Dr. Michael Mann, Climate, Hurricane Harvey, and the Communist Party

I’d never agree to this, and in fact, if such a request was made to me about a WUWT post, I’d tell them to buzz off….but that’s just me, I’d never be that desperate. Here’s what “The Revolution” says about Dr. Mann’s work and his opinion on Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change..

Source: http://revcom.us/a/506/role-of-climate-change-in-the-disaster-of-harvey-en.html

What the Communist Party website says say about their connection with Dr. Mann and his article:

Editors’ Note: Revolution/revcom.us is reprinting with permission this Facebook post from Dr. Michael Mann, a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University with joint appointments in the departments of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also Director of the Penn State Earth Systems Science Center and author of several books, including his most recent work, The Madhouse Effect.

Here’s what they say about themselves and their website:

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has taken on the responsibility to lead revolution in the U.S., the belly of the imperialist beast, as its principal share of the world revolution and the ultimate aim of communism. This Party is built on and takes as its foundation the new synthesis of communism that has been brought forward through the body of work and method and approach of Bob Avakian. Its members are united in their profound desire for a radically different and better world, and their understanding of the need for revolution to get to that world. They have dedicated themselves wholeheartedly to revolution, and on the basis of that they channel their individual abilities and passions to the cause and needs of this revolution.

Probably not a smart move by Dr. Mann to associate with this group, but then again he may think such an association is perfectly fine if he granted permission to use his work and his name. OTOH, this could be a mistake and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not have granted permission knowing who he granted it to. If so, I’m sure he’ll be made aware of this WUWT post, and here’s his chance to correct that oversight and disconnect from an organization who describes the country I hold dear as “the belly of the imperialist beast”.

Advertisements

200 thoughts on “Dr. Michael Mann, Climate, Hurricane Harvey, and the Communist Party

    • Dr. Mann was destroyed by Meteorologist Joe Bastardi over the Hurricane impact and cause:

      From Junk Science,

      “By Joe Bastardi
      August 29, 2017, Reprinted with the permission of Weatherbell.com

      Dr. Mann at PSU has outdone himself. Back when New England had their famed February with snow and cold, he made the claim a warm eddy some 350 miles ESE of New England was enhancing water vapor and leading to extra snow. But:

      If he plotted trajectories from the storms he would see that the air from that source could not get back over New England since the mean flow would lead to enhanced snows in the Canadian Maritimes.
      Convective feedback from such warm eddies would act to PULL STORMS OUT TO SEA.
      The mean water vapor surface to 700 mb was BELOW NORMAL in New England in Feb 2015. The extra snow was high ratio snow with great crystal growth soundings because of the cold!

      This is why climatologists should be forced to forecast for a year, so they can get an appreciation of what the weather does, not what they think it does based on their “research.”

      But he may have outdone himself here.

      I was emailed this quote, supposedly from him. It’s making the rounds in the skeptic community. It was in the Guardian

      The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.

      He unwittingly describes THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT to what is going on. He could not have even looked at the 5 day means! There was no expansive subtropical high. Quite the contrary there was a well forecast MJO phase 2, with a major cool trough in the 5 day means trapping the hurricane. Out to sea? In August? In Texas? When does anyone see that? They move northwest or west through the state. BECAUSE NORMALLY THERE IS NOT A MAJOR TROUGH THAT FAR SOUTH TO STOP THE STORM! When has anyone given the coast of Texas seen a storm move “out to sea” what does it turn around and head back southeast? Look at the 500 mb means and 5k temps, This is what is a ridge? There is a major ridge in the west like we see when there are a lot of storms. It’s warm in the west cool in the east, but there is no subtropical ridge trapping this storm. It’s caught in trough.”

      https://junkscience.com/2017/08/bastardi-no-michael-mann-climate-change-did-not-cause-hurricane-harvey/

      Lot more here worth reading.

      More evidence that Mann overboard doesn’t understand what Weather is about.

      • One thing that bugs me in climate prediction is that if climate is the average of weather over a specific period. Wouldn’t they need to predict the weather over the next hundred years to come up with how much the climate would change?

        It seems to me that the foundation for a predicted climate change is missing the fundamental basis of weather over time. We know that it isn’t possible to predict weather accurately for more than a few days, so how are they going to infer what the weather will be like in a hundred years?

        Another thing that I wonder about is that in hind casting they tune their models to create correlation with observed weather data. What I’d like to know is when they tune a model, is it with a new piece of logic that accounts for a new variable or do they simply add a function to force a fit.

        Am I missing something? Is my basic assumption about the relationship of weather to climate inaccurate?

      • Pwnage.

        I laughed earlier this week at Mann’s notion that the normal condition would be for Harvey to be pushed back into the Gulf after landfall. It is hard to differentiate his lies from ignorance.

    • Nearly every single member of the Obama’s Family was a CARD carrying Communist USA member. His mom, dad (communist from his homeland), people that lived with them, uncle and aunt (that raised him.) Obama was in a socialist club in school but not a communist club.

      The media didn’t seem to bothered by this so it never got any traction.
      No one cared

      I don’t expect this story with Mann to go anyplace. No one cares anymore.
      Communism only killed 265 million people in the last century. Of course that wasn’t “real communism”
      We all know there is no true Scotsman either.

  1. “The Revolution” is named after an event that socialists universally look forward to, when society collapses into chaos and ruin. Then they expect to create a new social order and economy from the ruins. They expect to be sufficiently in power at the time to force this reconstitution according to Marxist principles, and they expect that society will function better than any society has functioned in human history.

    Socialism is the evil and faulty idea that humanity will be better when government forces each of us to live at the expense of each other. Its end goal is really religious, even as secular progressives reject any overt deity. That goal was best stated by Frederich Engles: to enable “humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.” Stalin was unable to do it, Mao was unable and so was Pol Pot, even at the cost of 100 million lives. Anyone who advocates a failed economic and social model after it cost the lives of 100 million humans is just evil and disqualified in every way.

    The irony here is that the people who often scold us on the topic of “sustainability”, are at heart socialists, a system cannot be sustainable.

    • Millennialists are ever present, ever-promising and ever-looking forward to the Great Day when their prophecies will come true. Keep the faith guys, keep waiting.

    • Socialism, and by extension Communism, bases it’s appeal on the Medieval model. The natural flaw of the Medieval model is that nobody ever expects to be a ‘serf’.
      Socialism seems to always descend into the model of everybody being poor, except the leaders. I mean while Venezuela is hungry, Hugo Chávez’s daughter is worth billions.

      • History is a continuous cycle of revolts by either an elite or the suppressed masses.
        Weapons may vary: at present we see -moral superiority-

      • Why do people talk about socialism as a system that is real. Socialism is impossible, except in families, in which each works to their ability and each receives to their need?

        Having everybody receive their share of everything is impossible, as someone has to make it happen. This means that a ruling class is required to administer fair shares to everybody; i..e., communism = socialism run by a gang. Human nature being what it is, the ruling class quickly realizes that they do not want to suffer the deprivations of the masses and make rules for themselves, taking huge shares for themselves. In other words, the ruling class is the slave masters and the people are the slaves. When you have no rights, you are a slave.

      • “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

        This is known as “bad luck.”

        ― Robert A. Heinlein

      • To expand on what others have said: socialism, or a subset, communism, depends on people doing what they do best (or what they can do that best benefits society) in return for the same rewards as eceryone else. This totally ignores human proclivities. That skilled heart surgeon may rather be honing his golfing skills and be select professional golfer as his profession. The gifted golfer may want to cut people open to see what it looks like. With no reward differential based on merit, there is no reason not to opt for the job you would like, rather than what you can do (and that’s assuming a person will do any work at all). The end results in this scenario are golf matches no one would watch, and surgeries which no one would survive. Assigning jobs by committee would be just as catastrophic.

        The best system for Man is meritocricy with differential rewards, then you are rewarding people to achieve their greatest societal value. The best economic model developed so far to accomplish this is free market capitalism. It’s not perfect – society places too high a value on some trivial pursuits (think Hollywood), and there are some economic inequities (usually the result of ANTI-free market forces like monoplies and government), but no other system has come close to advancing the human condition than it has.

