US “Paris” redistribution the climate “movement” and all the crony forward beneficiaries are in for some downsizing. The EU climate cult is under serious pressure already. If the carbon price is driven further down the green money bubble is under forces it can’t survive. The political fallout will be the Trump policy without ever be named or targeted. This happened on a much smaller scale in the late 70’s and early 80’s with the Reagan oil deregulation policy.
While I didn’t like “don’t touch” the science fraud policy yesterday I’ve learned not to underestimate DJT and his instincts. We might be looking at the events due to our hobby stake in the debate as well. They’re playing for a much wider electorate that in fact largely doesn’t care about detailed climate policy. It’s low information on both sides when it gets to yesterday’s scale the MSM presentation illustrates it. Now that we’re in the post exit world perhaps Pruitt and others can do some of the heavier science reforms such as firing Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the NASA/NOAA climate trolls which is long over due. It looks like decades more of hand to hand climate war disguised as academic debate. Where is that skeptic organization trying to message Betsy DeVos at the Education Department on cleaning out climate propaganda dressed as “science”?
Trump’s potential weakness fits the crowd of supporters around him. The skeptic support base are largely contradictory, nerd driven and politically obtuse. The core Breitbart wing? Not that interested either, immigration is their trigger issue for them. Harder core skeptics didn’t get the ideal payback yesterday because we frankly haven’t earned it.
Debating the science would be a quagmire.
The “Consensus” scientists now have the burden of proof to demonstrate rising CO2 will be catastrophic. They have the “hot potato”.
Don’t get pushed into the impossible position of trying to prove a negative; i.e. the equivalent of showing that unicorns never existed.
Job loss, electric bills, gas prices and “Fairness” are concepts the general public can absorb.
On important matters you are allowed to shout a bit (as long as you shout about the “right” things).
arguing the (lack of) science cuts no ice with voters.
protecting their incomes does.
Science is nearly irrelevant in a policy decision. When has it ever been otherwise? Trump’s argument is economic; a nation 19 trillion dollars in debt cannot continue to hand out money and sabotage any hope of reducing that debt.
“Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies” … this is standard from the left when they fail to win an argument or election, it used to be the fault of the right-wing media, but that no longer applies, now it is “fake news” and conspiracies. Surely this is a worthy subject for academic study, why lefties are incapable of grasping the real reasons for losing.
These Greens … “Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
They probably believe the moon landing was faked as well. Mebbe somebody can get a grant and falsify a study.
The simple truth is that people who plot and conspire in complicated subterfuge always assume that others do exactly the same.
Greens operate through networks which plot and conspire together to achieve their aim – small wonder then whenever they face setbacks that they assume that there is some ‘conspiracy’ that has defeated them.
Now is the time to learn about what real genuine science is.
It’s what you get in a sociology department, or perhaps from the New York Times that famously pronounced rockets cannot fly in space because there’s no air to push against.
“Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.”
I did notice an enormous number of heads of state/governments and international organisations and the Pope all accept the science of climate change and have also denounced or criticised Trump’s action.
I haven’t seen a single national leader/govt outside the US praise, applaud or welcome Trump’s announcement.
Added to that the CEOs of a great number of the world’s largest companies which operate in the US criticised Trump’s stance – which is odd, because if he’s right their profits and workers and business would have been decimated by the US being in the Paris agreement.
Really I think its up to those who don’t accept the science to explain how so many national leaders and businessmen and people of importance in the world can be ‘wrong’ and not accept the President’s vviewpoint…?
The US President’w view is that the Paris Accords are bad for the USA. Not that they are bad for the countries the USA has to give money too or lose a competitive edge against.
Of course China will support something that they don’t have to obey for 15 years but which hamstrings the USA.
You have just detected that politics is cynical.
M Courtney, who exactly has the US given money to in your accusation? The entire US corporate world is against this decision = except for the coal companies. If it is bad for the US, why is that the case?
Chris, the stock market rose immediately. In your world, that’s the usual way the corporate world expresses a disagreement.
Curious George, I go by what the companies themselves say. You have a few coal companies on your side, and half a dozen semi retired climate scientists. That’s your “A” team. Sad.
Chris, the Paris Accords are quite explicit.
They say quite clearly that rich, developed countries should give money to developing countries to ensure they can cope with climate change.
The USA has to pay most because it is richest.
Personally, I think we in the West should pay the poor to help them develop. It is compassionate and will make the world a better place.
But not because of false arguments about 0.2°C temperature rises. Only honest arguments will last long enough to change to world.
Here is the relevant section of the treaty:
And here is the link to what you are supporting.
