Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Vox reporter David Roberts thinks Conservatives can’t be persuaded to change their minds about climate change because we’ve been instructed to ignore climate facts by our “elites”.
Conservatives probably can’t be persuaded on climate change. So now what?
One more round of “messaging” won’t do it.
Updated by David Roberts Nov 10, 2017, 8:40am EST
When it comes to climate change, US conservatives inhabit a unique position, as part of the only major political party in the democratic world to reject the legitimacy of climate science and any domestic policy or international agreement meant to address it. Instead, the GOP is working actively to increase production and consumption of fossil fuels and to slow the transition to renewable energy.
How can conservatives be moved on climate change?
…
Core values, not science, are what drive conservative opposition, Dixon tells Grossman, and “free markets” are a core value for conservatives. They view climate policy as a threat to free markets, which is the real reason they reject climate science, so messaging should assuage those fears.
This is wrong.
…
Elites shape opinion, only elites can change it
Say we accept that the majority of hardcore conservatives have negative opinions on climate change, and they see those opinions as reflective of deep ideological values. What should be done about it?
There are two hidden premises that typically inform such discussions.
The first is that the only sensible response is to persuade all those conservatives. That’s why the focus inevitably turns to messaging and “framing,” the endless search for the right tone of voice, the right combination of arguments, the right mix of facts, stories, and imagery, to move the conservative mind. That’s what so many thousands of hours of effort have gone toward over the last decades.
But it’s backward, as Mullin says. Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.
And how are political opinions shaped in the real world?
Well, as I’ve written many times, public opinion is not some great enduring mystery. There’s a decent consensus in the social sciences on what most moves public opinion: elite cues.
…
Conservatives think climate change is a communist plot because that’s what the right’s elites have told them.
…
Reality still matters. What we have in the US is not a “difference of opinion” about climate change, it’s conservatives being mistaken about some very basic facts. They’re mistaken because they’ve been lied to and misled by leaders and influencers within their own tribe.
That’s the situation. But it’s not stable. The weather is only getting worse, young people are only getting more engaged, and clean energy is only getting cheaper. Climate change and clean energy will be winning issues in the long term.
Why not claim and own them while it’s still possible? Then the GOP’s motto in the 2020s can be: “Hey, We Like Clean Energy Too!”
In reality, Democrats probably don’t have the wherewithal to mount that kind of fight. But that’s the only thing that has a chance of breaking the stalemate. The quest to persuade US conservatives on climate change has been extraordinarily long, vigorous, and well-documented. It has also been largely fruitless. Perhaps it’s time for a little agonism.
David has apparently moved on from advocating trying to buy off our leaders; he now he wants more “agonism”, more political aggression from his fellow travellers to try to take ownership of the climate issue.
I always find it entertaining to read green analysis of Conservative thinking. Such analysis tend to reveal far more about the way the green left thinks, than any deep insight into the thought processes of Conservatives.
We don’t follow our elites.
What an idiot Roberts is. As you say, we dont follow elites. The Trump win showed that. We have no respect for the elite. The opposite of what he said. I challenged him on this on twitter but of course he did not respond.
Well, there’s always the red button “solution”.
Agonistic Behaviour, survivalist animal behaviour that includes aggression, defense, and avoidance.
So vox thinks that animalistic behavior between Conservatives and Liberals will advance their agenda? Conservatives are people that will fight to defend the Second Amendment.
Liberals think that people “texting while walking” need to be regulated, because they might trip and fall.
Which group is more in touch with “survivalist animal behavior”?
“Such analysis tend to reveal far more about the way the green left thinks…”
Liberals in general seem to live in a fantasy world where they put more credence in what they think things should be like than what they actually are. Many can’t seem to imagine that anyone can be an honest skeptic, and must therefore be shills in the employ of the fossil fuel industry. It is ironic that they have chosen to refer to skeptics as D-Nye-ers, because they are in D-Nye-al of reality, apparently as a way of coping with a reality that doesn’t make sense to them. It would seem that they are dysfunctional and have to create a fantasy world to inhabit.
There’s a reason you can’t convince Conservatives…they think.
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-climate-alarmist-scientific-talking-points-to-win-the-debate/
OBEY, Don’t Think
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/obey-dont-think/
Never heard of ‘VOX’, certainly know now that I didn’t miss anything by never hearing of them.
I think one of the Oreskes gang works (or worked) there (Vox). Perhaps the Oreskeseses are keeping a low profile these days for some reason…
Oreskeseses makes me see Hobbitses. And giggle for some unfathomable reason.
It was really us, … Anthony and Steve McIntyre that convinced leading Conservatives that the global warming theory is just vastly exaggerated.
It was NOT the conservative politicians that made us skeptical, it was the skeptics who brought the politicians along. We were here first.