      • History is a continuous cycle of revolts by either an elite or the suppressed masses.

        No, it isn’t.

        Its a continuous cycle of stupid ideas – of which the above is just the latest – dominating men’s minds to the extent they actually believe them to be real.

      • Socialism/Marxism/Communism is inherently coercive. The requirement to share and contribute equally is beyond the ability of the human animal to meet consistently, and the requirement that the decision makers not take advantage of their power is too tempting for mere humans so it starts out corrupt and gets worse while the people at the bottom soon realize the hypocrisy of those at the top who are preaching to them.
        More and more people decide that their contribution is not reflected in the efforts of others, while productivity lags and people start to go short of what they think they are working for.
        Once it gets to this point the whole system breaks down, with corrupt leaders using more forceful measures to keep order and maintain their authority and privilege. The people rebel against this false leadership and the rulers are rightfully afraid. Laughably, it is a historical certainty! Just as Marx himself died a pauper after sponging off people all his life.

      • I agree 100% with Jtom–socialism is in direct conflict with human proclivities. A long time ago I put it this way.

        Sometime in the late eighties I attended a dinner for United States Air Force reserve officers. As I remember, the dinner speaker was an Ace from the Vietnam War; and at the time of his speech, represented the Adolf Coors Brewing Company. I can’t remember his name. The theme of his speech was: If you believe in the Christian tenet that ‘you are your brother’s keeper,’ then politically you should be a conservative, not a liberal–a conservative being someone whose concept of fairness is that production output belongs to the producers and a liberal being someone whose concept of fairness is that production output belongs in large degree to all members of society, whether or not they participate in the production. My memory of his speech has faded with time, but I do recall the three major points of his argument. So in what follows credit for the three main points must be given to the unknown dinner speaker, and credit/blame for the discussion of those points be given to me.

        (1) A necessary condition for welfare to exist in a society is that the producing members of the society produce more than they (the producers) need to survive.

        To illustrate this point, consider two scenarios. First scenario: you are the family breadwinner and you produce much more bread than your family needs. One day a man knocks on your door and tells you he has come to collect a small involuntary donation (tax) of your bread. He tells you that half of your involuntary donation will be given to your neighbors (the village) because they produced insufficient bread to sustain themselves, and half will be given to “bread collectors” like him because they’re so busy collecting bread that they don’t have time to produce any. Since you’re not entirely fond of your neighbors and you’re beginning to take a serious disliking to bread collectors, you ask him what will happen if you don’t give him the bread. He informs you that in that case, some of his fellow bread collectors will come and haul you away to jail (income tax evasion). You decide that for your family’s sake, it’s better for you to be working, not in jail–so you give him what he asks for.

        Second scenario: same as the first except this time you don’t have any bread to spare. You tell the bread collector that you only have enough bread to sustain your family; so although you’d like to help, you can’t. He says, “That’s just your opinion. By vote of the village it has been determined that your family can tighten its belt two notches and still survive. So, pony up; and by-the-way, why are you wasting time talking to me? Get back to making bread.”
        You tell him that you won’t defer to the village’s definition of what your family needs to survive–so you’re not going to give him any bread. He tells you, “Too bad. Give me your bread or you’re going to jail.” We’ll leave the story’s end to the reader’s imagination. In my case, what I would likely do would be beneficial to the village, but can’t be called Christian–in particular, there’s a high probability there’d be one less bread collector to provide bread for.

        Admittedly, the above discussion is simplistic; but it does illustrate the point–to wit: people may stand for the confiscation of a portion of their produce provided that portion leaves them with enough to survive; but they won’t stand for any amount of confiscation if they believe it means their demise. As such, if the producers of society produce only enough to sustain themselves, no form of welfare, private or government, can exist in that society.

        (2) The nature of the human animal is such that he will produce goods only if those goods (a) are needed to sustain himself or his family, or (b) better his lot.

        Now let’s return to the situation where the bread collector appears at the door of a breadwinner who has more than he needs to sustain his family. If the bread collector wants only a tiny amount of the breadwinner’s output, the breadwinner will probably give it to him, if for no other reason than to get rid of him. As such, the breadwinner will continue to make oodles of bread because he can use most of the amount above what his family needs in trade for a sports car, or for a bigger house, or for an education for his kids, etc. The bottom line is that when only a tiny fraction of each producer’s output is taken, each breadwinner will likely make more bread than he needs, and it’s both possible and likely that the village as a whole will have enough bread to feed the entire village.

        However, as the bread collector’s demands increase, at some point the breadwinner will balk–see first point. At a minimum, he’ll want to know where his confiscated bread is going. If the bread collector explains that the confiscated bread goes to support activities that indirectly benefit the breadwinner, the breadwinner may grumble, but he’ll probably go along with the program. Such activities might include (a) maintenance of the road over which needed supplies travel, (b) food for people who make sure his neighbors don’t steal his bread during the night, (c) food for people who ensure that villagers from the village in the next valley, who don’t produce enough bread to support their village, don’t come and kill his family and steal all his bread, etc. There are many activities that don’t directly benefit the breadwinner, but are necessary in varying degrees to provide the frame work for the breadwinner to exist. The breadwinner won’t agree with all such activities, but he’ll see the need for many if not most of them. As such, although he may grumble–who doesn’t when he fills out his IRS Form 1040?–he’ll pay. He’ll continue to work hard because although he doesn’t directly benefit from all the bread he produces, he gets to benefit from most of his excess produce, and he realizes that he must give up some of his excess to maintain his ability to produce bread in the first place.

        Now assume that when asked the question, “Where does my bread go?” the bread collector says, “a large percentage of your bread goes to the activities that indirectly support you, and the rest goes to sustain the members of the village who can but won’t fully support themselves and their families.” “Whoa,” you say, “my neighbor plays golf every day. You mean I’m working extra hours just so he can enjoy his hobby?” You’re told that’s right; but not to worry, your neighbor is the exception not the rule. Most of your neighbors are hard working like you; so only a small fraction of your output goes to support the members of the village who can but won’t fully support themselves and their families. [Note to the reader: Both to be nonjudgmental and to keep from repeatedly writing “members of the village who can but won’t fully support themselves and their families,” I’m going to assign an innocuous name to that group: deadbeats.] You tell the bread collector, “Fine, I’ll give you what is needed to support those activities that indirectly benefit me, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give bread to my neighbor so he can play golf.” The bread collector informs you that that’s not the way it works. You don’t get to decide who gets your bread. That decision is made by the officials you and your fellow villagers (deadbeats included) elected. “Fine,” you say, “we’ll elect new officials.” The bread collector responds, “Good luck. It turns out I lied to you when I told you there weren’t many deadbeats, there are quite a few and their number is increasing by the minute. They can outvote you and your fellow producers. The deadbeats have come to the realization that by electing the right people, they can continue to force you to provide for them. Oh, and by the way, since the elected officials can allocate themselves all the bread they want, they’ll join the deadbeats and vote to keep themselves in office. Not only that, the elected officials will make up names for subgroups of the village and get even more votes by promising to give some of your output to each subgroup. But look at the bright side, you may be a member of a couple of subgroups.”

        You decide to take a few precious hours from your work and other obligations to think about what you’ve just been told. The longer you think, the madder you get. You come to the realization that to avoid subsidizing the village deadbeats, you have two choices: (1) you can hide the extra bread you produce (i.e., break the law–income tax evasion), or (2) you can produce less bread. Instead of working those 10 extra hours each week producing bread that benefits you neither directly nor indirectly (e.g., goes to the deadbeats), you can use that time to play golf yourself. You might even run into your neighbor. At worst you can discuss the situation with him; and at best you can report that he accidently fell in the lake on the third hole and drowned. You realize that if you produce only a little bit more bread than you need, the bread collectors won’t (or more correctly, can’t) take anything from you–there’s none to take. You may not get to trade what little excess bread you have for the things you want, but you will have more time to enjoy your hobbies. Being an honorable person and not wanting to break the law, you opt for the second choice. Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, when you go golfing you don’t meet your beloved neighbor so you don’t get to report that he accidentally drowned.