Chris
Here is a quick Google search looking for Obama & Green Fund
https://www.google.ca/search?as_q=Obama&as_epq=Green+fund&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=
First on the list is this from the Independent in the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-signs-check-to-green-climate-fund-that-trump-threatened-to-cut-a7532581.html
So in 2 payments on his last 3 days in office, President Obama, acting as an official U.S. representative, gave US$1bn to other countries
Added to that the CEOs……….
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
We do accept the science, and so does Donald. It is up to those who support Climate Science Fiction like you and the Guardian to explain why for 18 years there was no statistical rise in temperature yet CO2 increased. You can also explain what caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period – all warmer than today.
or why…in over 100 years….they can’t qualify simple physics
Explain why you think he was wrong on the economics of the deal? Did you even notice that was the main thrust of the speech? Why don’t yo address that. The reason the rest of the world wants the U S in the deal is because we bring loads of cash that others think they can have. Make no mistake, that is the only reason.
Wrong, nice rant but zero defense of your position.
well fine Chris…if it’s not about the money….then what’s the problem? Can’t be CO2…the US has already reduced that.
…and since it’s not about the money, no one is stopping the rest of the world…they didn’t need us at all
Latitude, there’s a concept called leadership.Look it up in the dictionary if the word is not familiar to you.
see….now that’s where you and I differ
What I just saw was strong leadership…
..and you’re saying following along and status quo is
it’s not just a matter of reducing CO2 by a small amount – just switching from coal to natural gas will do that. It’s a matter of taking additional steps in increasing renewable energy, making progress on energy efficiency, and on CAFE standards for vehicles.
Care to comment on the quote you open with and then prove by example?
Very simple McGriff: Those that receive and do nothing to earn, believe that they should continue to receive. Those that pay, and receive nothing in return, think they should not have to continue to pay. It is the same struggle that the public has been having with governmental bodies, since they first were forced upon free people. And the struggle continues. If we pay for something, we expect to get something of value in return. And what we get instead is propaganda, aimed at convincing us, we need to pay more in order to avoid the future boogeyman.
The key thought for you to take away from this is: The idea that the Earth currently faces a manmade climate crisis is quite simply nonsense.
So I hope you are getting paid to troll. Otherwise you have wasting a sizable amount of your life, trying to turn lead into gold.
@Griff
Do you really think the Pope is an authority on the science of global climate? Laughable nonsense from Griff! We count on it! The rest are all looking after their image-ala Justin Trudeau of whom I am ashamed. Just an ego parading around the world with other people’s money.
If you want me to explain how all these people can be wrong I would simply point to the state of the world’s finances, as created by all these same idiots. Elected by the millions of lesser idiots who can’t count and only care about keeping power by not rocking the boat.
Appeal to authority?
where is the science?
in terms of climate change who does NOT benefit by espousing climate change?
Only the electorate.
For everyone else it is a most convenient lie which keeps them in power and money.
Doesn’t it Griff?
The science is there. You just choose not to believe it.
“in terms of climate change who does NOT benefit by espousing climate change?
Only the electorate.”
Tell me , then, how does Walmart benefit by espousing climate change?
The reason that so many notional leaders and businessman and people of importance won’t accept the Presidents viewpoint, is because they are the very people who stand to benefit the most from the whole global warming meme. For them it’s the venerable goose that lays the golden eggs. It’s literally every politicians dream, because it is a cause that justifies their existence, which of course is to save us from ourselves. For the business community, particularly, wind and solar it’s an endless stream of government subsiditys, and for the people of importance, I’ll assume we’re talking about Academics, its funding for one grant proposal to the next. It’s not about accepting the science, science is verifiable, or it’s not science. It’s about control, control of you, your money, your way of life.
Wrong. Walmart will not benefit. Microsoft will not. Google will not. McDonalds does not.
Chris, I wonder sometimes if you read the comment you respond to. The multinational companies you cite benefit from globalism; Donald Trump is challenging globalism even though he is also a beneficiary of it. Most globalists, in my opinion, don’t mean to include their own nation in the proletariat; Germany for instance would very much like to rule this new almost-a-world-government thing.
It is easy to figure out who intended to be in charge; just look at the vitriol of their comments; Merkel seems to top the list.
If Donald Trump were to rule globalization, which may well be his goal, he’s got a good start on it.
All the dictators can’t be wrong, can’t they, not to speak of the money-grabbers, and the pope is infallible in matters of (climate-)believe, isn’t he?
Yeah, dictators like the governments of the UK, France, Australia, NZ, Germany, etc.