Left-wing politicians can maintain internal support if they switch to the skeptical side so they just keep their mouths shut and/or play along with the game.
This is the real story and, as usual, the left just does not have the internal awareness in order to figure out what the real facts are.
More between those who consider big-R Reason a principle, and those who consider it a mere tool, to be used when it supports the goal and discarded when it does not.
My Climate Skepticism WAS formed by what I was taught by my ‘Elites’. Specifically what I was taught by my Leftist teachers in school, what I learned from reading Popular Science, and what I saw in my games and entertainment.
All through the 70’s and 80’s as I was growing up, I was bombarded by the twin scares of Overpopulation and the coming End of Oil. The predictions were based on clear scientific principles and statistics, and were undeniable. The solutions were equally clear, and presented as the coming waves of Clean Energy and UN/Socialist control of society. I spent hundreds of hours reading about Wind and Solar Power, the Hydrogen economy, and how the UN would soon lead us into a United Federation of Planets style of utopia.
But something odd happened as the 80’s gave way to the 90’s. Or several things, to be honest. None of the prediction of collapse or shortage came to pass. And the clean energy revolution that was just around, well, STAYED just around the corner. Then one by one the Communist ‘Command’ economies that we were supposed to start emulating for their ‘efficiency’ started collapsing.
And the strangest thing of all? Despite all the failures of the predictions and solutions and GOVERNMENTS, the Left kept right on saying the same things. In fact, they just doubled down.
By the time Global Warming (aka Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Global Weirding, Climate Crisis, Extreme Weather, etc) became a major component of the Eternal Scare, I had stopped believing anything they said. The fact that 2 decades of further failure still hasn’t caused them to reevaluate their beliefs isn’t exactly likely to change my mind on that, and seeing just how dishonest many of them are willing to be (Climategate, Mann, Gleick, Lew, etc, etc) has left me highly unlikely to change my mind.
At this point, NOTHING they might find of discover would, because I would just assume it was wrong… or FAKE.
~¿~
Same here, although it has been a long process. In addition to Overpopulation and the coming End of Oil scares, I remember also man-made Nuclear Winter, Acid Rain and Ozone Hole scares.
The modern version of the Domesday Book, CACA, has made so many weep (the number 12 in the Negative Confessions of Papyrus of Ani) on both sides of the debate, draining the swamp sounds worth a try.
Another real LOL is near the end where Roberts says:
They are mistaken because they’ve been lied to by people within their own tribe.
Yes, it’s yet more intentional, malignant projection from the groupthink left.
“…..How can conservatives be moved on climate change?…..”.
Easy, just demonstrate convincing scientific evidence that the climate’s sensitivity to the GHGE of CO2 is high enough that is is a cause for worry.
Also show convincing evidence that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily the result of human activity.
Also show convincing evidence that the logarithmic effect of CO2 on the climate does not apply to the CAGW theory.
Also show convincing paleoclimatic evidence from the Earth’s prehistoric past that CO2 change drives climate change and doesn’t trail it.
Also show convincing evidence of the “hot spot” that is supposed to exist due to climate change.
This isn’t asking too much, is it? Naaaahhhhh…..
“…..Core values, not science, are what drive conservative opposition, Dixon tells Grossman, and “free markets” are a core value for conservatives…..”
That’s a rather odd statement considering the issues I posted above seem scientific to me.
You don’t have to be a conservative to be skeptical about the many claims made under the heading of climate change. The progressive left has a particular arrogance whenever someone disagrees with one of their positions. Instead of trying to understand and maybe even empathize, progressives tend to automatically assume that critics are not only wrong but stupid. This leads them to think they are dealing with childlike minds… that if they just lie, exaggerate consequences, or recast arguments, they have a good shot at winning over the simpletons. While this kind of chicanery has worked on the progressive sheeple (Millennials and Baby Boomers in particular), because most are, in freeman Dyson’s words, naturalists instead of humanists, it cannot work with skeptics who want to be convinced by the science. It’s a pathetic disconnect.
I’m an engineer and a conservative. I’m skeptical of ‘elites’, ‘climate alarmists’, ‘social justice warriors’, and similar low science, emotional appeal purveyors.
An in-depth evaluation of data and analyses on both sides of the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis illustrates great uncertainty in the supporting analyses, uncalibrated and uncertified climate models of no predictive value, and hence no informed reason for ‘consensus’ support. Until convincing evidence is presented, adherents of the scientific method must conclude the null hypothesis holds. There is no convincing evidence of current climate variability exceeding historical natural climate cycle ranges.
Try explaining “null hypothesis” to a leftist. But only if you really want to see a human explode.
To them “believing in science” is a catchphrase…a talking point.