        The point of the above is to illustrate that once an individual concludes that extended production efforts on his part will at most minimally benefit himself, he’ll stop producing and engage in activities that are enjoyable to him, but probably not beneficial to the society as a whole. As a result, the society as a whole will have less bread for distribution than it would have had if the producers were allowed to keep all but a small portion of their produce. Thus, by confiscating from producers more than the producers perceive to be in their interest, the producers will produce less and less so that the village excess (i.e., the produce above what the village needs to exist), if any, will diminish.

        (3) The nature of the human animal is such that if his village provides a portion of his needs, he will produce less than if his needs must be met solely by himself.

        One day your wife comes to you and says, “You know dear, we’re going to have a baby in a couple of months and the doctor who delivers our baby will have to be paid. So maybe you’d better produce an extra ten loaves of bread to pay him.” You tell her that you don’t have to because medical care is free. She responds, “Free, how so? The doctor’s too busy to make bread; so where does he get the bread he needs to eat? For that matter, where do the nurses, medical technicians, custodial staff at the hospital, etc. get their bread?” You respond, “From the village excess.” Congratulations! You have just rationalized that instead of making the extra ten loaves of bread needed to pay the doctor for your baby, it’s okay to let others, most of them complete strangers to you, pay the doctor.

        One day after completing your usual nine holes you start packing up to go back to work. Two members of your foursome do the same; but the best golfer in your foursome tells you that since he’s playing so well, instead of returning to work he’s going to play another nine. You wish him luck and return to your duties. It isn’t long before your friend is playing 18 holes every day. You ask him, “How can you afford to play so much golf?” He tells you that since the village is taking care of his needs, two hours of work a day are sufficient to fund his hobbies. Note: An important consequence of the producer’s deciding to trade work time for play time is that the village has less bread, which translates into less excess bread for distribution within the village.

        It’s not long after that that the other two members of your foursome routinely start playing 18 holes of golf every day. Not wanting to be considered a chump by your buddies, you tell your wife she’s not going to get the kitchen remodeled, at least not right away, because you’re going to join your friends for the back nine. All over the village similar scenarios are taking place. More and more of your producing neighbors are coming to the conclusion that life is too short to spend all day working–especially when (a) they can manipulate the system to get others to support them, and (b) their work efforts don’t benefit them or their families, but instead benefit people they’ve never heard of. As time goes by and more and more producers reduce their work output, the village excess dwindles until it’s gone. Oops! The village has no excess bread and hence neither private welfare nor government welfare can exist.

        An unintended consequence of these actions is that once the village storehouse is empty, the next few generations are doomed to poverty. Recall that involuntary welfare was done in the name of the Christian tenet that it’s our responsibility to take care of our fellow man, but in reality what has been wrought is a short-term practice of the Christian tenet followed by wholesale poverty. Wouldn’t Christ be proud? Not likely. Since most of the donations were mandatory, not voluntary, the contributors have no reason to expect His blessing. In fact, He’s a little ticked off. Not only are there few souls who gave because it was their Christian duty to give, He’s now faced with the problem of taking care of a few thousand more starving people.

        Bottom line, human nature being what it is, a society that prevents producers from doing with their produce as they deem fit will eventually become a destitute society. The name for such activity is state-mandated welfare or socialism; and the world is rife with failed socialistic societies–e.g., the Soviet Union and the Mormon Church’s The United Order, which was established under the auspices of God. In the United States, today’s advocates of socialism seldom openly use the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘state-mandated-welfare’–although every once in a while a liberal Congressperson will forget and state that she wants to ‘socialize’ the oil industry. Instead, socialists in the United States make lofty speeches with self-serving and vote-getting platitudes such as, “it’s immoral to spend money on a war when we could be spending it for universal health care,” or, “I met a man who has had a cleft palate for forty years, and it’s just downright wrong that as a nation we didn’t fix his problem years ago.” Didn’t somebody once say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions?”

        I’m not implying that a society in which the producers get to decide what to do with their excess production will take care of all society members who can’t take care of themselves, but at least the capacity to provide for them exists. Some of that capacity will find its way to society’s unfortunates–e.g. the millions of dollars voluntarily donated to victims of hurricane Katrina. And if in your opinion a particular segment of the society isn’t being supported to the degree you think it should be, you can always work extra hard and provide that group with your excess product. If that’s still insufficient, you can encourage other producers to support your pet group. You might even organize a group of volunteers to aid that group. For you liberals, such an organization is called a charity, and charities have been meeting the needs of the unfortunate for a long time, without destroying the society.

        I close with one final thought. If you believe in a reworded (and admittedly, slightly different) version of the Christian tenet–to wit: ‘your brother is your keeper,’ and you act accordingly, then you’re a deadbeat or rapidly becoming one; and if you live in the United States, most likely a democrat.

      • jTom when you say monopolies and government intervention, you repeat yourself, because it’s only through government intervention that monopolies can be created.

      • The problem with meeting the people’s needs, is that needs are based on wants. If you want to live, you need air, water and food. Wants are infinite. At least mine are. I always want more. Resources are limited. Under a socialist system, somebody has to decide what is a need and how to meet that need because there are not infinite resources. I’m pretty sure that the somebody who decides what is fair will think of themselves before they think of the rest of us.

        It also explains why there are so many dead people in those failed socialist societies. Dead people don’t need anything. Death solves a multitude of allocation problems.

        Even with finite wants people still can’t have what they need in all cases. I’d like to spend a week on the International Space Station, and I’d need a lot of money to buy a trip. I’m sure those thoughtful and kind Marxists will give it to me because because I need it.

      • Like in the USA you mean? where there are millions of poor and then there’s Bill Clinton’s daughter Chelsea?

      • [Socialism, and by extension Communism, bases it’s appeal on the Medieval model…]
        Uuuhhh?
        Not at all. The medieval model is : a priviliged (noble) class legitimized by the church and many poor (servants…) Noble class business model is the production of grain as food for horses. Land = only energy source. The separation of land and energy generation enables freedom for all 1. windmills 2. fossil fuels.
        This is the main pitfall of RE: bringing back the energy-land use relationship while regressing to a feudal society.

      • I haven’t heard such a load of horseshit for a very long time. Why are you differentiating here between fossil fuel energy and renewable energy? Make this a non-partisan issue and then I will start to take your comments seriously …

      • study history I would say. Please explain instead of disagreeing. Socialism did great things in Europe from 1900 – 1975. It raised a large middle class and improved prosperity considerably despite 2 WW’s.
        After 1975 the socialist party was hijacked by academics , the emerging new elite. The most important thing about a political system is 1. making the right decisions for the common interest based on science 2. keep out parasites such as false prophets (like AlGore) do not be trapped in the left-right controversie.

      • David says…
        “Socialism did great things in Europe from 1900 – 1975. ”

        Disagree. That was called the industrial revolution. Socialism, according to Communism a stepping stone, or statism simply reaped the rewards of science.

        Socialism functions fine for a time in groups of a common culture, or at a minimum groups of cultures with similar ideals. ( For instance the Asian culture of study and hard work blends just fine with a protestant work ethic) However, if you mix in unhealthy cultures, say the Sharia Law culture of legal slavery, second class citizenship for some groups, legal rape, etc… and you mix in other cultural ideals like the racism of racism or the ” I am an owed victim” mentality perpetuated by the Am Sharptons of the world, then socialism always falls victim to it inherent requirement of institutionalizing the ” evil bastard” side of human nature into a government structure of power over others. Well over 100 million murdered by their own statist government testify to the harsh reality of not granting individual liberty and freedom from group power.
        Europe is headed to great disaster as liberty is being strangled every day by what socialism eventually falls into, the masses dictated to by central government, the nanny state on steroids, eventually brutally suppressing descent.

      • the very same may be said about democracy. In all cases: individual rights should be the core. All times in history elites try to take all and cause stagnation. (as captital markets emerge) Left or Right is not the way to judge a political system: it is it’s ability to make the right decisions in the public interest, keep out parasites and prevent the rich and successfull to exploit others. Communism was not the liberation of the workers but a revolt of new elites. Socialism in Europe derailed. Don’t be fooled by propaganda. What counts are the -self cleaning- properties of a system. Here I read only the (PragerU) talk of fundamentalists.