It is too soon to say whether anyone is right or wrong. In 80 years our descendants, if any, will have an answer. Meanwhile there’s a war for your mind and your money, a war that probably started before words could be written in clay.
“Really I think its up to those who don’t accept the science to explain how so many national leaders and businessmen and people of importance in the world can be ‘wrong’ and not accept the President’s vviewpoint…?”
Why is it always “the science” rather than just “science”? Answer: It has become “the science”, a dogma, a new religion, that must be accepted in total or else you become a heretic, a social outcast on the world stage.
I accept science, even some of “the science” (such as it is) and I STILL accept the president’s viewpoint which is economic rather than scientific. It is, or was, a bad deal for the United States. His view on “the science” is nearly irrelevant; I don’t know what it is and neither do you.
Every human on Earth can be wrong about any particular claim at any particular time. But when that is the case, what is the benefit to being the only right person on Earth? Rocket scientist Goddard was ridiculed by the New York Times who asserted that even a high school student knows rockets cannot fly in space because there’s no air to push against. Of course nobody had actually tried to fly a rocket in space, that would be scientific (test by experiment) and we don’t need no steenkin science!
“Climate debate?” What is that? There never has been one, and there never will be one. The Guardian is just trying to scare its climate alarmist followers yet again, by suggesting that the Greens are losing the debate. Hello, the debate never existed!
Yeah, the global business community, which supports the Paris accord, are wankers. Are you a Communist?
‘Global business community’?
Ah that shadowy cabal of secret bankers that speaks with one voice? that does sound a bit tinfoil hat to me.
However, would that be the same ‘business community’ that benefits directly from all the subsidies and tax rebates accruing to renewable energy, or is that the community the Guardian refers to when it talks about the huge tax rebates govern to ‘fossil fuel’?
Or is it the ‘global capitalist’ community it rails against when promoting the interests of its Marxist readership?
I think we should be told
You’re the pathetic one, Forrest. “Alarmists have always been wankers.” The true sign of an intellectual lightweight is when personal insults are their method of debating.
Leo Smith, 30 seconds of searching on Google will give you your answer. Companies like Walmart, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca Cola. All the consumer products companies. None of these companies will gain from the Paris Accord. On your side, tell me who the corporates are who say AGW is not real? Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Is there any greater lie then the climate debate being politically neutral at the core?
Yet, many of the most frequent “skeptic” posters here back that claim for over a decade now. Once you address the lie directly the entire debate becomes explainable. If you live in the science only or mostly cocoon you’ve set the actual debate back and the politically corrupted academic activists/scientists ahead. Consider this is from the skeptic orthodox, add that to the warming left and you see why we’re still here.
Your comment didn’t make a lot of sense to me. Skeptics are not themselves a thing, a cabal, aligned among themselves along any axis of alignment.
“Now is the time to learn about the methods, the tactics, the personnel, the structure and the reach of the global climate science denial industry.”
Um, for a decade they have been screaming that the conspiracy is some known fact.
And, now they are going to begin examining it?
This is like the “Russians hacked the election” story: “we are sure it happened. Soon, we will get an investigation to figure out where, how, and who.”
-Um, if you already know, just come out and say.
Uh-ohs, we’re in trouble now. They are mad as heck, and can’t take it any longer. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They will be sending industrial spies here to lurk, and watch everything we say and do. We will need a secret code to communicate, changed daily by HQ. Shhhhhh! Mum’s the word now. Loose lips sink ships.
Worth remembering that the Grauniad (famous for its ‘corrections and clarifications’) is haemorrhaging money and only kept afloat by the automobile industry (sale of ‘Autotrader’) and tax avoidance industry (proceeds booked via Caymans to avoid making their fair contribution to the upkeep of the workers’ paradise). The only readers are public sector employees, teachers and lecturers, and BBC.
Actually they have a trust fund to bankroll them but at the current rate of loss they will not last a decade. Hard to believe that it used to be a respected paper back when liberal did not mean a leftist tosser.
The Scott Trust was the beneficiary of the tax efficient sale of Autotrader. Scott Trust is tax efficient too of course “up the workers!”.
Let us not forget how important it is for that “endangerment finding” to be reversed. It would be a “lawsuit stopper”.
Ditto.
Anybody who thinks they can assign dollar amounts to the Earth’s temperature changes is not very smart or they’re sure everyone else is not very smart.
To say that:
the USA refusing $100B per year re-distributon will “cause” .3C rise in temperature
is patently stupid.
It may even be true; but the United States doesn’t have $100billion to give.