They think science is a pair of pants or something.
They do not know or care what the word even means…they use words to tell lies, not to inform or educate.
If conservatives cared about elite opinion, Donald Trump would have not won the GOP nomination.
“The only way Democrats can achieve progress on this is to intensify the fight.”
Uh-oh, no more Mr. Nice Guy. We’re doomed. They really mean it now. We may as well give up and go home.
As for Vox reporter David Roberts proposal “Perhaps it’s time for a little agonism.”, I’ll just offer this:
If you open the door to violence, don’t complain when it gets too rough for you….
“A war begins whenever you will, but does not end whenever you please.” -Niccolo Machiavelli
Are these people even self-aware? This author is projecting liberal think onto conservatives and doesn’t even realize it. Just because I don’t automatically believe everything climate scientists and their computer models predict about future climate disasters doesn’t mean I am “mistaken” or being misled by the elites within my own “tribe.” Computer models are only as good as the programmer who implemented them. Programmers and scientists are just as human as the rest of us. It makes no sense to believe they are infallible just because of the title before their name. And to assume that climate scientists do not have a vested interest in climate alarmism is naive at best. Their job security, financial futures, and government grants depend on it.
Liberals are the ones who seem to buy into group think and blindly follow everything they hear from leftist leaders and celebrities. You really have to be a “useful idiot” to think celebrities know the “basic facts” about climate science. What they really want is for everyone to join their “tribe” so they can spend public money on whatever boondoggles are in vogue today. Conservatives serve as a governor to slowdown runaway spending on the latest fads.
If the weather actually does get worse, which it hasn’t, and clean energy gets cheaper than fossil fuels, which it hasn’t, there will be no problem convincing most conservatives to support clean energy. But we’re not there yet. And until we are, I see no reason to panic and join the rest of the mob in their destructive group think. That’s because the solution the left offers is more likely to make things worse than if we did nothing. When the cure is worse than the disease, it makes more sense to adapt to living with the disease until a better cure can be found.
No, no, no. David Roberts is 180 degrees wrong here. It’s not conservatives who can’t be persuaded on climate change. No, it’s liberals who can’t. I mean, wasn’t Barack Obama sufficiently attuned to the perils of fossil fuel consumption to dissuade him from gulping up thousands of gallons of the stuff to fly – on a jet airplane – to a thoroughly unnecessary trip to Tahiti shortly after a rather lavish lifestyle – for a community organizer – in the Whitehouse: you know those yearly holiday trips to Hawaii on the world’s largest private jet; Air Force Onewholeheckuvabigmotha’. And, while I’ll exhibit the courtesy not to mention that it was Weinstein’s yacht that Barack cavorted on in Tahiti (oops, I just did), one would think he would’ve at least scolded Weinstein (oops, there I go again) for attempting to glide that yacht through Gaia’s uninvited seas (I think I’m going to have to work on that description) and slurping up gobs of fuel the whole way down to Tahiti.
Speaking of yachts, didn’t that trusty ole’ liberal, Barack, find himself a short time later on Branson’s yacht in the Bahamas. Another unnecessary carbon belching trip? And, speaking of Branson, wasn’t he organizing some sort of outer space flight in the form of Virgin Galactica or something? (Better not tell Weinstein about that.)
And, didn’t another CAGW true believer, liberal, Leonardo DiCaprio, make reservations on that totally, thoroughly, completely unnecessary, carbon-vomiting-on-steroids, Virgin Galactica space thrill ride. Oh, and let’s not forget Leo’s propensity for yachts as well.
Or what about John Podesta, Obama’s climate aid who’s lobby group brother, Tony, in deference to CAGW apparently doesn’t own any yachts, but then makes it up with mansions; one in Australia, one in Italy, and two in DC. Of course that’s one less than another CAGW maven; John Kerry. Although, sorta, kinda, maybe in his defense Kerry’s mansions are all in the US so his fossil fuel sucking private jet flights are probably a little bit shorter.
No, convince our elites, our betters, those human beings who exist on a higher (jet) plain than us mere mortals that human burning of fossil fuels is causing CAGW and to clean up their act before preaching to me.
And, I don’t need anybody to tell me I’m uninformed, scientifically illiterate, conservative (actually libertarian), or incapable of being convinced when the people attempting to persuade are clearly, by their very own actions, not quite convinced themselves.
Conservatives think climate change is a communist plot because that’s what the right’s elites have told them.
Dang. I’m busted.
They’re out to pollute our precious bodily fluids!
○¿●
Strangely enough, this is for real the mantra of our econuts, fighting against everything from fracking to pesticide, eating organic, etc. And also believe Russian tempered US election, and believe extrem actions are to be taken. But they still do not recognize Jack D. Ripper in their mirror in the morning…
Whether they suck blood or taxpayer dollars, vampires are incapable of seeing their own reflections.
