Texan Professor: "Is the [climate] science settled? It does not matter"

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.

Commentary: We Should Prepare for Climate Change Like We Prepare for War

Climate change poses a more significant threat to global security than the low probability event of a ground war with China. And yet, we spent $590 billion on defensein 2017 and maintained readiness against the unlikely prospect of a large conventional war. It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.

There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.

First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.

Despite the uncertainty in the timing and location of military threats, we are always ready for war just in case. The same approach of readiness should be used for climate action, because despite the uncertainty in how climate change could impact the world, the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.

Read more: http://fortune.com/2018/04/17/climate-change-conservatives-defense-spending/

The problem with rushing headlong into expenditure is the money being demanded is utterly astronomical.

For example, Professor Aled Jones, Professor & Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, declared back in February that the $300 billion per year currently spent on renewables is far short of the money required to address the climate threat.

Waving away uncertainties when that kind of money is on the table is simply unacceptable.

Advertisements

186 thoughts on “Texan Professor: "Is the [climate] science settled? It does not matter"

    • So, Professor Jones, you want a war on carbon, huh?
      O. K., I’m on board with that Pvt. Jones. Yes, I said Pvt. Jones–and I addressed you in that manner just to show you the sincerity of my commitment to “the team” and “the cause”. For, you see, Pvt Jones, it is my pleasure to announce that you and all your fellow, lefty-puke hive-mates, pushin’ the Gaia-hustle, have just been drafted, into this war you advocate. In other words, Pvt Jones, this war on carbon will be one where, for once, those who advocate the war, will actually fight the war (you didn’t expect that kind of war did you, Pvt. Jones?).
      And in this war, that you, Pvt Jones, have proposed, and that I have agreed to, a “little guy”–moi, in particular–gets to be, for once, the Supreme Commander in Chief (otherwise, I’d never have agreed to the deal).
      My leadership model for this war, incidentally, will be taken from the French WW I practice–I plan to direct you impressed hive-worthies from far behind the lines, ensconced in the luxury of some “chateau” (or its high-carbon, modern equivalent (hmmm…maybe I’ll requisition Al Gore’s palatial, bachelor-pad beach-house”)), immersed in opulent creature-comforts, not otherwise available due to war-time rationing.
      And from my lofty perch, I intend to regularly exhort, in stuffy communiques, the cannon-fodder riff-raff, like you, Pvt. Jones, “to die more bravely, for Gaia”. And, if my inspirational, long-distance prose fails to motivate “the troops”, and they begin to get a little restive at the latest cold snap’s casualty list, then I intend to liberally employee decimation to cure any reluctance, on the part of you draftee swine, to sacrifice supremely.
      In other words, Pvt. Jones, your war is going to be fought with the winners-and-losers calculation, usually employed by your useful-tool, hive-flunky ilk (but not you, Pvt Jones, because you are so much different, in that regard, than all the other good-comrades with which you hob-nob), turned on its head.
      Your orders Pvt Jones:
      -Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon video-conferences.
      -SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!
      And, oh by the way, Pvt Jones, I imagine you’re wondering who is going to get all those troughs, perks, easy-streets, gravy-trains, and greenwashed bucks, and the power-and-control that will surely flow from this “war on carbon” we have both agreed to. Well–sitting down!–it’s all mine, Pvt Jones. Another big surprise, right Pvt Jones?

      • Oops! I see that the “war-monger” in the above post was a gent named Todd Davidson, who is an “University of Austin Resear_h Asso_iate”. So I ask, dear reader, that you read “Davidson” for “Jones” in my above _omment In that regard, my sin-ere apologies are extended to Professor Jones for my s_rew-up!
        Also the “see” letter on my keyboard suddenly seems to be dysfun_tional. Regardless, I felt the time-sensitivity of this _orretion, required that I press on, nevertheless.

