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.
Hi Barry,
I am wearing a jacket today. I was wearing only a T-shirt in summer. My observation tells me the sun warms the earth, not human activity.
Thanks for Trump for starting the beginning of the end of the climate scare mongering by the Green movement.
I just ordered a new copy of Eric Hoffer’s, “The True Believer” It should be of value in the months and years ahead. Let us hope that the wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by the true believers of the church of Climatology is limited to just that.
Vladimir Putin’s advice to the world on the Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris accord
“Don`t worry, be happy”.
I welcome the beginning of the end of this unscientific scam. It is still a fight and will go on till weather and nature determines the observable result. So far nature and the real, real climate, not that propaganda one, has determined the scary predictions by the propagandists and shown them to be wanting to the point that climate models and adjustments had to be made..
So thank you President Trump!
The intention of a sustained political talking point is to win a debate. Since AGW theory is in fact a political talking point not science it’s going to get very difficult since the exit is clearly losing not winning. You replace talking points when you lose. Climate policy might exit exactly like this.
The climate green wing might find out what it’s like being Hillary very soon. We love you but we want you to go away and never return to the forward Party machinery. One more national defeat in 2020 and the Democrats might not be a national Party at all. The Socialist wing wants out already.
Really?
It’s all just words then?
No wonder the Left destroys economies whenever it gets power.
We had foolishly assumed the point of politics was to win elections, implement policies and achieve real results!
Thank you for putting us straight.
“We had foolishly assumed the point of politics was to win elections, implement policies and achieve real results!”
That is approximately correct. The point was that politics is the WORDY part of this complete breakfast. After the politics comes the guns and force.
If I had no power to compel you or anyone, politics would not exist. But if I can persuade my friends, and my neighbors, and my friends’ neighbors, that our town should require everyone to plant grass and nothing else, and then not let that grass be longer than 4 inches nor shorter than 3, and arrogate to ourselves the privilege of taking your money or your liberty if you fail, and so on, well then you have politics while these details are being discussed. But at the root of it is a competition; shall my demands on you supersede your demands on me?
‘but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.’
When you create a narrative you already KNOW you’re wrong – it’s really more of a case of trying to perpetrate the con and, of course, CYA.
I see my last hit moderation
Truth, He said,” I came to bear witness to the truth”. There can be only one truth and consensus does not necessarily define it.
IMHO Trump and his advisers have played this shrewdly. Dismantling the embedded and institutionalised AGW myth is like disarming a trip sensitive bomb. Cut too many wires too quickly and it will blow back in your face. He started by removing the economic disadvantages with ascertainable facts and figures relating to the US economy in a language that the average citizen could understand.
At this time,to start dismantling the “science” of the AGW theory would be a unfavourable battleground as opponents would belittle him with voicifreous media support. You should only fight the battles you know you can win.
I am sorry to mix metaphors but taking on the AGW myth is like Hercules fighting the Hydra. Cut off one head and two appear unless you cauterise the stump. So when the mayors of Pittsburgh and New York say they will comply, then it is they that have to ask their voters for money to send abroad and not the mythical Federal money tree.
It will take time to dislodge the dogma of AGW and it will take an incisive and forensic questioner to demolish their arguments and assertions with questions along the lines of
Has the arctic death spiral resulted in a ice free Arctic Ocean – No
Has the number of severe tropical storms increased or decreased since 2000 – Decreased
If CO 2 is a driver of climate change have temperatures increased in a correlating manner since 2000 – No
President Trump may not be the most appropriate person to deliver these rebuttals but surely there must be a Benjiman Franklin type person who can continue the dismantling of this damaging dogma on the scientific basis. Willis is this your time ? 🙂
Precisely. Trump wants the result. Not the argument.
Anyone who runs business for profit knows winning arguments with customers and staff alienates them. What you want is some excuse to justify the action you are taking to achieve profit.
Thats all climate change is anyway. So why not fight justificatory BS with justificatory BS?
I disagree. 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 (a White House or GOP site defending his TREXIT) to defend what he’s done or he and his party will suffer.