You don’t have to listen to the “elites on the right” to get the idea that climate change is some kind of plot. It’s more convincing to get it straight from the horse’s mouth:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
— Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader and IPCC creator
“Accepting that by-products of industrial civilization were irreparably damaging the global environment was to accept the reality of market failure. It was to acknowledge the limits of free market capitalism.”
― Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”
— David Foreman, Earth First!
What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
— Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
“Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.”
That says it all, but true on the liberal side as well as conservative.
Yes! There’s a lot of pith in that short sentence.
There is a similarity between the way the election went a year ago and the ham-fisted proposals regarding ‘changing the minds of conservatives’: serious misunderstanding of the audience.
First is the error of thinking that skeptics about catastrophic globally increased temperatures are ‘conservatives’ who are not as fully committed to Truth with a capital T as the promoters of such eschatological claims about the future.
Second is the error of assuming they know ‘how someone else thinks’.
Third is the error of assuming they know why skeptics make choices about which narrative, or portion thereof, to accept as representing reality.
Fourth is the error of thinking that the tools they have for analysing outcomes of ‘interventions’ are capable of capturing a true picture of the above.
I watched today the season 10, episode 2 of South Park which addresses the suffocating cloud of smug pollution that blankets San Francisco. Talk about hilarious! Reading the article above was like listening to a meeting of missionaries planning how to convert the heathen to save them, respectfully of course, from their ignorant false gods of conservatism. The parallels are remarkable (hence the remark).
The hybrid car in the South Park episode was called the ‘Pious’. The risk to mental health was ‘smug’, a form of pollution found aplenty in the article.
The content was consistent, I suppose, it its complete lack of personal reflection. All alarming claims are accepted at face value and the focus is shifted not to the facts collated by skeptics, but to a plea for much more funding of ‘social science’ based ways to convince ‘conservatives’ that hard facts are in error and obvious errors are facts.
I don’t think that is what ‘liberalism’ is about. What could be more liberal than holding open consultation and what could be more conservative than refusing to consider new facts in evidence? Yet we see CAGW proponents refuse the consultations and oppose facts in evidence if they contradict their prevailing prejudices. For me, the whole matter is about what is true and provable, not social vs physical science-based ways of putting better social lipstick on a modeled climate pig.
Climate sceptics need to start getting real about the long-term financial costs of climate change. Ongoing events like the flooding of Houston will eventually force the Republican Party to start getting real about what spending needs to be made to prepare the US for what lies in store.
Putting ‘social lipstick on a modeled climate pig’ really had me laughing out loud and shows the complete lack of will on the part of the GOP and its sceptic supporter base to start reacting in a proactive manner to events happening right in their own back yard.
What is true and provable? Well, take a look at this article to find one example of what is true and provable in terms of the lives – turned completely upside down – of many Houston residents:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/11/climate/houston-flooding-climate.html?emc=edit_clim_20171111&nl=&nlid=78479759&te=1
What did hurricane Harvey have to do with “climate change”?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/why-houston-flooding-isnt-a-sign-of-climate-change/
READ THE ARTICLE! LEARN SOMETHING!
Nothing but a leftist rant.
ivankinsman, the article started with what seemed a reasonable critique of Houston’s planning mistakes, building on dangerous flood plane, then abruptly changed course to try to blame Houston’s problems on climate change.
Sad.
Even NOAA doesn’t think the alarmist anticipated connection between storm intensity and climate change is detectable.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Try again when you have some evidence to support your wild claims.
Ivannotmykinsman,
This is your problem…you think reading the New York Times adds information to your brain.
The truth is exactly the opposite.
It is a propagandist rag, a worthless compendium of lies, half truths and fake news, written by hack writers and published under the banner of what was, at one time long ago, an actual news source.
It is impossible to learn anything from the NYT that is truthful. The act of directing your eyeballs at that sort of yellow journalistic malfeasance has been causing you to have information sucked out of your grey matter faster than Mexican food through a Canadian goose.
But, it may not be too late, and here is what to do: Take your New York Times and use it to line your kitty litter pan, like it was intended to be used for, make Watts Up With That the Home page on your computer, and spend some time reading about what is real and true.
There are no guarantees though, sorry to say…if you have been absorbing that twaddle for too long, the information dampers it has installed into your soul will be very difficult to overcome.
All the best to you, good luck.
The utter brain-washed stupidity of linking hurricanes , (first big one or two in like 12 years, isn’t it) is the same anti-science NONSENSE that conservatives LAUGH at.