      • Oops! I see that it was a gent named Todd Davidson–a University of Austin Associate Researcher, and not Professor Jones, who is seeking a war on carbon. Please, dear reader, substitute “Davidson” for “Jones” in my above comment.
        Professor Jones, I offer my sincere apology for my above screw-up. And let me emphasize that the satire of my little rant was not intended to include yourself–your name appeared entirely due to an error, on my part.
        This is a second submission of this correction, that follows a repair of the “c” key on my keyboard. Not sure if the earlier one was successfully received by WUWT, but, if not, I wanted to assure Professor Jone that the correction, contained in this comment, was earlier submitted in a more timely manner than this comment would indicate.
        Again, my mortified, heartfelt regrets, Professor Jones.

      • “Your orders Pvt Davidson:
        -Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon video-conferences.
        -SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!”
        My orders would be a bit more strict:
        -Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon in-person conferences that all participants must WALK (or canoe) to using only the power of their legs/arms or the wind. Organizing messages for said conferences must be sent by the same modes of travel, to ensure they are completely “zero carbon.”
        [Notes: Video-conferences use the INTERNET, which consumes mass quantities of electricity, and is anything BUT “zero carbon” – can’t have THAT!]
        -SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!! Specifically, no more: electric lights, central heating, air conditioning, TV, internet, etc. CAVE life for you! Oh, and no more modern shoes or garments. You hunt down your dinner with a stick you sharpened on a rock, and wear the skins of your dinners as apparel. Fashion some footwear out of that too, or just go barefoot.
        [Notes: “Reduction” is not sufficient! The “leave it in the ground” crowd must live by their own slogans!]

      • I might suggest the leave-it-in-the-ground folks begin with themselves… 6 feet under.

  1. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. But even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate and would continue unabated. Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change global climate. We do not even know what the optimal climate is let alone how to achieve it. We should not be wasting time and resources trying to solve a problem that we just do not have the power to solve when there are so many problems out there that we do have the power to solve.

    • Didn’t president Obama stop the seas from rising? Why would we continue to waste money on a non-problem?
      MAGA

    • Agreed 100%.
      The ridiculous notion that we have to wage “war” on a non-existent problem is a joke, the way that idiots like Davidson mean it. We do have a “climate change” issue to be vigilant about, but it is NOT the pseudo-science human-induced climate catastrophe of which Mr. Davidson speaks; it is the need to ADAPT to whatever changes ACTUALLY OCCUR. Because that is ALL WE CAN DO about REAL “climate change.”

    • …..And furthermore, what exactly should we do that would be different and that we would be able to do with our available resources so that we can be more prepared for the CATACLISM THAT WILL BE if we don’t do something?

      • Mankind’s out of control population is forcing people to live in dangerous locations without proper precautions for availability of resources, extreme weather events, wild fires, and Earth quakes that happen naturally. Mankind does have the power to control our own population without Mother Nature having to control it for us, catastrophically.

  2. This IYI moron doesn’t realize the reason that open military warfare with China or Russa is unlikely is not “in spite of,” but rather “because of” our strong military.

    • Stop with the name-calling. Davidson is not a moron – he knows exactly what he is doing and why. He is either a true believer for whatever reason or an evil person knowing that he is pushing an evil agenda.

      • As much of the hypocrisy and pandering for cash as I’ve seen in regard to ALLEGED climate change, I would say Davidson is both a true believer and is pushing an evil agenda.
        Maybe it’s time we started taking names – make a list – that sort of thing. They’d to that to the rest of us, you know.

      • Well he is pushing a moronic straw man argument – especially since nuke power could obviate his questionable question.

      • Why limit your options?
        It is clearly not a binary choice.
        Heck, I go with “all of the above”

      • Stop with the name-calling. Davidson is not a moron …

        Moron is the wrong term but I wouldn’t rule out some kind of pathology. Because of his superior education it’s likely that he has become detached from reality in a manner that mimics schizophrenia. link

      • CommieBob wrote: “Moron is the wrong term but I wouldn’t rule out some kind of pathology. ”
        Eduphrenia, or it’s most serious cousin, Ph.D-phrenia? Severe mental illness brought on by a life of childlike hiding from life by never leaving the academic environment, from birth to death (victims presume a career and a pension guaranteed by the public sector teat).
        Delusions of Infallibility, the victims of this pernicious disease begin to believe in their own infallibility following adequate psychological rewards in the form of praise (likes) from peers, employers, colleagues, the IPCC, and Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
        Sustainophobia, the irrational belief that some necessary aspect of one’s survival is being lost, and that one somehow magically knows the solution to the problem.
        Of couse we have the standard:
        Trumphobia, the irrational fear of the current president
        Trump Derangemnent Syndrome, a visceral hatred of the president that is so pronounced, it interferes with normal healthy day-to-day living.
        And on a personal note:
        Marmot Vacancy Phobia, the fear that all the cute little marmots will migrate to Canada (full disclosure, I have this phobia but manage it with a regime of pharmaceuticals)

