Foreword: Following President Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Treaty, a number of states, cities, universities, companies and institutions formed a “We are still in” consortium. Its members insist that they remain committed to Paris and are determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and prevent climate change.
As our article explains, this is all puffery and belief in tooth fairies. The issues and questions we raise ought to shame and embarrass WASI members – for spending countless billions of other people’s dollars to prevent an undetectable and irrelevant 0.01 degrees of global warming. We also ask whether jurisdictions within WASI states can take the “progressive” route and declare themselves sanctuary cities or counties, to protect their jobs and families against WASI dictates. Perhaps our article will persuade more Americans to make their voices heard, ask hard questions – and start resisting The Anti-Trump Resistance.
States that claim they’re committed to Paris do nothing for the climate and ill serve their citizens
Paul Driessen and David R. Legates
Ten states, some 150 cities, and 1,100 businesses, universities and organizations insist “We are still in” – committed to the Paris climate agreement and determined to continue reducing carbon dioxide emissions and preventing climate change. In the process, WASI members claim, they will create jobs and promote innovation, trade and international competitiveness. It’s mostly hype, puffery and belief in tooth fairies.
Let’s begin with the climate. When Delaware signed on to WASI, for example, Governor Carney cited rising average temperatures, rising sea levels, and an increase in extreme weather events. In Delaware, sea level rise is almost entirely due to subsiding land resulting from compaction of glacial outwash, isostatic response from the retreat of the ice sheets more than 12,000 years ago, and groundwater extraction.
The biggest threat to homes, roadways and wildlife habitats lies not in sea level rise – but in the effects of nor’easters, tropical storm remnants and other weather events that impact Delaware’s sand-built barrier islands. Moreover, not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the US mainland for a record 11.5 years.
Climate models have long overstated the supposed rise in air temperature. Recently, even alarmist scientists like Ben Santer have agreed that a warming hiatus has kept air temperatures unchanged for over 15 years, even as plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere rose to 400 parts per million.
No trends exist in tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts or other weather extremes. Contentions that these changes will pose health risks and threaten our economy are purely scare tactics. Climate has always changed and weather is always variable, due to complex, powerful natural forces. Insisting that these events must be caused or exacerbated by human activity reflects a denial of basic climate science.
Full adherence to the Paris Treaty by all nations would prevent an undetectable 0.3°F (0.2°C) rise by 2100 – assuming that all climate change is driven by humans and not by natural forces. This meaningless achievement, by switching to 100% renewable energy, would cost $12.7 trillion to $93 trillion by 2030.
Surely, WASI members and the rest of the world have better uses for that money than chasing climate chimeras. Paying their massive state debt, pension, welfare and retirement obligations, for instance; in developing nations, getting electricity and safe water to people and ending their poverty and disease.
But substantially reducing CO2 emissions will create jobs, won’t it? For every job these mandates and subsidies create, multiple jobs will be lost in businesses that require affordable, reliable energy. Your local or statewide CO2 emissions may decrease. But in 150+ countries that are under no obligation under Paris to reduce their fossil fuel use, emissions will increase. WASI groups may take pride in “resisting Trump,” but their actions really hurt America’s working class families, who had no vote on the matter.
WASI members California, Connecticut, Hawaii and New York already have among the worst unfunded pension liabilities. Their residential electricity prices are already outrageous: 17 cents a kilowatt-hour in NY, 19 in CA, 20 in CT and 29 in HI – versus 9 cents in North Dakota. Honoring “Paris commitments” would send rates skyrocketing to German and Danish levels: 37 cents per kWh. Expensive energy will hurt poor and minority families the most and send jobs to countries where energy costs less.
Just imagine what your WASI actions would do to households, hospitals, businesses, factories, malls and schools. How it would kill jobs and swell unemployment and welfare rolls – while creating a lot of low-pay, largely part-time jobs. Rather than producing jobs, the Paris Treaty is a job-killer for the USA.
For all these reasons, we should be glad we are out! We ask those who have told their constituents they are “still in,” How exactly will you meet your Paris commitments, and what exactly will you achieve?