People like you, Ivan , with your twerpish attempts to link NATURAL events to the CO2 NON-EVENT is why the AGW has stumbles so , so badly.
Please keep going, you will only drive more and more RATIONAL thinking people to realise what a FARCE the AGW agenda is. 🙂
I BET you are still in your inner city ghetto, relying on FOSSIL FUEL energy to drive your greenie lifestyle.
I DARE you to forgo all the benefits that modern FOSSIL FUEL supported society has brought to you.
READ THE ARTICLE!
Just a typical old town, badly designed.
Absolutely nothing to do with climate change except in the mind of the architect writing it, you panders to the climate change meme… probably making a lot of money from joining the scám and fleecing witless AGW sheeple.
In other words you have no use whatsoever for anything or anyone that disagrees with your beliefs. Have you stocked up on torches and pitchforks yet?
READ THE ARTICLE AND LEARN!
Ivan, you really are blinkered. Huricanes are normal on the Gulf Coast and not increasing in either frequency or severity. Houston has almost no zoning and allowed massive building in known flood plains. Harvey damage was inevitable, the only questions were when and how bad. The how bad part was weather, not climate, which stalled Harvey for 4 days right over Houston where it could continue to draw in Gulf moisture.
Your example is not even a nice try. It is a collossal fail at a basic factual level. Reminds me of Derocher and Stirling on polar bears.
Climate change did not cause this. The article described exactly What you are saying – did you even bother to read it? Climate change is exacerbating rather than causing hurricanes – everyone knows this now so why are you talking about it causing hurricanes? Who the he’ll is saying this except You?
Exacerbating means “not increasing in frequency or severity”. Ivan is right!
“Climate change is exacerbating rather than causing hurricanes”
RUBBISH !
The author is an architect who has figured out how to tap into the sheep-like gullibility of the general population.
This is just a classic tale of a badly designed city, not taking properly into account the NATURAL climate extremes. And the public who showed no awareness of that fact.
Why you think it belongs anywhere in a topic about climate change propaganda not being accept by educated conservatives, is beyond me.
Ivankinsman
Are you suggesting that the damage from a hurricane was literally caused or made worse by CO2, by an increase in the average temperature of the world, by a climate changing at a faster rate, or by a weather event?
One flaw I see in the current version of the ‘climate change’ narrative is that people foresee ‘climate change’ and then deduce that it will lead to weather that is ‘worse’ (implying stronger storms, colder colds, hotter hots, floodier floods and so forth).
The error is that the ‘climate’ is the average of ‘weather’. In order to claim that the sum of, or average of, weather events and temperatures will evolve in a particular direction, one literally must be able to demonstrate that specific causes have specific results for weather events.
This of course is far beyond our abilities at the moment. An inability to predict weather for any meaningfully relevant length of time means an inability to predict the climate consequences as well, as climate is the sum of weather. Weather is not the subdivision of climate. If it is, no one has demonstrated it.
I will use as a practical example the Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes. It is said that a warmer sea temperature necessarily means a more powerful and therefore more destructive hurricane. There are two problems with this.
First, sea temperature is a poor indicator of hurricane strength. Temperature difference between north and south is, and that difference is dropping as the world warms. Do you disagree with this fact?
Second: the damage wrought by a hurricane is entirely dependent on the preparations made for it and the local building codes such as those applied in Florida post-Andrew. The same risk applies with earthquakes. That is why there are earthquake resistant requirements in Vancouver and other major population centres.
My sister-in-law has a mobile home in SW Florida and the eye went directly over her home. The total damage was about $20, a piece of roof trim blew off, well…part of it.
The sheer stupidity of not building dikes around New Orleans – something the Dutch had the good sense to do starting 500 years ago – led directly to the horrific consequences, both material and social, wrought by a not-particularly-large or powerful storm. The foolishness of trying to blame flooding in Texas on the oil companies processing fuel there, as CNN did, is evident to anyone who can think clearly. In Ontario, believe it or not, we are not allowed to build on flood plains. The flood plain is marked by Hurricane Hazel’s effects. You think there is a lesson there to share?
In impoverished Cambodia and middle income Barbados, people build their homes on concrete stilts and inevitable ‘flooding rains’ have no effect at all: zero losses. It seems they know something still to be learned on the Caribbean Coast.
I agree with all this except sea temperature rises that do affect the strength of hurricanes.
In terms of building on flood plains the NYT article makes this point exactly and links it to the ineffective and politicised land planning.
Sceptics write off modelling completely which just shows how blinkered they are. Nothing predicting the future is perfect – even 50% however is better than 0%.
“Sceptics write off modelling completely ”
Again, more arrant and complete BS.
When are you going to stop jabbering your mindless rubbish,Ivan ??
You are probably DUMB enough to think that flood modelling and climate modelling are much the same thing.