    • Hitler’s socialist party (Nactional SOCIALISTE Deuthsche Arbeiter Partei, i.e., “Nazi Party) although murdering only some 6 million, also failed.

      • One can imagine that every country has it’s idiots and psychopats, no exception was nazi Germany. However in a sound system they cannot gain control. I tend to say that Germanies immune system failed.
        Right know our immune system fails to suppress climate alarmism. There is no weapon against the alarmists claim for moral superiority and democracy is what people believe, not necessarely scientific truth.

      • It’s Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, but why not just say Nazi Party or NSDAP?

        Germany had 34 political parties and had been subjected to Allied retribution, which resulted in (1) 700,000 deaths by starvation and (2) runaway inflation. Add to that the huge unemployment that came with the Depression and the very real danger of international communism and you have the unstable witches’ brew needed to concoct a Hitler.

      • Interesting how the 6 million lives on. Last I read, the “official count” was down to 1.8 million, with the deaths by starvation and disease not being separated out of the total. And of course, the deaths by starvation and disease were more the fault of carpet bombing destroying the infrastructure as opposed to mistreatment at the concentration camps. But believe what you like.

      • E. Martin
        “Hitler’s War” – the 1939-1945 World War [WW2, to some] is thought to have totally about 55 million deaths.
        Many were Stalin’s responsibility, sure.
        But Hitler started the damn thing.
        And, yes, 55 million is an estimate.

        Slightly off the subject, I remember that the earlier editions of the Guinness Book of records included a statement – on Costliest Wars – something like this: –
        ‘Although no satisfactory computation has yet been published, it is certain that the cost of the Second World War far exceeded that of all previous hostilities combined.’

        Not a word for word quote – but AFAICR – close-ish.

        Auto

    • It’s their morality, or more accurately their immorality, that is the most unsustainable part of who they are. The Left’s moral toxic plume reaches into nearly every nook and cranny of the world. It’s an idolatry that corrupts everyone involved. Progressivism poisons everything.

    • “That goal was best stated by Frederich Engles: to enable “humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.” Stalin was unable to do it, Mao was unable and so was Pol Pot, even at the cost of 100 million lives.”

      I find it impossible to believe that any of the three of them had any concerns about humanity, considering how many millions of innocent people they deliberately murdered in their quests for personal power.

    • Higley7, The ability/needs formulation cannot work for mathematical reasons.

      Needs are ALWAYS based on wants. Want to live? You need air, water, and food. Try it out. Think of something you need. Why do you need it? Suppose that think you need an an automobile for transport. Why? It beats walking. You want to go much faster and with less effort than walking. Asking why you need something will let you follow the trail back to the want that requires it.

      Wants are infinite. As soon as you get one thing, you will almost certainly want another. Resources are finite, which makes meeting infinite needs impossible. Thus, if wants are infinite, needs will be too. The rulers. who decide how finite resources are allocated, then have to decide which wants you can have fulfilled because they are limited with finite resources. I can tell you they will fill their own needs before they will satisfy yours. Which is to say mathematically that infinite needs cannot be satisfied with finite resources.

      By the way, I’d like to go orbit the earth as a tourist in the ISS. To do that I need 60+ million dollars to buy a ride on a vehicle currently. SpaceX will make it much cheaper, but that is in the near future. Maybe I should wait. Nah, still wouldn’t have what I need.

      With redistribution of finite resources based on needs rather than merit, those who have abilities will stop using them, or not invest in getting them in the first place. The number of finite resources declines and everybody becomes poor except for those who have the power to fill their own needs. See Richard G.’s quote of Heinlein. You might as well try to divide by zero, the result of which is at least undefined, whereas socialism guarantees economic failure.

      • [Wants are infinite. As soon as you get one thing, you will almost certainly want another. Resources are finite…]
        Right, but our space and time are limited. It is unwise to eat Tbone steaks every day. You only can drive 1 car at the time. Live in 1 house at the time etc etc. Climb one mountain at the time. Research one topic at the time. So choices have to be made all the time.
        A transformation takes place from a society with mainly poor people in need of many things to a society with abundance . (once) poor people behave differently: they buy stuff without reason because they believe povery may strike any moment and possession increases social status. For those born in abundance behave differently. Renting and sharing is more reasonable. Ownership does not increase status if anyone can affort it.
        I think: freedom brings happiness. Once you have enough (money) free time makes you happy.
        to conclude: infinite needs = infinite stupidity.

    • ‘Difference between Nazi and Communist is when you say how horrible Nazis have been, they don’t say, “Well, real Nazism has never been tried”’
      – Frank J. Fleming

  2. don’t forget to include one of, if not the most notorious National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism.

      • It’s the conceit of the educated.
        They are convinced that this time it will work, because this time, they are going to be in charge.

      • Collectivist systems do not work because in practise there is no difference between -nothing- and -all-
        If everybody owns my car I have no car. If labourers own the factories they own nothing.
        If everybody may vote then this vote has no value and the voter has zero influence.
        If power is to the people they have no power but are suppressed by an elite.
        Most important values of a system are it’s self-repairing properties: it’s ability to generate rational policies, to reject parasites and flexibility. Fundamentalism is always wrong. Life is adaptation.

      • It always pains me to ponder the evil of socialism/communism. Thinking of the basest evil that resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of people in such a short period always leaves me with a profound sadness.

      • liberal-socialism works in the Netherlands…..Our infrastructure is in much better shape than in the USA.
        Also everybody has health insurance. What counts are the self-cleaning properties of a system. Not left or right. Keep parasites out.

      • The Netherlands lived, and lives, under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and NATO. Your infrastructure was subsidized by not having to purchase your true defense needs. You’re welcome.

      • Perhaps the American visitors to the Netherlands should refuse to pay their hotel bills until Dutch pay up the NATO’s dues.

      • The Netherlanders are a very nice people and do many things naturally that others would have to be forced to do. Yes, we kept the Soviet Union at bay for many years; the Netherlands were protected on our nickel.

      • The Netherlands is a small socially and ethnically cohesive country.
        What works in that situation doesn’t work in larger more diverse countries.

        PS: From all accounts, the socialist system in starting to creak. It may not “work” much longer.

      • liberal-socialism works in the Netherlands…..Our infrastructure is in much better shape than in the USA.

        Congratulations. The Netherlands is such a wonderful place when the holiday seasons start their caravans jam the traffic all the way to the Mediterranean.

        I’ve presumed the local Dutch summer climate is not yet warm enough or the high population density gets them – over 10 times compared to the US. But naturally there can be other reasons.

      • [But naturally there can be other reasons.]
        There are. My parents did not have to save money starting from my birth to send me to college.
        I worked for an American company (CDC 25 years) frequently staying in Minneapolis. Years later in 2007 35W Mississippi bridge collapsed.

  3. Sure, if the Berkeley graduate Michael Mann is not a communist he’s a leftist radical who has spent his life hobnobbing with the most extreme leftist politicians.

    And that’s the way nearly all the government bankrolled climate scientists are: they’re leftists with a cause. And to further their cause they’ll make up their bs “scary scenarios” of imminent doom and mangle the data to hide the decline:

    “Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director (and considered the pioneering founder of the global warming scare campaign)

    “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, ex ipcc chair, 1994

    • Could do without the stupid vid but those four quotes really sum up what has been going on for the last three decades. Very succinct .

    • Berkeley graduate Michael Mann is not a communist he’s a leftist radical

      Berkeley… Explains a whole lot about Mann’s arrogant Elitist attitude.

  4. Both communism and environmentalism promote totalitarian states with a privileged elite and poor masses.
    Both are (in practise) elites that secure their wealth at the cost of others. In both cases false propaganda does the work.

    • There is a difference.

      The committed Communist will kill a few hundred million – on the way to their ultimate goal.

      The committed Environmentalist will kill a few billion – which is their goal.

  5. Michael E Mann “distinguished professor” !!!
    I think not….
    Michael E Mann is – a cheat, a liar, a bully, a fraud & a rotten scientist (in all senses).
    He regularly uses misrepresentation & deception. He’s falsified data (wiping the medieval warm period & LIA from history to make his theory work).

    He even ‘Mann-ufactured’ a diploma to claim he was a ‘Nobel Laureate’.

    The Mann is a complete disgrace to science.