How will you slash your CO2 emissions by 26-28% by 2025, as required for the USA under the Paris pact? The United States reduced CO2 emissions by 12% between 2005 and 2015. But that was accomplished by a downturn in the economy and increased reliance on natural gas, most of which is produced by hydraulic fracturing. Will you support fracking and build more gas-fired power plants?
Or will you build new nuclear and hydroelectric power plants to reduce your fossil fuel dependence? You cannot rely on wind and solar, as they currently account for barely 2% of overall US energy needs and the mining required to get rare earth metals, cadmium, iron, copper, limestone and other raw materials for these technologies has extensive, often horrendous environmental, health and human rights impacts.
Growing populations mean more energy will be needed. Do you expect wind and solar to grow to cover the new demand? These highly expensive technologies require vast land areas, much of it taken from wildlife habitats – and huge government/taxpayer subsidies. From whom will you take this money?
What will you get for your efforts? The cost is enormous, for minimal benefits. Higher electricity prices will affect businesses, hospitals, jobs and families in your state. The impact of 30, 40 or 50 cents per kilowatt-hour electricity will be devastating – especially for the poor, minority and blue-collar workers and families you say you care deeply about. They will be forced to choose among energy, food, clothing, shelter, health and safety. How will this serve climate and environmental justice?
By contrast, a change in global air temperature of about 0.01°F will have zero impact. That’s how much reduced warming the world is likely to see from all the sacrifices imposed by “We are still in” programs. Storms, floods and droughts are not linked to CO2 concentrations, so your actions will have no effect in these areas. Avoidance of an un-measurable increase in air temperature is simply not worth the cost.
Governors who have committed their states to this climate-centered resistance movement have done so without approval from the legislature or their constituents. How do you propose to pay for this unilateral executive decision? With tax increase and soaring energy costs? How will your constituents react to that?
The “We are still in” press release proudly proclaims that its members contribute $6.2 trillion a year to the US economy. That’s one-third of the United States $18.5 trillion GDP in 2016.
Under the Paris formula, the United States is to contribute $23.5 billion per year initially to the Green Climate Fund – with the US contribution rising to some $106 billion per year by 2030, based on the same percentages. Your one-third WASI share of that would be $7.8 billion in 2017, rising to $35 billion a year by 2030. Is this part of your vaunted commitment to the Paris treaty? How do you anticipate paying that?
Can individual cities and counties opt out of your pact, and become sanctuary cities or counties, to protect their jobs and families against runaway energy costs, climate fund payments and more autocratic actions?
By deciding that their schools will stay in the Paris Treaty, college and university presidents will drive up energy and other costs on their campuses. Did you consult with and get approval from your boards of trustees, legislators, taxpayers, students and parents – or was this simply another executive decision?
Delaware gets 95% of its electricity from natural gas, coal and oil. How exactly will the University of Delaware slash its fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions by the 26-28% required by Paris? How will George Mason University, with Virginia getting 63% of its electricity from fossil fuels?
Have you calculated how much this will cost? Will you make up the difference by increasing tuition? How will you compensate those who can least afford these increasing expenses? In the interest of integrity, accuracy, transparency and ethics, have you made those analyses public (if they exist)?
Did all you “socially responsible” companies and organizations in WASI get approval from your boards of directors, shareholders, customers and clients before committing to stay in Paris? Did you analyze and discuss the likely economic and employment ramifications? Or are you the real climate deniers – denying the costs of anti-fossil fuel, renewable energy commitments, regulations, subsidies and mandates?
Finally, for the millions of voters, taxpayers, citizens, students, workers and consumers who are being impacted by “We are still in” states, cities, colleges, universities, businesses and organizations, we ask:
Are you still in with expending trillions of dollars to have an undetectable effect on Earth’s future climate? If not, perhaps it’s time you made your voices heard – and started resisting The Resistance.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. David R. Legates is professor of climatology at the University of Delaware and a former Delaware State Climatologist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“reduce carbon dioxide emissions and prevent climate change.”
Reducing CO2 emmisions should be achievable, but how are they proposing to prevent climate change?
Basically by ‘reducing the surplus population,’ thereby decreasing energy needs.
Climate Otter:
Maybe that is why these states and cities have signed on; to rid themselves of the poor and middle class and provide the elites with a more palatable living environment.
Climate will continue to change, nothing humans do can stop that.