      • I at least gave him credit for being an intellectual.
        If you have a problem with the idiot or (redundant) moron monikers I ascribe to Dr Davidson, I suggest you take it up with Dr Nassim Taleb of The Black Swan fame. Both monikers IMO are entirely appropriate for those idiots who put the non-problem climate change on the same or higher level than National Security and international containment of communist China or Putin’s fascist Russia.

    • +100 …exactly. Makes one wonder whose side this guy is on. It also shows the well though out strategy by Russia to weaken the US and the Western world using the tool of CAGW.

  3. There are many such threats that fit the bill. I honestly don’t see what’s so compelling about climate change.
    We have experienced the horrors of war, Climate change, not at all, so skepticism is apprpriate.

    • Well for heavens sakes, the temps have changed by a few 1/10ths of a degree based on shoddy, incomplete and manipulated data! C’mon, get with it!

    • The military spending and preparations are for a certain risk – armed conflict. The US faces some threat of armed conflict virtually every year and history tells us that poor preparation would likely have done irreparable harm to the country and its citizens. All we know about climate change is that it happens regardless of what people do and the appropriate preparations are those that are already taken regularly for adverse weather events. None of this translates into a need to overhall the entire energy base of the economy for a fanciful belief that CO2 is an evil pollutant instead of the essential ingredient of all life on earth which we know it to be. Having the title of professor should mean a good grasp of critical thinking but these days that seems too much to ask.

      • Paisan – This is the correct response to the alleged requirement to institute “Catastrophic Climate Change/Disruption Glowbull Warming Climate Response Preparations” (as opposed to “Climate Reparations” as proposed by the Paris Agreement and the IPCC) – that “Business as Usual”, that is no additional unique preparations are required for societal responses to the gamut of the types of “climate changes” that we as a world have experienced and documented in the past.
        To force society (Read as: The Western World) to abandon that which created and sustains our way of life, for fictions and new-age-religion-replacement ideas (ideals?) is in fact against all that the modern societies have striven for and for the most part have achieved.
        Understanding past events, and planning for their eventual/potential return in the great cycle of life, is all that is needed.
        MCR

    • The Left always uses the fear of some unknowable future event as a certainty unless freedoms and liberties are exchanged for more taxes and controls on the individual and loss of his/her freedoms.

  4. There is another answer which is “if you think climate change is that worrisome, get over your fear of nuclear.” Nuclear is better (cleaner, cheaper, more stable) than any renewable + storage system. And newer designs may outdo fossil fuels in terms of price.

  5. How are the so called renewables going to get built and repaired without fossil fuels? There are over 14k of wind turbines in the US that are dead and not being repaired.

    • …..Not to even mention the necessity for having economic endeavors that are powered by fossil fuels if there is to be money with which to provide subsidies for any of the so-called ‘renewables.’

  6. a poor analogy. Wars DO happen, and kill millions. And if your country has no defense, they are even more likely to happen to you. Human-caused climate change, however, is probably benign, has so far no effect on severe weather, little enhancement of natural sea level rise, and is unnoticeable in any one person’s lifetime. Just another example of the stupid insurance analogy. You don’t pay $100,000 in insurance on the slight chance your $100,000 house will burn down.

    • Roy W. Spencer
      My understanding is the only observable effect increased CO2 has had on the planet is to green it by 14% in 30 years.
      Than far outweighs any other claimed effect.

      • I agree with both Roy and HotScot.
        This statement by Todd Davidson is imbecilic:
        “First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country (against global warming), even if the threat is uncertain.”
        Furthermore, the science is becoming increasingly settled AGAINST the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. There is a very low probability that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is greater than about 1C/(2xCO2).
        Earth is clearly colder-than-optimum for humanity. There is an Excess Winter Mortality of about 2 million souls per year globally, and no significant Excess Summer Mortality.
        If man-made warming does occur, it will be minor and beneficial to humanity and the environment.