Lovely. And “science denial”, as defined by Oreskes in The Guardian, includes people like James Hansen. These people are beyond funny. It is so much like sects of communists who were contesting on orthodoxy. Who could find progressives and regressives, who could find the missiles of peace, the unstoppable way forward to socialism of tomorrow… it was so stupid. And then, suddenly, all reds were green. And all KGB was FSB. No difference but name.
The one question to ask, just to remind you where we are, is:
Which of the two regions, China or EU, was emitting more greenhouse gases per capita in 2015?
People think China is still back there. It is not. It is the largest emitter and it’s per capita emissions are larger than EU’s. Now you may think whatever you want about Trump, but Trump is not gonna sink this ship by undoing pretty insignificant yet potentially economically devastating promises of Climate God, Nobelist, Barack Obama.
Its. I love my typos these days.
As C02 is not a pollutant the whole thing is a non issue.
Trump has performed the stellar service of lessening the economic impact of the AGW myth. As London247 correctly observes above, Trump based his move on the economic damage and unfairness to the US of the Paris accord. I hope he and his team can achieve the next step – dismantling the acceptance of the view that CO2 can cause harmful warming. The facts presented on this site and others have spread the understanding that CO2 is not a harmful pollutant. Hopefully, this understanding can now achieve wider distribution and acceptance.
Forrest: Good point on cutting funding as critical in breaking the AGW proposition. But those cranking out AGW research (propaganda) may seek funding from gullible foundations and universities. Maybe Trump should appoint a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the truth value of the AGW “science”. Public shaming might help nudge things along. Heightened exposure of modifications of temperature data and accountability for those who participated would help. Few people are yet aware of how nonsensical the claim that CO2 can cause harmful warming is.
Eric,
“Why do Greens feel compelled to invent elaborate conspiracy theories to explain their failure to convert people to their cause?”
I think it’s because this is a scam, and the scammers are generating such ideas to defend the scam . . and I think there is a gross overestimate in the minds of most people as to what science/scientists are able to actually know (see/observe), so the scam, and the defense work reasonably well.
A good example is something like the widely held belief that the speed of light (or the rate of radioactive decay, which you asked me about once) must be constant throughout time and space . . as though some scientists actually measured it in distant times and places, which of course they didn’t. So, it’s not really known to be so, but few seem to me to grasp that it’s assumptive, not scientifically proven . . and people tend to forget that such limits on what scientists can actually know in the scientific sense even exist.
test Is THIS going to disappear or end up in moderation?
it’s not even that the comments are in any conceivable way obscene .
I think I am in permanent moderation elsewhere than this site for pointing out that one cannot even discuss female Labrador dogs of exceptionally low albedo online any more.
Even allusions to anagrammatic Danish kings who tried to halt the tides is frowned upon.
One is reduced to the depths of euphemism to placate these ‘gateways of Venus’
Next on the chopping block should be EPAs “endangerment finding”.
“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.”…let’s go and kick their ass out of the real world!
“It is time to take that climate science denial industry seriously.” How about taking climate science seriously? You have no science. You have models that do not work. That are too complex. That there is no way of knowing if you have properly weighted the impact of every variable in your models. Did you include all include all possible variables (I understand the sun was not included since it was consider constant. No account was made for variation of energy due to sun spots which is probably the only variable that needs to be looked at- all else being insignificant)? Can you understand how many can view the whole anthropocentric climate change as bogus when the most significant source of heat on earth is discounted?
To John in Redding
“You have models that do not work.”
They are not climate models.
To build a model you’d have to understand the climate change process very well.
No one does.
What are called “models” are actually personal opinions of the people who built them.
There’s nothing like complexity and high level math to make a personal opinion sound “scientific”, and impress people.
The presentation sells the prediction … and since the climate catastrophe is always said to be off in the future, beyond all our lifespans, how can it be proven wrong in our lifetime?
I would like to see a survey re climate change from 2 different groups: those that have worked outdoors for a min of 25 years e.g. farmers, foresters, fisherman, vs pure urbanites.
I commonly get the feeling that so many alarmists don’t really relate to what they are so passionate about. Most odd is that.
There is also a 3rd category that I find the most disturbing: intellectual elites who have never known anything but a salary. Our capital city in NZ is full of them. They are so expert on how others should live their lives and have considerable influence, making deep inroads into recent legislation “for our own good”. They have even now succeeded in banning smoking in retirement homes. How sick is that? But, bad laws get ignored. That frightens the crap out of them.