Tez, reducing CO 2 emissions to the Paris target are not achievable let alone the reduction targets beyond.
Even the International Energy Agency has sounded an alarm. Obama wasted about a trillion dollars on renewables with no significant result except to build more unreliable wind and solar.
Anyone who is reducing fossil fuels without a replacement before hand is putting their populace in jeopardy.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/energy-technology-is-not-advancing-fast-enough-to-meet-climate-goals.html
“Paris Agreement has more problems than just Trump: Clean technology isn’t advancing fast enough
Just 3 out of 26 energy technology categories the International Energy Agency tracks are on pace to help meet global climate goals.”
The IEA has a fairly straightforward solution: implement policies that will encourage investment in these technologies and work across borders to develop them. Spending more $$$ does not work, Obama has proved that, the IEA does not have an achievable plan.
I’ve never been comfortable with the concept of “climate change” nor with the sceptic defence that “climate is always changjng” which seems to me to concede a vital point to climate activists.
The dictionary definition of “climate” is “The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period” and we refer to various “climates” as tropical, temperate, arctic, maritime, continental, and a few others. Each is characterised by certain more or less well-defined weather events or meteorological situations or combinations of those which exist or occur regularly predominantly in a region or regions. Extreme cold, for example is a characteristic of arctic winters and to high mountains, not to the tropics and only rarely in temperate zones.
On that basis, climate does not change. The essential characteristics remain the same though over periods ot tens or hundreds of years temperatures, rainfall, and storms will be above or below the average for that zone — which is what makes for averages!!
It may well be warmer now than in the LIA and cooler than in the MWP; this does not mean that the climate has changed. Temperate zones have not become arctic or continental zones maritime. The difference in the intensity of weather events has not strayed outside the “accepted” parameters during the Holocene. Climate “change”, other than fundamental shifts which result in ice ages, is a myth.
My theory, anyway, and I reckon terminology here is important!
The “climate” changes constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. THAT is what we have to keep telling the people of America, and the world.
“I’ve never been comfortable with the concept of “climate change” nor with the sceptic defence that “climate is always changjng” which seems to me to concede a vital point to climate activists.”
Technically, you’re correct – but look at the tactic as one of moving and shaping the rhetorical battlefield. We refuse to argue on a topic for which they have all of their responses memorized and rehearsed, and instead shift them onto ground (the actual amount of change, etc) that they are completely unprepared to deal with.
It’s a rhetorical trick, but its quite effective. And we are dealing with fundamentally stupid people who care nothing about actual logic or reason, so this is the best way to wrong foot them.
Either climate change is a “myth” or it isn’t. Saying that it’s a myth, except for “fundamental shifts which result in ice ages,” makes no sense. You can say that climate changes are rare, but you can’t say they are a myth. Why must a temperate zone become arctic for there to be a change in the climate? Even small changes can have an affect on the types of species that thrive in that environment. There can be small, gradual changes in the climate, and there can be large, abrupt changes. It’s just a matter of degree (no pun intended.)
They will just keep spending as much as they can (of our money) on these crazy schemes. When the climate models are eventually debunked and they finally admit that temps have not been increasing, they will claim that what they have done so far has been successful in preventing temp rise. They will then claim to be saviors of the world and give awards to each other.
About the only climate they will change for the better is the business climate…in Texas, as struggling corporations relocate there from the (new) rust belt, where the business climate will really suck.
The US is likely to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in future more than the Paris signatory nations, just as was the case with the unratified Kyoto accord.
Unfortunately for the C3 plants of the world.
Good news, Garbo: overall CO2 levels will probably not go down. Just a guess.
CO2 levels will definitely go up since both China (the no 1 emitter) and India (the no. 3 emitter) are committed to increasing their CO2 emissions between now and 2030.
No matter what the rest of the world may do, this will not offset the committed increase in CO2 emissions by China and India such that we know that globally CO2 emissions will be far higher in 2030 than they are today (that is unless there is some dramatic change in natural sinks and sources that could alter the balance).
This fact is being hidden from the public. If the public knew how worthless the commitments made in the Paris Accord then there would be no outcry at Trump’s decision and everyone would readily appreciate what a sensible decision it was.
I just wish that the UK, following BREXIT (if our politicians ever allow us to leave the EU) will follow Trump’s decision and also to pull out of the Paris Accord.