        • Allan,
          thanks mate, I’m flattered. Having someone with your qualifications, and more importantly, experience, agree with an imbecile like me is humbling.

      • Let me see;
        Climate change is uncertain, so we must do whatever can to prevent it.
        War is uncertain, therefore we must assume that one will not happen and not spend any money preparing.
        No agenda here, no sir, no way.

      • You are no imbecile HotScot my friend. You have more native intelligence and common sense than many if not most university professors – and certainly ALL those who have bought into the global warming scam.
        You are also in good company with Roy Spencer, who with John Christy invented the technology to measure atmospheric temperatures with satellites, and both received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for doing so.
        Suggested reading for you:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World
        How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (or The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots invention of the Modern World) is a non-fiction book written by American historian Arthur Herman. The book examines the origins of the Scottish Enlightenment and what impact it had on the modern world. Herman focuses principally on individuals, presenting their biographies in the context of their individual fields and also in terms of the theme of Scottish contributions to the world.
        Maybe a slight overstatement or two in the book’s title – but then, it’s all true!

        • Allan
          It’s been on my Amazon reading list for some time now. 🙂 A few other books to go before I get to it, but I will.
          Wha’s Like Us – Damn Few And They’re A’ Deid
          The average Englishman, in the home he calls his castle, slips into his national costume, a shabby raincoat, patented by chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland.
          En route to his office he strides along the English lane, surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland.
          He drives an English car fitted with tyres invented by John Boyd Dunlop of Dreghorn, Scotland, arrives at the station and boards a train, the forerunner of which was a steam engine, invented by James Watt of Greenock, Scotland.
          He then pours himself a cup of coffee from a thermos flask, the latter invented by Dewar, a Scotsman from Kincardine-on-Forth.
          At the office he receives the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by James Chalmers of Dundee, Scotland.
          During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh, Scotland.
          At home in the evening his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan, blacksmith of Dumfries, Scotland.
          He watches the news on his television, an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh, Scotland, and hears an item about the U.S. Navy, founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.
          He has by now been reminded too much of Scotland and in desperation he picks up the Bible only to find that the first man mentioned in the good book is a Scot, King James VI, who authorised its translation.
          Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.
          He could take to drink, but the Scots make the best in the world.
          He could take a rifle and end it all but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick of Pitfours, Scotland.
          If he escapes death, he might then find himself on an operating table injected with penicillin, which was discovered by Alexander Fleming of Darvel, Scotland, and given an anaesthetic, which was discovered by Sir James Young Simpson of Bathgate, Scotland.
          Out of the anaesthetic, he would find no comfort in learning he was as safe as the Bank of England founded by William Paterson of Dumfries, Scotland.
          Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid Scottish blood which would entitle him to ask “Wha’s Like Us”.
          Aw ra best, Hotscot.

      • Thank you HotScot,
        I greatly appreciate your reference to all the great Scottish engineers, technologists and medical and other professionals who have contributed in so many ways to the advances of our modern world.
        I would like to also nominate Adam Smith, the great Scottish philosopher and economist (1723-1790).
        Adam Smith was born and raised by his widowed mother in Kirkcaldy. Smith studied at Glasgow and Oxford universities. From 1748 he became one of the circle in Edinburgh which included David Hume. In 1751 he became Professor of Logic at Glasgow University, then Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1752. In 1759 he published his ‘Theory of the Moral Sentiments’. In 1764 he went to France as tutor of Henry Scott, the third Duke of Buccleuch. In 1766 he returned to Kirkcaldy. In 1776 his ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’ was published. He died in Edinburgh and was buried in the Canongate Churchyard.
        My friend Bob Lamond, who was born in Kirkcaldy, proudly flies the Scottish flag over his home in Calgary. Adam Smith’s grave was restored with £10,000 donated by Bob. I remember Bob telling me there was a statue in Edinburgh to Karl Marx but no statue to Adam Smith, and he and others, especially the Adam Smith Institute, were going to rectify that deplorable situation.
        The statue to Adam Smith was unveiled on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh on 4th of July 2008.
        https://www.adamsmith.org/the-adam-smith-statue/
        Yours aye, Allan