    For more details see
    http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/scandals-scam-frauds-in-climatology/the-hockey-stick/

    I really must stop sitting on the fence…. & say what I actually mean (:-))

    • Hey! They said, “distinguished”. They did not say anything about what distinguishes him from others. To distinguish means to see the essential or subtle differences. Nothing more.

    • You are not reading carefully , it does not say “distinguished professor” , it says “Distinguished Professor”

      Though few in US seem to understand what capital letters are for and how to use them, this indicates that it is his job title, not just a someone writing that he distinguished.

      revcom should have written : “he is Distinguished Professor …. ” not ” he is a Distinguished Professor”

      Clearly they do not understand why the caps are there either.

      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

  6. I wonder what the idiots who espouse the cause of the collapse of industrial society think the world will be like if their green fantasies ever came true? It would worse than the Middle Ages. There would be no sustainable society, just endless collapsing misery, death and the complete opposite of every decent principle of humanity and compassion. Who needs a bunch of marginal communists to achieve that when you have a blue planet in green chains.

  7. Michael Mann, Tom Steyer and Hillary’s anti-fracking positions pushed the state of Pennsylvania to vote for Trump. Michael Mann is a Democratic Party activist now. The economic and geopolitical benefits of fracking in the US are huge and Michael Mann is against fracking.

    • “Michael Mann is a Democratic Party activist now.”

      A couple of years ago I read that he spoke at some radical gathering in Philadelphia where he pumped his fist and led a chant of (IIRC) “The people united will never be defeated.”

  8. an organization who describes the country I hold dear as “the belly of the imperialist beast”.

    Well Pres. Trump’s valiant efforts to get along with Russia and stop promoting eternal war and US acting as world policeman , which the American people voted for, seem to have been perverted by other dark forces.

    So maybe you need to worry about the imperialist beast which controlling your beloved country rather than some insignificant political groupuscule like revcom.us

    • What a horrible mishmash of convoluted logic. Nothing evil such as revcom.us should be ignored. Mr Watts is right to love our country and object to their slander.

      • I did not say he was not right to love his country. that’s fine. I said your country has much more serious internal threats that revcom.

        Also worrying that Mann allowed himself to be quoted by someone who said something nasty about USA ? come on. Even if Mann IS a commie that’s he constitutional right, just like the alt_right guys in Charlottesville have their rights.

        What I will attack Mann for is his Climategate conspiriacy, hiding inconvenient data, perverting science for his “cause” and lying before congressional committee.

        so some commie web site said something not very flattering , get over it.

        Now go and worry about how and who hamstrung the President you elected and forced to abandon most of what you elected him to do. Hint: it was not the commies or the ruskies.

      • Nobody tried to take away Mann’s rights, so your Charlottesville analogy is void.

        The fact is their is a very strong communist movement infiltrating and taking over the DNC and institutions of higher learning. That the are organised in dozens of small groups, like the dozens of Islamic terrorist groups, does not preclude the reality of their common ideology.
        I recommend web searching ” Discover the Networks” to find scholarly research on this.

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

      “Imperialism is an action that involves a country (usually an empire or a kingdom) extending its power by the acquisition of territories. It may also include the exploitation of these territories, an action that is linked to colonialism. Colonialism is generally regarded as an expression of imperialism.”

      Trump hasn’t acquired any foreign territory during his term. Trump hasn’t forcefully exploited any nation. Trump is not an imperialist, nor is the United States.

      Trump is streamlining U.S. military actions abroad and removing failed Obama policies which restricted the U.S. military to practically ineffectiveness.

      As has been demonstrated, just a few tweaks on U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria already has the Islamic Terror Army on the ropes and things are going quite well in Iraq. And you couldn’t really say the U.S. has expanded its efforts that much, other than close air support, and they have just focused on the important things, instead of twiddling their thumbs like was done under Obama.

      Trump is also streamlining the effort in Afghanistan, and is adding a few more troops, but this is not a major escalation, and I’m betting it will have success like the success we are seeing in Iraq. Just give it a little time.

      Trump doesn’t want to be in Afghanistan, but he knows there is no other option at this time. And the war *can* be won if we have a resolute president, and I think we have one in Trump.

      Psychology plays a big role when it comes to dealing with fanatics and dictators and tyrants, and Trump knows just how to handle bullies like this, and he has the military power to back up his talk. He knows it and they know it.

      Once he convinces them that he means business, then they will get a whole new attitude. Except for the crazies, of course. Those you have to kill in order to eliminate them as a problem. We’ll sort them out as we go along.

      Neither the U.S. or Trump are imperilaists. If we are in a country it is because we have been invited, and it is always because of U.S. national security interests, not because we are seeking to exploit other countries.

  9. We’re left in little doubt what this now dead issue is about. This organization disowns the disastrous ends of the big experiments that have been performed with this credo.

    Russia, a nation of chess players with high quality education and a deep culture, which they spread throughout an entire continent (and recently Europe, North America, etc) was quickly taken over by despots after the formation of the USSR. If these people couldn’t achieve Utopia or even a decent level of prosperity with it, it isn’t going to be done by anyone else.

    China, another cultural giant, pragmatically decided to morph into a hybrid, moving more than half way toward capitalism and free enterprise after the trauma of the collapse of the USSR, their mentor. Doing it over again by former useful idiots (now no longer useful) to these former attempts wouldn’t last a week. The wannabes would become a Jim Jones like cult at best.

  10. We currently have a latitudinal jet stream. It is impossible to wander the hurricane to the north. What’s the cause? I observe a strong correlation with solar activity. The lower solar activity, the more meandering jet stream.

    You can see that a strong jet stream is high in the north. Therefore, it can not dissipate the hurricane.

  11. We currently have a latitudinal jet stream. It is impossible to wander the hurricane to the north. What’s the cause? I observe a strong correlation with solar activity. The lower solar activity, the more meandering jet stream.

    You can see that a strong jet stream is high in the north. Therefore, it can not dissipate the hurricane.
    For some time in the north geomagnetic activity is high.
    https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/pl/aktywnosc-zorzowa/magnetometry

  12. From another site:

    Just on the news … i could hardly believe my ears!

    in 2050, our children won’t know what an engine sounds like.

    My word, some people actually think it’s feasible that all transport will be electric in 35 years time.

    Well, if we started building nukes now, and built one every year then we may just about have the electrical energy required for 100% transport.

    But we’d also have to have the infrastructure to get the electricity from the nukes to the cars … and that would entail upgrading greatly every national and local grid wire in the uk, as well as i expect every single bit of kit connected to those grids!

    I’m afraid this deja vu prediction is going the same way as the children and snow ‘scientific’ prediction (from a climate scientists no less).

    • Hmmm should have checked the info before posting now had a chance to read the article and what do we find just more sceptic false news:
      http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131108-what-will-we-be-driving-in-2050

      For a start, will there even be cars in 2050? Will an invention that will be 150 years old by then be replaced by something better? Will environmental concerns kill it? Will people become tired of getting behind the wheel, as recent studies suggest? The answer seems to be “maybe”, but the reality is that the automobile is a very liberating and flexible means of transportation. It fulfills people’s desire to move around freely and independently. And – done right – the automobile can be a sustainable and safe means of transportation.

      So what can – actually, must – we do in order to make the automobile of the year 2050 cleaner, safer, leaner and still enjoyable to use? This is a crucial question: mass-motorisation in emerging countries means there will be more than three billion vehicles on the planet in 2050, compared with around one billion today.

      But what will actually drive these cars? Electricity? Hydrogen? Or will it still guzzle petrol and diesel? At first glance, one might think the good-old internal combustion engine is on its way out. However, its demise may not be quite so quick. In general, the daily commute will be in an electric vehicle with no combustion engine. The electricity grid is likely to include a much higher percentage of renewable energy by then, so everyday driving will be cleaner as well. But what about longer trips? Batteries might allow a 500-mile range, but they might be heavy and expensive, and recharging them might take time.
      So, the ultimate solution for long-distance car travel might still be a combustion engine. Research is underway by institutions and car companies across the world to further improve efficiency and cut emissions. In 2050 a small, turbo-charged, rotary engine might serve as a range extender – used only a few days a year, but good to have on board. Another range extender might be wireless power transfer to the vehicle as it moves along the highway.