Another law, that all farmers must wear helmets while riding motor cycles on their own farm, is also being ignored right across the country. The Western world needs a whopping big wake up call. It has started, in a small way. Long may it continue.
“They have even now succeeded in banning smoking in retirement homes. How sick is that?”
They don’t want to pay for the health care costs for those folks who are too weak willed to quit, What’s wrong with that?
Chris, in the UK the government earns approx £9 billion a year in tobacco duty yet the cost of smoking is approx £3 billion a year. Smokers are therefore subsidising the non smokers health care costs. Were all smokers to quit the government would have to raise income tax by a 10%. Obesity related issues now cost the NHS more than smoking. In addition to that, a smoker dies younger so doesn’t cost the NHS as much in long term care into old age compared to non smokers. One of the reasons the NHS is struggling (on top of mass immigration) is people living longer and costing the NHS a fortune in care costs (hence the uproar over tory plans to take the costs of that care out of your asset value at death). There is a fine balance between in-life costs to cover cancer treatments of smokers who die younger and long term care costs for those that live to much older age. The anti smoking lobby often don’t appreciate the facts.
mud4fun
I have no idea if the numbers you quote are accurate or not, but the next logic step is to legalise all kind of drugs from ‘recreational’ to hard stuff and tax them extra heavily.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., wrote once that smoking was “the last socially acceptable means of suicide.”
Not for a long time now.
Of course. But where is the virtue signalling in that?
Green Peace, Sierra Club, WWF et al have literally $billions in funding, much of it extorted from oil companies. Deniers usually quickly become unemployed. Many are retired scientists who are thus free to speak.
This would be a good time to erase the federal budget provision for snow removal funds in northern U.S. states. The coming hard winter will emphasize the point.
I say we should start getting serious about sources of powerful, low cost, clean, safe energy. It’s bound to be right around the corner– just think of how fast our technology is evolving. So instead of arguing over warming let’s get to work on bring these truly alternative sources to fruition. Like, for example, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00&feature=youtu.be (video lecture) or this http://brilliantlightpower.com/ (website.)
That’d be a good way to put alarmist climate scientists out of work (with some luck.)
ROFLMAO!
Brilliant Don.
Sideways topic, but more of the same, Trump apparently ‘broke’ Kathy Griffin and why she behaved so poorly, it is not her fault, ‘they’ tried to spin it, she was a defenseless progressive.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5457644271001/?#sp=show-clips
I’m still trying to figure out how she’s been ‘bullied’. I’d say damn near the only participant in that public idiocy was Kathy herself.
Frankly, I think it’s another coordinated ‘create a victim’ campaign.
At the very least, she is the author of her own misfortune. Personally, I do not see how anyone considers what she did to be acceptable humour. There are some very sick people out there.
After the high yesterday of President Trumps decision to pull out of Paris accord I was a bit disappointed to see the UAH May figure shows a big jump in warming (+0.43?). Gutted. Was hoping to see a downward trend to hammer a final nail into the global warming hysteria. At this rate it’ll drag on for years.
+0.45c
But look at the ENSO meter, it has, for the last few months, been positive, and for nearly 2 months at the + 0.5 mark. It is touch and go whether we will see back to back El Ninos. If we do this will again push temperatures up.
We need to see a sustained and deep La Nina to bring temperatures back down again. I was hoping to see one develop in 2017 in time for the run up to AR6 as that would have been fun making the divergence between models and observation ever greater, and it is likely that there would have been more papers putting ever lower figures on climate sensitivity. Unfortunately, that does not appear particularly likely now.
Look, we constantly hammer the point that rising CO2 has no effect on global temps, and we are still coming out of the last Ice Age. Now is not the time to go wobbly on that point.
Thank You Anthony, you must be very happy!
If he had worked in the propaganda side he would have made millions, where he has worked tirelessly over the years to try and shed light on the Global Warming fraud.
From a man who signed the Paris Accord:
Putin refused to condemn the US president’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, making light of the issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really “in a position to halt climate change”.
“Somehow we here aren’t feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St Petersburg], it’s rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American imperialism,” Putin joked.