As ar as I am concerned, any university is free to raise tax rates as much as they want.
lol
Please explain WASI. Ican’t even google it….
It’s in the story. We Are Still In.
Strange. This is what frogs say just before the water starts to boil. Coincidence?I think not!
I didn’t either. But as Gabro said, it means “We Are Still In”.
Mods, perhaps after the first “WASI”, “We Are Still In” should be inserted?
WASI
“This meaningless achievement, by switching to 100% renewable energy, would cost $12.7 trillion to $93 trillion by 2030.”
“WE ARE STILL IN” THE MONEY.
Take away the free money and see what happens to their “saving the world” commitment.
These people are old fashioned rent seekers. No ethics, morals, nor care of fellow travelers. Just age old greed with a new education twist. They have a long list of un-education degrees and awards. Always on a crusade of made up “crisis” to keep young minds employed doing nothing worthy.
Must be a boring existence. Waiting for the next subsidy from the printer. No wonder they hate their lives. They have no goal other than that made up by spivs who are getting rich on their stupidity.
The usual practice is to insert the acronym in parentheses after the first use of the phrase to be abbreviated. Hence:
“Following President Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Treaty, a number of states, cities, universities, companies and institutions formed a “We are still in” (WASI) consortium.”
WASI means “We Are Disfunctional And Proud Of It”, they just can’t spell two good, or something.
“WASI” = “We Are Stupid Idiots”
Well, at least we are getting concrete evidence as to why and how so many of our governments have become the terminally F. U. B. A. R. institutions that they have become.
“This meaningless achievement, by switching to 100% renewable energy, would cost $12.7 trillion to $93 trillion by 2030.”
And just from where — and how — pray tell, will tens of trillions of real dollars be conjured up to be used to pay for these globalists’ fantasies and fairy tales?…..And without using ever-increasing amounts of energy that’s provided by carbonaceous fossil fuels to power the private sector economic enterprises that produce and provide the money in the form of taxes and fees? Do you believe in magic?
Is their game plan one of creating ever more entropy with the belief that “when” order emerges from their induced chaos the order will ‘birth’ an emergence and then a proliferation of perpetual motion machines which will provide needed energy? Or something?
This is a sad situation…..A really, really sad situation. The WASI crowd are already governing states who who are committing suicide with their past and present fiscal policies and are essentially moribund past the point of no chance for a return to real life with real economies for real people.
@ur momisugly ThomasJK June 26, 2017 at 3:17 am
A great post, especially with the above question that every person, ….. including members of the WASI crowd, ….. should be asking themselves and each other, …… thus ……. I thank you.
In reference to the assertion that: “switching to 100% renewable energy, would cost $12.7 trillion to $93 trillion by 2030”
Me thinks the above assertion can best be described as an example of, to wit:
“The Law of Diminishing Returns: 1. used to refer to a point at which the level of profits or benefits gained is less than the amount of money or energy invested.”
We Are Still Insane.
With any luck, the “fake news” movement will instill some backlash on all this carp ;)….people are starting to rebel and there’s strength in numbers
All I care to remember from this kerfluffle is “It’s pointless to leave because nothing will be enforced and there’s no commitment so we won’t have to do anything, but you’re trying to destroy the world if you want to leave.”
Seriously, how mindless would you have to be to fall for an argument like that? If you see me in laced shoes, don’t insult me by trying to pull that one me.
I pay 6.2 cents/kW-hr. I will be thrilled to see those jurisdictions continue to raise their electricity prices. More businesses will come here to Idaho. Idaho is a wonderful state, altho we do have one problem. We are worried about an endangered species. Leftist democrats are endangered. Their native habitat has shrunken to Sun Valley, University of Idaho, and parts of the state capital Boise.
You are lucky. In Spain it is nearly €0.18 per kW/hr, plus IVA at 21%.
That is how crazy Europe has become, with the costs incidental to the Green Agenda. No wonder that energy intensive businesses cannot compete on the international stage, and how deeply entrenched the recession in Europe still remains.
If I remember correctly Spain lost 2.1 jobs for every job created by “green energy”.
With the Paris accord not signed, can the world still be saved? A look at the Arctic.