  13. The world spent the last 100 years trying (and failing) to get Communism to work, now all the major players have given up on it and have adapted some form of Capitalism. If these Party guys thing they’re smarter than the Soviets, smarter than Maoist China, smarter than all the other failed and former communist states that litter the landscape of 20th century history, then they’re perfect allies for the global warming cause: they’ll believe the most transparent lies, and fight to the end defending them.

    • Smart never entered into those equations except as an ability to connive. They were all about lust for power and wealth and contempt for their fellow man.

  14. I wouldn’t blame Mann too much for allowing an outlier group to republish something of his. He could be semi-excused for thinking, “no publicity is bad publicity” in the service of promoting his cause.

    OTOH, I suspect he is a fan of Chavez, Che, etc., based on hints I’ve read (e.g., see my comment upthread). He has mostly wisely soft-petalled such enthusiasms, if they exist.

    • Rather than promoting his cause, it is more about promoting himself — a narcissistic fool who cannot admit he is other than the absolute beacon of truth.

    • Michael Mann is a tireless self promoter and since a lot of scientists have distanced themselves from him (as Mark Steyn’s book shows), he has to grab attention anywhere he can get it. That includes doing radio interviews with pioneering antivaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr:

      https://michaelmann.net/content/interview-about-climate-change

      If communism ever comes to the US, he’ll be getting in on the ground floor and be bucking for the position of science czar.

  15. “Probably not a smart move by Dr. Mann to associate with this group…”

    Funny, I was thinking that even the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA would shy from associating with Mann for fear of damage to their good name and reputation. /sarc

    • Two peas in a pod! Two failed hypotheses put into disastrous action and backed up by lies and zero accountability!

  16. ‘Although defeated for the top position by Mark Rudd of the faction soon known as Weatherman, Avakian was elected to the National Interim Committee.’ (Wiki bio.)

    Not good people to hang out with, Jeremy Corbyn no doubt a fan of both Mann and Avakian, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action probably not.

    “The left needed a new totem pole. Something for the young to dance around and feel good about,” he says, somewhat bitterly. “Revolutions had failed. Russia had failed. Socialism wasn’t dead but it needed a cause. The Red-Green alliance became that cause. It needed massive state spending, which they equated with socialism. In my view the left stopped thinking in 1989. It is only my brother who has started to change the agenda of privatisation and so on.” (Guardian article Jan 2016)

  17. Capitalism models nature. Communism/Socialism is completely unnatural and even anti-nature. It is ironic that modern environmentalism has become a stronghold of the far left, as the basic tenants of nature and the left are diametrically opposed.

    In nature, every living thing has the same goal: survive and propagate their specific family. Weeds do not self destruct for the sake of a beautiful lawn. Lions do not starve to death for the sake of the antelope herd. Bees do not sacrifice for any other living thing, other than bees, and specifically their personal queen. Algae blooms every single chance it gets. All life is self centered. Even symbiotic relationships happen only because all species are benefitting. If one species stops benefitting, the relationship will end immediately, as that species immediately seeks a better way for self preservation.

    Capitalism is simply an economic model of the natural world, were thriving is first and foremost a matter of self interest. Humans thrive by providing a desired product or service to other humans, modeling the symbiotic relationships that are found in nature. It is a win-win system. (Crony capitalism is not capitalism at all, but a form of fascism.)

    Socialism violates the very nature of life, suppressing the self-interest that is the core drive of all living things. Consequently, it cannot work. It is literally impossible for socialism to ever achieve its stated goal of a better life for all, because it works against the basic self-interest of life itself. Any species that adopts socialism will begin to die out. So far, humans are the only species dumb enough to try.

    • ” If one species stops benefitting, the relationship will end immediately, as that species immediately seeks a better way for self preservation. ”
      Except for one form of symbiotic relationship — parasitism. In this form, one benefits to the detriment of the other symbiont.

      • Nature is stupid. If predators catch all their prey they die out. Humans are smart by breeding animals. Also humans show ethical conduct by organizing wild reserves and preserving biodiversity. In nature, things simply happen because it is possible. Symbiosis, parasitism: it’s all there.
        Some filosofers declared nature “perfect” : an insane statement. Nature generates respect and wonder by it’s complexity.

      • You are right, Don. Parasitism is one organism benefitting to the detriment of another. If parasitism becomes dominant, both the host and the parasite die. Perhaps I should amend my argument and acknowledge that both capitalism and socialism are found in nature. Capitalism is found throughout a healthy, vibrant biosphere, which evolved through each living organism pursuing its own self interest, creating a powerful web of life. Parasites also pursue their own self interest, but do not support the web of life in the process. They must remain a small minority, or the whole web of life collapses.

        Capitalism is an economic process that models the healthy biosphere. Each individual still pursues their own self interests, but in the process, adds to the robustness of the whole system. Socialism, and to a lessor extent crony capitalism and fascism, are parasitic in nature. A healthy system can tolerate a little. That’s why western civilization has not yet collapsed. As the parasites grow, however, the host economy faces imminent death, taking the parasite with it.

        Idealized socialism simply denies the true nature of the participating organisms. It demands that the hosts give up their own self interests, and that the parasites show restraint in being parasitic as they progress to being hosts. Nature does not work that way and humans are part of nature.

  18. ‘The Madhouse Effect’ sounds like something by Solzhenitsyn about the misuse of psychiatric hospitals against dissidents in CCCP.

    ‘The pump don’t work
    ’Cause the vandals took the handles’

  19. The thing about revolutionaries is that they think that after the ‘chaos’ THEY will be in charge. Sadly, it’s a bunch of really hard, nasty people who grab the power and ship the wispy intellos off to the gulag, to be heard of no more.

  20. The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has taken on the responsibility to lead revolution in the U.S., the belly of the imperialist beast, as its principal share of the world revolution and the ultimate aim of communism.

    That’s funny — the communists (under the guise of progressives) have already won, to a great extent, The only problem is that those in that particular group aren’t in charge.

  21. If he gave them permission without finding out who they are, he’s a moron.
    If he gave them permission after finding out who they are, he either:
    1- doesn’t care, and he’s a moron
    2- sympathizes with their cause, and he’s a traitor and a moron

    If he did not give them permission, and he finds out they lied about it, and does nothing, he’s a moron.
    If he did not give them permission, and he finds out they lied about it, and asks them to remove it from their website, he’d show more integrity than I have ever given him credit for. But I’d still think he’s a moron.

    :)

  22. “OTOH, this could be a mistake and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. ”

    Well, yeah, since he has a history of making mistakes, what’s one more?

    /grin

    • He has a history of doing wrong things. I wouldn’t equate that to making mistakes. Every jackass in prison says he made a “mistake”.

  23. On details, the Revolutionary Communist Party is a separate group from the Communist Party of the USA. Communists are about as eager to divide into factions as (other) religious groups. Antifa is run by the Workers World Party in some places, and by BAMN in others. Communist without a modifier is not quite accurate.

  24. Another AGW misguided soul, our friend and the intrepid polar explorer Rupert Nigel Pendrill Hadow known as Pen Hadow in his quest to sail to the North Pole, has reached 80N and appears to have got stuck in the ice pack. Latest report:
    30/Aug/2017 14:00:04 UTC
    80° 09.362N, 148° 50.777W
    Course: 117° @ 0.0 knots
    -5°C at 0 m above sea level

      • As you sit in your nice comfortable house with your nice comfortable lifestyle there are families in Houston whose lives have been pretty much destroyed by a hurricane that dumped a year’s rain in one week – so I don’t really think they see this as a joke.

        You can laugh my friend until it happens to you one day and then let’s see if you still see the science behind climate change as one big jest.

    • Gee,Ivan, if one precisely reversed that statement, and applied it to CAGW advocates, you would be right.

      • Don’t play the fool Tom. I don’t think you are in a situation in which you have exoerienced a Harvey-type ordeal. Until you do, you can continue in your scepticism.

        However, I think that those sceptics in Houston who have seen their city deluged with water and their homes destroyed now might be taking rather a different view on human-induced climate change.