Ignorance seems to be your only redeeming feature.
well let’s see….climate change is exacerbating hurricanes
The great hurricane of 1935 went directly over us with 200 mph winds…
…Irma went over us with 75 mph winds
a 0.7 degrees increase in temperature did that
Ivan, there were 3 hurricanes…..why are you focusing on just one
ivankinsman
While there is a minimum supposed water temperature for a hurricane to form, the relationship between sea temperature and hurricane strength is associational at best. You will not sell the ‘global warming caused by GHG’s will increase hurricane strength’ story successfully for two reasons, both based on physics:
The enthalpy of a hurricane is not the determinant of delivered power, it is determined by Delta T. If the whole atmosphere is warmer, the hurricane’s deliverable energy is not increased by the increase in enthalpy (total energy). Second, oceans are not warmed by the atmosphere. If an ocean is warmer than before, it cannot be attributed to GHG’s, in spite of idiotic and non-physical claims repeated in the New York Times by writers who haven’t a clue how GHG’s work.
An atmospheric mass containing relatively more total energy than historically, can’t deliver more of that energy onto land or sea unless the surroundings are at the same old historical temperature. That a mechanical engineering fact. Even James Watt was aware of it. If the entire system is ‘globally warmed’ then so is the ‘cold side’ and the deliverable energy is exactly the same as it would have been before. If the alarmists had checked with any competent high school physics student or engineering freshman they would have had that particular hurricane balloon popped.
The simple proof of this is that as the globe has warmed, the enthalpy of hurricanes has tended to rise slightly and the deliverable energy has dropped because the Arctic has warmed more than the tropical zone.
In 1963 Hurricane Flora dropped 103 inches of rain on Santiago de Cuba. The hurricane stalled over eastern Cuba for several days, just like Harvey did. It’s evident building codes need to be improved and the Houston area needs better flood control, given the amount of construction that goes on. Such moves have nothing to do with global warming. I don’t consider the ny times to be a reliable source for anything ever since they cooperated with the government to peddle the Iraq WMD baloney in 2002-2003.
Or since they cooperated with Stalin to cover up the Holodomor in Ukraine in the 1930s.
I learned EVERYTHING I needed to know about Houston’s flooding by watching a post-storm helicopter fly-over of the devastation. What I observed were NEW housing tracts sitting high and dry, next to OLD housing tracts flooded. It is simply down to the “elevation” of buildings, the “contours” of construction. We know exactly how to build safely. We have updated FEMA maps across the entire nation, which have increased the BFE (basic flood elevation) everywhere. We constantly improve building codes (local and national) usually every 3-years. That’s why our buildings get safer and safer, year after year. It’s what our culture and society does … we LEARN and we ADAPT. The famous Shirtwaist Co. fire and deaths of children taught us about the need for building FIRE safety … like FIRE ESCAPES, and FIRE sprinklers. So we wrote (and enforced) new building codes. And we know EXACTLY how to build at SAFE flood elevations, and how EACH PROJECT must provide detention/retention basins to control flooding (we absolutely DO NOT pave everything over). This is especially true in regions of our country that are subject to DELUGE Rains … such as the Gulf Coast and (ironically) desert regions subject to flash flooding. Guess what? After every BIG earthquake in CA … there are hundreds of old buildings erected on unreinforced masonry foundations that get destroyed. The new(er) homes … nope. They have been built with shear walls and rigid steel frames required by updated building codes. This article … yes, I read it … is nothing more than eco-political garbage. It is astounding to me just how LITTLE these pompous “journalists” actually know about the REAL world. REAL building codes and regulations. They just want to splooge-out their leftist political tripe. Their actual “research” time was all spent watching a Tom Steyer anti-Trump advertisement.
@Jan Frykestig,
are you seriously taking NYT for some sort of peer-reviewded science journal?
Well, peer-reviewed it is indeed: the sceintific illetarate like of yourself, who studied psycho, journalism, languages, politics, community managment or whatever with zero science content, applaud and buy it.
Read it as you would read a novel (for fun) or “Mein kampf” (to learn about the agenda of the writer) , or don’t read it at all.
But to pretend we can learn something about the world from it, is just eyeroller, and make a fool of yourself.
“(to learn about the agenda of the writer)”
Yep, blatantly obvious. !
That is complete rubbish and you know it. The science underpinning climate change has even been accepted by Syria now – only sceptics in the US still keep on spouting out their “it’s all a hoax” babble. Articles like this inform the reader in layman’s language what the consequences will be.
Poor Ivan,
so “simple” that he doesn’t realise that most countries are in it for the MONEY.
Do you really think Syria wouldn’t jump for the chance of a new coal fired power station.