Now, with the Paris accord in jeopardy, can the world still be saved?
I want to reply to what climate alarmists say: My conclusions on climate change are not in line with science logic. Being a climate realist, I never said that increasing CO2 is unimportant, only that the negative effects are vastly exaggerated, and the positive effects are ignored. let me explain: https://lenbilen.com/2017/06/04/with-the-paris-accord-not-signed-can-the-world-still-be-saved-a-look-at-the-arctic/
lenbilen
Your comment is either:
1) the smartest thing ever said on climate
2) the dumbest thing ever said on climate
3) the best job of simultaneously coming down on both sides of the fence without, you know, seriously hurting yourself
Well played!
Looking clisely at what L wrote, he is simply saying that the benefits of CO 2 easily outweigh any harms.
Specifically I would add that with the AMO turning we may well find the last ten years of relatively low artic sea ice ( relative to the past 37 years) reversing to a steady increase. In short I think the alarmists may have achieved the remarkable accomplishment of being wrong on EVERYTHING!
David A: agreed, although I think their claims of ice loss were a little bit more of an intentional gamble. For those who KNEW we were in recurring cyclical ice conditions, the best way to play it would be to DEMAND that Something Be Done at the very beginning of a 30 period of relative ice loss. Then, once your “cure” was in place, ice increases would come and you would be able to point at What You Had Demanded as the obvious “reason” this had happened.
But there is one huge risk with this tactic – if your opponents are able to stonewall your “cures”, then you will reach a point where ice levels start increasing and your entire operation is exposes as the cynical attempt at manipulation that it always was. Well, the fallback is always that this cycle takes about an entire human lifespan to play out, so you won’t have to worry about dealing with the consequences of your perfidy being public knowledge. The perps can count on being gone before they’re ever completely exposed.
Good stuff, we engineers think logically.
See also – http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/
+1
Quite fraudulent, and certain to end up in the courts. Fraudulent, as most grids in the US, as in northwest Europe, cross jurisdictional boundaries, state lines in this case. The states requiring the use of “renewables” depend on out-of-state generators using conventional sources, so the green aspects are mostly virtue signalling. If, as now seems likely, the Federal government stops mandated feed-in requirements for renewables, the other states on the grid should, and probably will, sue the states requiring wind and solar for disrupting the reliability of the grid.
Can’t they just turn off the interconnectors?
That would change the public’s opinion of unreliables quick smart.
At the very least, charge the going rate to for virtue-signalling power (40c per KWh).
Turning off the interconnections is the sort of thing I thought of when I wrote it would end up in court. California and the like would sue, and the victim states would sue to prevent California from dumping unwanted power into the grid at times by not wanting to pay for it.
You have to wonder how California is going to measure CO2 reduction, since so much of it
is the result of fossil fuel production outside their state of electricity that they import.
Simple.
Out of state power (and water), they won’t count.
The producers are evil, not the users.
Hmmm. The CA government will count certain (but not all) in-state things.
The “not all” to be determined by ‘campaign contributions”.
Well, they should refuse to use any power not produced by renewables, and the neighboring states should all cut them from the grid. Let’s see how well they virtue signal in the dark!
how California is going to measure CO2 reduction
They don’t need to count when they have models to do the counting for them.
Unless I am mistaken the amount of CO2 man puts into the atmosphere comes from either a model or a swag. All they have to do is say they have reduced CO2 and dare anyone to prove them wrong.
The’s black electrons, grey electrons and green electrons. You just have to segregate them. All the bad ones in the corner,.. all the good ones to my A/C, EV and LEDs.
They may not be able to meet the obligations but they will be able to do all the important stuff, like attending conferences, making highly principled utterances, decrying dissent…
There’s nothing wrong with looking after the environment. We should all do it both as individuals and as a society. The issue with Paris is as we all know is that it has nothing to do with the environment.
Paul,
As I commented on a previous thread… here’s what’s next…
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/24/why-union-workers-and-environmentalists-need-to-work-together-with-smart-protests_partner/
The Sierra Club and the USW have been working together for quite a few years.
The USW benefits from all the steel infrastructure needed for renewable energy projects and transmission lines.
The non-manufacturing unions don’t have much to lose or so they think. If and when tax revenues decline,
the public service sector union members will be hit as well.