      • I recomment the Dutch to make your place safer. Americans do not maintain their infrastructure properly. Flaw of the capitalist system? Sorry, this no time to make jokes.

      • Flaw of the bureaucratic/socialist system of the various Federal, State and local governments while they take advantage (taxation and regulation) of individual and corporate actors, David.

      • You are indulging in proof by assertion,Ivan. As there is zippo proof that Harvey has anything to do with AGW, you are on the level of throwing virgins into volcanoes to appease angry gods.

      • Ok so world renowned newspaper’s editorial team – and here I am referring to the L.A. Times – decides to write an editorial on a subject thatvseem to think is based on a bunch of hocus pocus for its millions of readers. Now that is an interesting one. Why would any newspaper want to do that if it seeks to maintain its circulation levels?

      • Ivan, just how well has the legacy media been doing? The LA Times is not doing any better than average.

      • What planet are you living on, Ivan? One of the ten most trusted is like discussing skinny sumo wrestlers.

      • C’mon Tom you sound like an intelligent guy. Don’t tell me you distrust every single news outlet and that they all have a biased agenda on the issue of climate change. That is completely f####ng absurd. The L.A. Times is a major news outlet and its trustworthiness has been proven – stop trying to find any way of wriggling out of the general acceptance of what the L.A. Times editorial states is impartial and unbiased on this issue. Why wouldn’t it be? Or are they in the pockets of Al Gore and Dr Michael Mann in some kind of cc conspiracy?

      • Ivan, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy about 1962, and the neutrality of the Mainstream Media about 1965. The trick is to identify the agenda of a source, not look for a guru.

      • A prolonged drought that is exacerbated by CAGW, yes. Of course droughts occur naturally. Your view is that CAGW is having little to no impact on droughts, mine the opposite.

      • Well, ivankinsman, my “view” is supported by the evidence. Even the politicized IPCC had to admit no observed increase in worldwide drought.

        Since the small warming from the Little Ice Age is overall beneficial, where is your CAGW. And, please, don’t cite nonsense futures excreted from the bowels of climate models.

      • I’ll agree that there has been no increase in worldwide drought but I suggest you read this on the topic as to why this is the case:

        Global drought has not increased, but climate change is still a threat
        http://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not-increased-but-climate-change-is-still-a-threat-10751

        Global warming and changes in drought
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2067.html

        Several recently published studies have produced apparently conflicting results of how drought is changing under climate change. The reason is thought to lie in the formulation of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and the data sets used to determine the evapotranspiration component. Here, we make an assessment of the issues with the PDSI in which several other sources of discrepancy emerge, not least how precipitation has changed and is analysed. As well as an improvement in the precipitation data available, accurate attribution of the causes of drought requires accounting for natural variability, especially El Niño/Southern Oscillation effects, owing to the predilection for wetter land during La Niña events. Increased heating from global warming may not cause droughts but it is expected that when droughts occur they are likely to set in quicker and be more intense.

        Summary of the report here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/23/global-warming-intensify-droughts

      • Where do I begin, ivankinsman? The last shall be the first: A 2013 article by the Guardian is far from being proof of anything other than left wing sensationalism. It presents the typical series of begging the question on human causation; no proof, just assertions of received wisdom.

        Next we go to: “Paper co-author Michael Roderick from the Australian National University said global warming does not necessarily lead to more droughts.

        “Drought has not been an effective way of measuring climate change over the past 60 years,” he said.”

        The paper’s abstract and The Conversation’s discussion of it simply amounts to: “We haven’t seen any increases in drought associated with the minor warming from the Little Ice Age, but you just wait; we’re continuing to torture the data until we eventually find something. You see, the models and other swell assumptions tell us it is so, so it will be.”

        Another bright idea flounders on reality. People need to read this stuff with a critical eye. Would you accept this crap from your physician? “Well, we have a new strain of leech since that last one didn’t work.”

      • Look what it is basically saying is that the wet areas are getting wetter and the dry areas drier so it evens out in terms of global droughts and the researchers warn about climate change as an on-going factor. Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.

      • “researchers warn about climate change as an on-going factor.” is nothing more than political propaganda, ivankinsman. IPCC climate models are particularly inaccurate in respect to precipitation, as well as being bunk overall. Although unintended, AR5 manipulation of model results to cool medium term “projections” showed that models run unacceptably hot, even for true believers.

        Unidentified “researchers” give us nothing but ideology-driven speculation.

      • Your opposite view is wrong.

        There is ZERO increase in GLOBAL droughts, floods, storms, extreme weather events, tornadoes, rate of SL rise, etc…

        From 1973 to 2017, there have been 4 cat 4 land fall hurricanes. In the 42 years prior to that there was 14.
        ( and of story)

        Except Harvey had the weakest ground recorded wind gusts of every cat 4 hurricane in history.

        Harvey was a natural disaster because Harvey hovered. Harvey Hovered over a subsiding swamp where humans built a city.

      • Harvey hovered my friend because climate change is altering the existing pattern of the jet stream. This is shifting higher to the north and becoming more ‘loopy’ which has resulted in Harvey sitting where it is rather than quickly moving on. Surely you can see this for yourself in the daily newscasts?

      • Did you actually read this article – the editor states very clearly why he does not publish climate sceptic letters in the LA Times:

        “As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they “deny” it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.

        Before going into some detail about why these letters don’t make it into our pages, I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

        And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn’t whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

        Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

      • So the Editor of the LA TImes has no idea what the nature of the IPCC is, and no interest in finding out. Typical.

      • As someone who will argue religion with a Jehovah’s Witness, I should know better than to continue this argument, but I am doing so anyway. You know better about the IPCC than you pretend to. The IPCC is, and was, a political organization, not a scientific investigating body, and a cursory investigation will make that obvious. You do not strike me as the fool you pretend to be.

      • Actually I am a Protestant who practicescas a Catholic.

        Your mistake here is that you are trying to make this argument a partisan, political one when in reality it is completely bipartisan in almost every country around the world bar the United States.

        The IPCC is made up of the world’s preminent climate scientists whose work is to independently verify whether human induced climate change is happening or not. They have overwhelmingly determined the former through independent peer-to-peer reviewed scientic research.

      • Only a political organization, which the IPCC is, would hire Ragendra Pachauri or Christiana Figueres in a senior role.

      • Neither is a scientist, and the equivalent would be appointing right-wing politicians based entirely on their politics.

      • You loathe these two for their politics as much as I loathe Pruitt at the EPA from an enviroment angle – so you see it cuts both ways. He has zero environmental credentials and is a stooge to pro-business lobbyists et al.

    • Are you saying Harvey wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t drive cars, and heat our homes? How much less flooding would there be if alarmists ruled the world? Personally, I think Harvey would have been the same, but what would power the rescue boats and helicopters?

      • That is simplifying the whole issue to an incredibly basic level. Would Harvey have been the same? Many are now disagreeing with you – as I am sure are some of the Houston climate sceptics who have seen a single hurricane dump a year’s annual rain in one week. Is that really par for the course?

      • True believers notice the hand of their God all around. Would it really help to built more windmills or cover all roofs with solar panels? To shut down a reliable energy system? But true: in a medieval world we simply don’t know what happens elsewhere. I suggest the Texans use much more fossil fuels to improve their infrastructure .

      • Is that windmills for grinding corn or beautiful gleaming wind turbines for creating renewable energy at a very low development cost – think there is a big difference here. Texas’s relationship with Big Black Dirty Oil is going to have to change at some stage, my friend. I know it – and you will eventually know it.

      • So, ivankinsman, weather in Texas is climate? Until some other CAGW believer says it isn’t in another context? Please give me the code words that allow jumping from one CAGW meme to another.

      • Read some stuff from Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., before going off on weather (not climate) disaster costs, ivankinsman. After you do so, maybe you will have something intelligible to say on the topic.

        BTW, what is your addiction to the Guardian all about?

      • The Guardian in my opinion gives the best coverage of what is going on in terms of environmental issues around the world. Well-informed journalism on a broad range of issues.

      • “The Guardian in my opinion gives the best coverage of what is going on in terms of environmental issues around the world.”