1600 of them being built around the world.. did you know that..
All in accordance with the Paris loo-paper.
Still can’t used to the FACT that there is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the whole of the satellite temperature, can you, small-minded one…. only NATURAL EL Nino and ocean effects.
There is NO CO2 warming signal anywhere.
If you really “believed” CO2 was causing a problem , you would divest from ALL things that require fossil fuel power. (you know, like Al Gore has 😉 )
I dare you to NOT be a monumental HYPOCRITE.
Turn off all your power. Eat no delivered using fossil fuels
Go and live “Carbon Free”
Come on, Ivan.. do the right thing, you know you want to !
LOL ivan
“The science underpinning climate change has even been accepted by Syria now – ”
Ye, Syria is known for it’s expertise in climate science. Or is it political mongering and ruthless disregard of its people, even killing them ?
“only sceptics in the US still keep on spouting out their “it’s all a hoax” babble.”
I am not in the US, and i know it is not an hoax. it is a political move toward global socialist government, as plainly said by its promoters, backed by kleptocrates who benefit hugely selling toys (bird-chopper, EV, solar panel, indulgence…) , and non scientists (including self labeled “climate scientists” ; the only one writing sensible things beeing Lorenz, and “deniers” like Jo Nova).
Articles like this inform the reader in layman’s language that the writer is a journalist. A storyteller of whatever sells more (and doom sells more that truth), ready to throw away any real fact that hinder the story. Ye, sure, a storm hurts. You need a journalist to know that, really?
Meanwhile, in the US we have reduced carbon dioxide emissions through free market efforts like fracking and burning more natural gas because it is a cheaper fuel per btu than coal or oil, and can also be transported and utilized more efficiently for power generation.
But the places where CO2 output is increasing, places like India and China, get a free pass until 2030 to emit as much as they want.
China is already emitting more CO2 per year than the US ever did, and not by a little but by over twice as much.
We do not hear much about this though, do we?
The barrage of graphs from years past showing total CO2 emissions per country are now nowhere to be found, dropped off the radar, and not even a dedicated internet search for them will turn up updated versions of what we used to see virtually everyday in rags like the NYT.
But anyone being honest knows the truth…this has nothing to do with CO2 or environmentalism.
Every single place one looks for evidence we can find it, enough to disprove this nonsense many times over.
If renewables are such a success, why is Germany emitting as much as ever, while the only country with a major political to reject global warming has lowered emissions back to levels last seen in the 1990s?
If CO2 is so bad, where are all the new hydro and nuclear plants, which are the only non fossil fuel sources of reliable base load power?
None of these questions can be answered without admitting that everything the warmistas are saying is complete and utter nonsense…and just plain wrong.
So stop lying Ivan, read and learn yourself, and quit being one of the stupid sheeple.
“What is true and provable? “…
none of it……..that’s why this blog is so popular
If the science was “settled” why are so many scientists constantly trying to prove it?
If these groups, as a whole, stopped using all the things that modern use of fossil fuels has brought to western civilisation, ..
.world CO2 emissions would drop substantially
but they won’t do that. They like the niceties that modern society has to offer.
It would be interesting to investigate the “carbon footprint” of the most of these yapping hypocritical morons.
Your view of reality is so badly distorted, it’s as if you are from another planet. Nothing you say rings true in the slightest. Maybe you should lay off the Klimate Koolade. Perhaps a 10-step program called Kooladeholics Anonymous would help.
“Conservatives can’t be persuaded to change their minds about climate change because we’ve been instructed to ignore climate facts by our “elites”. First off I am not aware of any individual or group that I listening to on a regualar basis. That would be my definition of elite. Secondly my “values” are not the deciding factor on things scientific. In the case of global warming I read the science from both sides and make my own opinion. The ongoing weak answers to critical flaws in the modeling demonstrates the bias of those scientists. As more and more scientists publicly question the science as well as the obvious political partisanship of the whole issue, the science will eventually be shown as a major hoax. Who wants to be on board when that comes down.
The world’s surface is getting warmer. CO2 helps keep the world warmer than it would be without CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 atmospheric concentration is increasing. Therefore it’s reasonable to expect that humanity’s CO2 emissions do keep the world warmer than it would be without such emissions. It is within the realm of possibility that our emissions are going to delay the onset of the next ice age. The fossil fuels we use are being depleted, sometime in the future we won’t be able to produce oil and gas at the rates we produce today. Therefore using non fossil sources of energy help stretch out our reserves. It’s not wise to advocate today’s nuclear energy as a solution for unstable nations, therefore it is wiser to develop much safer nuclear and other energy sources. Most of adverse impact from co2 emissions is based on exaggerated atmospheric concentrations we can’t reach, this is shown by the difference between actual emissions and predicted emissions for the “business as usual” case used in propaganda (RCP8.5). We are more likely to be harmed by future artificial intelligences than by global warming. Running out of oil and gas will be a much bigger problem within the next 50 years. Just in case we ought to research geoengineering to remove CO2 if it does get a lot warmer. And I bet there’s no political party willing to support my ideas.