Let them stay in. Just zero Fed taxpayer dollars to bail them out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves.
(Noticed how “sanctuary cities” have squealed at the possibility of being barred from the Federal trough.)
This.
+1000
https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=73&&n=3774
The folks over at the “real scientific website” Skeptical science (sarc) believe wind, solar and other renewables are vastly less expensive than fossil fuels
Those some folks believe we can be 100% renewable in just 30 years.
It always struck me as odd that people that dont understand basic science and math somehow possess the superior intelectual capacity to ascertain the validity of climate science.
Famous ‘activist’ PR website. Much spin, twisting, defamation and general propaganda can been harnessed from ‘skepticalscience.com’. It’s the site all go to for ‘fact-checking’ and links to copy and paste when being challenged by a non-true believer. Slick, seductive and sinister.
Paul & David
You state: “Surely, WASI members and the rest of the world have better uses for that money than chasing climate chimeras”.
I’m only being somewhat facetious, but are you crazy? That means:
1) No more climate conferences in Paris
2) No more taxing & running people’s lives (let alone well-paid “climate” jobs)
3) Most importantly, it means you can no longer get up in the morning, look yourself in the mirror and say TODAY I WILL CONTINUE TO SAVE THE WORLD!
These are all powerful wampum.
“We should be glad the US is out of the Paris Climate Agreement”
Glad? Heck, I am deliriously happy we are out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Overjoyed. Thrilled. Tickled Pink.
While “Paris” was only an agreement and not a treaty; the US government would have treated it as a treaty in spite of the constitution if HRC had won the election. Now, it is over. Praise the Lord and pass the common sense!
Wish we Brits were out.
I wager that if the UK ever leaves the EU then the Brits will leave the Paris Agreement after that.
Most of our MPs are swimming in greenwash & it’s also enshrined in much of our law.
Now I’m only being facetious…
It’s all the build up of medications and drugs in recycled city water supplies that don’t remove them in their water purification systems. Many drugs are not removed by filtration and chemical treatments. That in a large city over decades of sewer treatments of human waste that carry these excess medication/drugs into the water, are being ingested by the population in micro gram to higher quantities every time it’s used to prepare food to drinking it to washing with it. When you consider the wide field of medications to illegal drugs used in a city of any size that are excreted as waste into these water systems, the effects/affects upon the population is going to effect both the bodies and minds of the whole population to some degree.
Mark, the present UK govt (yes, I know, might have changed by the time you read this) has re-iterated it backs Paris, the Climate Act and investing in renewables. The new Environment minister, Gove, went on radio and said so (a surprise to me: he now claims he has been a ‘shy green’ all along).
It is just USA and N Korea outside it (Nicaragua didn’t sign as it thought it didn’t go far enough)
So you’re saying that now it’s the UK who’s going to shovel out pounds to all of the little beggar countries who are only in on it for the handouts?
Who’s going to step up and pay the bill now that Uncle Sugar was walked out of the restaurant? You?
(Please do, be our guest!!! hahaha)
The current decision makers for the left grew up watching Saturday Night Live, and have adopted the ridiculous themes of those skits into their decision making processes. For example, all of the points of this article are spot on and relatively obvious. If the strength and welfare of your state and city is an important consideration for you, then joining WASI would be foolish to the max. But what if there was something more important than the welfare of your community? What if it was more important to look ‘good’ right now, and to hell with your state, city or institution in the future?
Come on Mr. Driessen, don’t be a shnuck! It’s not how you feel, it’s how you look!
‘In the process, WASI members claim, they will create jobs’
Said by politicians, not people who actually make things work.
For the forty-eleventh time, jobs are a COST, not a benefit. You can create jobs by breaking windows, or building B-24 bombers.
Welcome to 1984. What’s old is new again. Climate politics is about power and the advantage of using corruption and manipulation of truth (science) to further the objectives of those who would seize control of political power through a soft reverse takeover of the levers of power by dubious means in brainwashing the masses to going along with getting fleeced and then kettled into submission.
Climate science/politics (CO2) is the ultimate straw man argument. This includes the separation of money (carbon taxes/regulation and the like) from the middle class in the developed nations that goes to funding the corrupt leadership in both the developed and third world nations and academia, most of whom share no interest in solving any real problems in the world, not even addressing real environmental problems relating to maintaining a healthy planet or citizenry.