        Oh dear, you’ve really got problems…

      • Look, I am perfectly open to people like Dr Pielke making their views heard in the climate change debate and they should not be pilloried or attempted to be silenced. Ref. climate change, people talk about the 97% consensus, so of course there is some disagreement, and this should be taken on board by environmental journalists and the like if a valid case is made.

        I have been referred to as some kind of ‘Jehovah’s witness’ on this site. Not the case at all – I am just looking at the evidence right in front of my eyes.

      • Read Dr. Pielke, Jr’s work before giving me an inane response, ivankinsman. Please.

        If you believe the 97% meme, it would call into question your research and analytical skills.

      • Dave Fair, as I said the ROW has accepted human induced climate change as shown by the signatory countries to the IPCC Paris Climate Agreement. Only the US still has some remaining climate sceptics but this is based primarily on partisan ideological lines. Correct me if I am wrong here (I am European so neither a Democrat nor a Republican).

      • [what would power the rescue boats and helicopters]
        exactly! And if only a fraction of the money now spend on “fighting climate change” had been invested in the Texas infrastructure, Texans would have been a lot safer.
        Fossil fuel saves lives. Words and reports do not raise dykes.

      • Get your facts right David before you comment. Houston’s planning went wrong ten years ago when it approved planning of the worst kind – low level urban sprawl, some of it over natural flood plains, that creates a hard surface of concrete, asphalt and roof tops on which flood water just sits with no natural escape route.

        Donald Trump has exacerbated this situation by repealing legislation under the Obama administration that required authorities and developers to take climate change into consideration when building new developments. As you can see from the Houston example, now this has been explained to you, this is a completely idiotic decision that is only going to make the future problems arising from natural disasters even worse.

      • millions of Dutch live below sea level, protected by dikes. And indeed: in some occasions flooding occurred and dikes where improved.

      • ivankinsman “as I said the ROW has accepted human induced climate change”

        So you say.

        However, it seems that according to the UN ‘My World’ survey commencing 2015 and currently covering 9,736,484 respondents the citizens of the ROW don’t seem very concerned about it, “Action taken on climate change” comes flat last, sixteenth of sixteen causes for concern.

        http://data.myworld2015.org/

        You may also be interested by this:

        At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
        Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

        http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

      • Strange.

        Information published by the highly esteemed Pew Research Center (not sure who MyAnalytics are) seems to completely contradict the survey you quote:

        http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/

        Also, ref. Christiana Figueres, don’t take her words out of context. She is referring to a future economic model that is not 100% dependent on fossil fuel combustion but a more diverse energy mix that includes renewable energy. Basically, she is stating that keep on continuing with the current carbon-based energy model and mankind’s days are numbered as a species living on this planet – AND THIS IS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED.

  25. F.A. Hayek, perhaps the leading authority on the history and working of collectivist societies (socialism), said that if socialists understood economics they would never be socialists.

    Economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources for which there are alternative uses. In a free economy, resources usually sell to the highest-price offer. Any eBay habitué knows that. The losing bidder typically goes to the next item.

    Socialists promote their utopia with a new freedom, “one without which political freedom is nothing:” It is supposed to be freedom, Hayek said, from “nature’s parsimony.” That’s an impossibility. Socialists nonetheless assure us that planners will dole out everything anybody desires in a bounty exceeding a free market’s (as well as exceeding reality). It is the promise of a scoundrel to a fool.

    As Lord Acton said in a similar context, “history has proven that.”

  26. Mann may not object. Remember the old popular front motto ” no enemies to the left”. I’m sure that it applies to a good progressive like Mann.

      • The problem I have with many commentators on WUWT is that too many approach the issue of human induced climate change from a political angle and flounder about for somewhat obscure scientific evidence to support their viewpoint.

        Instead this whole issue should be a non-partisan one as the ROW approache it. Everything should be based on the scientific findings and the politics should be kept out of it. Who really cares if Dr Michael Mann is a Democrat, Republican, Communist or Martian…

      • “The problem I have…”

        The problem you have sunshine is that you haven’t the first fcuking clue what you’re wittering about.

  27. These jerks show up at every protest here in Toronto (or some version of them). Its seriously tedious to discuss if they are communist, Communist, Marxist, Marxist/Leninist, Maoist, anarchist, etc.

    If you live long enough, you understand that Monty Python already had a sketch for it:

    BRIAN: Are you the Judean People’s Front?
    REG: @#$%@ off!
    BRIAN: What?
    REG: Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea! Judean People’s Front. Cawk.
    FRANCIS: Wankers.
    BRIAN: Can I… join your group?
    REG: No. #@$% off.
    BRIAN: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
    PEOPLE’S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
    REG: Stumm.
    JUDITH: Are you sure?
    BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
    REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you’d have to really hate the Romans.
    BRIAN: I do!
    REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
    BRIAN: A lot!
    REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the #@%$ Judean People’s Front.
    P.F.J.: Yeah…
    JUDITH: Splitters.
    P.F.J.: Splitters…
    FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People’s Front.
    P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters…
    LORETTA: And the People’s Front of Judea.
    P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters…
    REG: What?
    LORETTA: The People’s Front of Judea. Splitters.
    REG: We’re the People’s Front of Judea!
    LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
    REG: People’s Front! C-huh.
    FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
    REG: He’s over there.
    P.F.J.: Splitter!

  28. OK. for all the commentators I have been communicating with, I will lay out a very clear step by step here as to how climate change is exacerbating (not causing) extreme weather events around this planet.

    1) Houston has suffered record-breaking rainfall – 52 inches (The US National Weather Service has had to introduce a new colour on its graphs to deal with the volume of precipitation. Harvey surpassed the previous US record for rainfall from a tropical system, as 49.2 inches was recorded at Mary’s Creek at Winding Road in Southeast Houston. FACT
    Nepal, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Pakistan have suffered equally intense storms in which months of rain has fallen in just a few hours. Since June, 21 countries – many in west and central Africa, such as Guinea, Ghana and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – have been struggling with exceptionally heavy rains, mudslides, hurricanes and intense floods in which months of rain has fallen in just a few hours.FACT

    2) How is climate change exacerbating this?
    The oceans are getting warmer. Example: In the Gulf of Mexico is currently more than half a degree celsius higher than the recent late summer average, which is in turn more than half a degree higher than 30 years ago, according to Michael Mann of Penn State University. As a result there was more potential for a deluge.

    FACT: Harvey intensified rapidly amid sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico up to 2.7 – 7.2°F (1.5 – 4°C) above average, relative to a 1961-1990 baseline. http://www.climatesignals.org/resources/map-atlantic-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-august-24-2017#.WapWFRYFkSY.twitter

    3) Warmer seas evaporate more quickly. Warmer air holds more water vapour. So, as temperatures rise around the world, the skies store more moisture and dump it more intensely.There is a proven link – known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation – that shows that for every half a degree celsius in warming, there is about a 3% increase in atmospheric moisture content. FACT

    4) Other than higher amounts of rainfall, how else can climate change contribute to impact of hurricanes?
    In Houston’s case, the storm surge was greater because sea levels have risen 20cm as a result of more than 100 years of human-related global warming. This has melted glaciers and thermally expanded the volume of seawater. FACT

    5) Harvey appears to have parked above Houston, pumping huge volumes of water from the sea to the sky to the city. Will stationary storms like this become more common in the future?
    There is not yet a clear link between this and climate change. But scientists have observed a general slowdown of atmospheric summer circulation in the mid-latitudes as a result of strong warming in the Arctic. According to this expert, “This can make weather systems move less and stay longer in a given location – which can significantly enhance the impacts of rainfall extremes, just like we’re sadly witnessing in Houston,” noted Stefan Rahmstorf, a co-chair at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. FACT

    6) Can scientists quantify how responsible humans for the extreme weather events like those cited in point 1?
    It is generally agreed that attribution is a relatively nascent science, but increasingly sophisticated computer models use temperature records, emission figures and recent data to calculate how the rise in greenhouse gases has increased the risk of a hotter world.
    Last year, researchers with World Weather Attribution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that man-made emissions nearly doubled the odds of last year’s heavy rains in Louisiana. This summer, they found the heatwave that struck Portugal and Spain was 10 times more likely to have occurred due to global warming. FACT

Comments are closed.