Just watched your Whitehouse press conference with Sean Spicer re Paris Accord in what looks like a basement. Best place to ‘host’ the journalist vermin who now must be considered as low as bankers and estate agents in the public esteem. Well down Potus from UK
“They just convinced the leader of the United States to pull the plug on a historic deal signed by almost 200 countries, and instead join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not signed up.”
I don’t think Readfearn reads his own newspaper.
A December 12, 2015 Guardian article featuring the climate science prophet Dr. James Hansen, is all President Trump needed to read in order to decide to extract the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.
““It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Do you have a link for this, chris y? Appreciate it.
Took just seconds to find:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
Never mind. I found it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
Psychological Projection, are they simply accusing others (us) of what they themselves are guilty. Oldest trick in the book.
Or is it chaff, a distraction. A distraction from the fact that none of them, not one, could or can put together a coherent story about how this GHG Effect actually works. (Without trampling the laws of thermodynamics and calling upon positive feedback. The very fact we are here discussing it means the positive feedback thing is junk) Or explain how temperature relates to climate.
Or, as I maintain, sugar is destroying not just bodies but also minds. It takes strong character and courage to admit a mistake. Even minor.
Any of us who has, while stone cold sober, entered a ‘debate’ with a drunk will know. The depressed, inhibited, switched off brain thinks it can lie and lie and lie and will call on its friends (consensus/authority) to try escape any sort of rap. From spilling a drink to wrecking its own car and will readily resort to verbal and physical violence to defend those lies.
Sugar is simply un-refined alcohol. It has the same effect but not so strong.
So hardly anyone no-one will *ever* admit they were/are wrong about cagw because, we have nothing else substantial to eat any more. There are too many of us to allow that.
I don’t have a solution.
The Guardian has wedded itself to the church of ‘Climate Change’ but finds its faith increasingly under question and one rich parishioner has just quit attending church. So, invoke the devil, challenge the believers to uncover his devious ways, and amplify the warnings about hell and damnation.
But behind it all is desperation because, if their dire predictions about climate change prove to be wrong (as they will), the Guardian will lose the last shreds of its credibility. It is already losing money, so further erosion of their readers/subscribers must be really scary. All they can do is yell louder. So it is with the faithful, (although don’t rule out the stamping of feet on the floor).
Liberal behavior is often based on the psychological issue of projection. They subconsciously know that THEY have a global climate change progressive/academia industry. So they assume that the “bad people” must have one too.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Chris,
I’d like to thank you for the great effort you expend to communicate with those you disagree with. I guess that is the sum total of your arguments.
He’s been in a two-day tantrum, with sulky snaps of sarcasm.
Clyde Spencer, when I see a nonsensical post, it’s not worth any more of my effort. I know a lost cause when I see one.
Joel, nah, everything is good here. A carbon tax is being rolled out, the government is fully committed to the Paris Accords, and industry is doing their part It’s nice to be a doer, and not a whiner.
Chris writes: “it’s not worth any more of my effort.”
But it is worth the effort to post some z’s. Maybe 0.2 on the effort scale. You have not responded to most of the postings here so why is this one worth 0.2 Effort and the rest 0.0 Effort?
The question answers itself: It resonates with you. Psychological projection is interesting to you; most of the comments here are not interesting to you. I do not have enough information to guess why it is interesting to you but your other comments suggest you are strongly motivated by group think; if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you? Very likely so, they know something you do not. This is the inverse of projection; the herd projects itself into you rather than you into the herd.
When a herd is stampeding it is doubtful that any member of the herd actually knows why the stampede is happening; but none wishes to find out whether there’s actually a lion chasing the herd. Herd mentality evolved for a good reason. But humans would still be living in caves if *some* humans did not leave the herd and go exploring for better forage and better methods of shelter, food and protection. These explorers then return to the herd and suggest a better place.
BUT this can be counterfeited to a predator’s advantage; trick the herd into thinking a box canyon is a better place, and it will be better until the predator starts eating members of the herd and they cannot escape.
The box canyon in this metaphor is international treaties. It seems like a good idea but there’s no escape. You ought to look closely at whoever is suggesting entering such a box canyon (treaty) and who is benefiting from it. The real beneficiaries are probably not going to be all that obvious. However, one can be almost certain that in some way or other it relates to competition. If you are the weaker person, you seek to impose rules that reduce the advantage of the stronger. But when that is achieved, such as in the case of women’s rights or affirmative action, what then? Competition! Then you go for the “win”, pretend to still be a minority, choke the opposition while not being choked yourself. BLM, SJW and so on.
Or as Saul Alinsky wrote, make the other guy live up to his rules! Of course, you might have to suggest those rules and trick him into making those rules his own.