Welcome to the New World Order. Once again in the last 100 years, hopefully the USA can come to the rescue and be the honest broker for keeping a check and balance of those who would attempt to claim legitimacy through any means to deceive us first on an moral intellectual level, and then on control through regulation, taxation and finally absolute control of the means to energy availability while simultaneously controlling every other aspect of our life. It is the latter that concerns me the most, since the CO2 corruption is just a means to a much larger end.
A fair question to ask WASI members is, “How many trillion 2017-value Dollars is it worth to prevent 1 degree of warming?”
That would lead to a second question, “How many trillion Dollars per degree is too much, and we should rather ‘adapt’ instead of ‘prevent’ that degree?”
Having settled on some amount for either question, ask for some confirmation as to how that number was estimated – based on reality or simple guess, or actual understanding etc. Once it is clear the number is realistic, calculate the cost per family.
The cost per family is not the 3% of income or some such value that gets into press now and then. The only reason it is ‘3%’ is because the cost is calculated within an economy that does not run on renewables. Once the far higher cost of energy is pushed through the entire global economy, it will be 5 or 10 or 50 times higher because there will be no cheap power with which to build the ‘renewable technologies’ which at the moment are only as ‘cheap’ as they are because of coal and natural gas and gasoline.
Is ‘saving the planet’ worth the life of everyone living on it? I’ll bet there are those willing to say, “Yes!” They are entitled to have and keep their opinion, but don’t give them the keys to the truck.
CiWbriU
WASI members will never ask the question because THEY certainly are not stupid enough to spend that kind of money on CAGW – they’re only at the table to divide up the USA money.
(insert Josh’s ” Who’s got my money!!?? cartoon here).
Crispin, It may be worth your time to try to save one or two of the exotic beauties form the city you are in, from climate change. There are a couple of half decent low key clubs in town.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar June 25, 2017 at 5:01 pm
Crispin, your above comment is almost exactly what I was wanting to state in this (above posting) ….. but my tired ole brain just couldn’t get the wording/verbiage correct the way I wanted it.
So, I thank you, Crispin in Waterloo,
Jeepers, what’s WASI ? Why don’t you just spell it out?
Here’s what I got:
WASI Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
WASI Wild American Shrimp, Inc
WASI Wisconsin Agricultural Stewardship Initiative (research collaborative)
WASI World Association of Scuba Instructors (est.1996; Salt Lake City, UT)
WASI Westminster Astronomical Society, Inc. (est. 1984; Westminster, MD)
WASI Workforce Analysis Systems and Information
I hate acronyms…
“acronym”
A Concise Reduction Obliquely Naming Your Meaning
or
A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics
Yea, but you abbreviated “Incorporated”, “estimated”, and Utah & Maryland
JPP, me too.
I especially hate the TLA (Three Letter Acronym).
I prefer the FNFLA
.
.
.
.
Four — No, Five — Letter Acronym
So what does WASI refer to???
“WASI” = “We Are Still In” in this case, but some posters above had some good jabs at the real subconscious meaning such as “We Are Stupid Idiots” etc.
“We Are Still Ignorant”
But there are a lot of appropriate meanings for the I at the end, beyond “Ignorant”. It could be “Incontinent” for example? Maybe “Incompetent”? What about “Idiots”?* “Illconsidered” is a bit of a reach. Perhaps just “Ill”?
* Someone has already taken “Idiots”.
Why Ask? Simply Intimidate! WASI
We need a “We Are Glad To Be Out” (WAGTBI) consortium.
Oops, WAGTBO.
I’m going to start a ” We Are Glad” movement. It’s all just a big WAG anyway.
I think I’ll stick with “So Long And Thanks For All The Fish” SLATFATF. Or 42. Whichever is shorter.
The WASI signers are obviously engaged in pure virtue signalling. They will surely soon discover that they have neither the authority nor funding to significantly alter reality. This essay makes that clear IMHO.
At least Neville Chamberlain had a signed paper to hold up in the air after leaving Berchtesgaden. I’m not sure today’s hollow press releases even amount to that famous faux “agreement.”