How much of the warming, since coming out of the Little Ice Age, is due to natural cycles and how much to increasing CO2 is still up for debate. But even if it is all due to CO2, there is no concrete evidence that the warming has been more harmful than beneficial. Why panic over something that might prove to be more good than bad for the majority of the planet?
Even if you are right about fossil fuels being depleted over the next 50 years, it won’t happen overnight. As fossil fuels become more scarce, the cost of energy will go up. This will make other forms of energy more competitive. The switch to alternate energy sources will occur gradually and naturally. Oil and gas wells will not all suddenly dry up at the same time. Again, there’s no need to panic.
No one is stopping anyone from researching or developing solutions to possible problems that may arise. Also, no one is stopping you from switching from fossil fuels to alternate forms of energy. Knock yourself out. Just don’t force me to adopt your views of the future just because they “might” come true. I would like to see some proof, or at least some strong evidence, first.
fernandoleanme: Do you have any idea of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Is there any reason to think that a gas in the atmosphere makes the surface warmer? If so how much and by surface do you mean land or water?
Fernando
“…the “business as usual” case used in propaganda (RCP8.5)…”
RCP8.5 is NOT the business as usual case. Don’t let the incompetent, or the illiterate mislead you. 8.5 is far above the Model mean. All the “8.5” means is a doubling of CO2 might lead to an 8.5 C rise in global temperature. Most scientists think that is preposterous. Need proof? Find one who thinks it is realistic.
Even the ‘scientist’ who is now a British Columbia Green Party politician who ran the ridiculous 6.2 degree model at U Vic didn’t believe it could be as high as 8.5 and he is in the tin foil hat brigade. Most recent papers are looking at the 0.5-1.2 degree range, ‘most’ meaning more than half.
Imagine it: a sensible calculation based on inputs from observations is 0.5, which is 1/17th of RCP8.5. Ridiculous exaggerations abound in the arena of ‘climate science’.
The bottom line is that the term ‘business as usual’ doesn’t apply to the sensitivity. It is used when the sensitivity is applied to an estimate of warming based on estimates of emissions over the coming 83 years that one gets a ‘temperature rise forecast’. That forecast is given for various emission scenarios, one of which is ‘business as usual’.
So far emissions have exceeded all scenarios expected in the late 80’s and the global temperature is not at anything close to the ‘best case scenario’. This demonstrates the fundamental inadequacy of the methods used to make those predictions about temperature.
Louis, Ive been in the oil and gas business since 1975. I’m not in a panic. Prices are going up, I bought a bunch of oil stocks when prices were low, and I’m quite happy with the investment. The market can take really hard swings when supply and demand are out of whack by 5 %. Right now OPEC has very little spare capacity. And the decline for non OPEC is climbing towards the 6-7% per year range. We lack large mega projects to fill the gap, the light tight oil is getting drilled out, exploration isn’t doing well. I stand by my comments.
Crispin: rcp8.5 was designated business as usual by an IPCC official a few years ago, and this trick worked for them. Most scientists doing impact studies have used RCP8.5 as the main case in their work. It has been used for the bulk of the propaganda. Lately they switched to a mix of rcp6 and lower. I’ve been hammering at this issue for four years, and explained that using rcp8.5 for impacts or economic runs was fraud. So maybe I’m having a little impact? I also write quite often about the EPA climate model, used to back up their económics findings for the clean power plan. That model is fed RCP8.5 on steroids. Which means all the EPA work is garbage. I keep mentioning this hoping somebody will catch on. Maybe you do understand?
I strongly recommend two books by Dr. Robert Conquest, a conservative historian. The first, and read them in this order, is “Reflections on a Ravaged Century.” He details how various forms of radical socialism came to power and what happened once in power. It is not about the wars specifically, hot or cold. It is as much about the failures of the West and the group think of the time as anything. The second is a bit more philosophical, “Dragons of Expectations: Reality and Delusions in the Course of History.” He set forth where we are today after the Ravaged Century and how the same elitism and group think are taking use down very dangerous roads. Conquest was attacked vehemently during much of his career by most of liberal academia because he kept pointed out, with data, the horrors and failures of socialism. He clearly demonstrates that the denial by useful idiots and fellow travelers still affects much of our society today. For example how we have a larger percentage of millennials that believe socialism (actually fascism) is better than capitalism. I am certain he would not be surprised with the VOX item.