        • Allan,
          it might not surprise you that as an avid Capitalist, I subscribe to the Adam Smith Institute. They talk an awful lot of sense.
          And please convey my thanks to Bob Lamond for his efforts to help Edinburgh, and the world see sense.
          Right, I’m off Haggis hunting.
          🙂

        • Allan,
          some shack!
          My wife and I are planning our retirement in around 3 or 4 years, maybe we’ll put Canada on the list. Plenty of relatives there.
          🙂

    • And… We have a pretty good idea what happens in wars and how to defend our nation against potentially hostile nations and non-state actors (terrorists).
      How do we defend the nation against something as ambiguous as climate change? The best defense would be to gather up everything related to RCP8.5 and launch it into deep space on a Falcon Heavy rocket.

    • Two years ago the AGW statement was “the science is settled!”. Now the statement is “Is the science settled?”.
      I would say we have come a long way in 2 years.. especially since most of the northern and northeastern US has been freezing well into April this year. From what I’ve seen, next winter will also likely be a chilly one with an early fall.
      I’ve always thought people will put up with almost anything until they are cold and/or hungry. At that point it becomes personal and they start paying attention.

      • ‘What we demand is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty’ (Duglas Adams of course) could so easily be the true calling card of climate gravy train pasengers

    • “You don’t pay $100,000 in insurance on the slight chance your $100,000 house will burn down”
      Roy , I wouldn’t buy fire and flood insurance at all if I lived in a concrete and steel house on a hill that has never flooded. Even though steel can burn it is very unlikely it will if you set your sofa on fire. I’m just looking for a good response for the insurance argument because I have got that posed to me when I tried to convince a relative that spending money on a non problem when you are so deep in debt is not a good idea. It became clear to me that the relative had no understanding of the science or the price she was paying for the “insurance ” or the price her children and grandchildren will pay if the CAGW crowd gets their way. I wonder if it even dawns on her that she might have jumped on the wrong bandwagon when it has been snowing in mid April here in central Indiana. It has been abnormally cold here too.

      • Snowing and below-average cold outside my house now, and a pair of downy woodpeckers have been searching the tree outside my window for bugs.
        There are NO bugs because of the cold. Too cold for them to hatch.
        That means I may have to buy suet or try to make it from uncooked bacon fat if it isn’t at the hardware store, and that is NOT a good thing. Downy woodpeckers, as small as they are, mean as much to an ecosystem as geese and herons. This is NOT normal, but it is weather, NOT climate, and next spring may bring a longer or shorter transition from winter. I have decided to not speculate on it any more.

    • No Doc the mortgage company does and they insist it be insured for twice that amount—they realize how stupid people are.

  7. “…other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
    This should read, other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t make the slightest difference anyway.
    “…the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.”
    By his own admission should read, the threat on the horizon may or may not be real and might have the potential to be catastrophic.

  8. The Roy Spencer comment contains required content that most do not include. Not that most can figure out why or even if informed, could understand why. Too many sheep; the trap was set and sprung by the willing.. I’m being obtuse cuz of anger at very intelligent ones that are fighting on the side of Right but are aiding the evil ones.

  9. The free-rider problem should not be an excuse for inaction.

    Most readers realize that quote does not explain away the 3rd objection; we are not talking about a “common good” like defense. If China and India contribute a lot more CO2 than the US, it doesn’t matter that the US further reduces CO2; we will never offset their emissions.

  10. “Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.”
    With that logic we should also prepare for “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”” or “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “Them” or “the Blob” or “the Terminator”

  11. The war analogy has some merit.
    “Weapons of Mas Destruction” was used to convince the public to support a war based on a lie. The climate scare also invokes images of mass destruction to scare the public into a war on themselves.
    In climate change the poorest people will theoretically suffer the most at some point in the future. The “fix” for climate change is making poorest people suffer the most right now.

    • In Houston, our Mayor has applied the
      “make them suffer now” principal in the name of “climate change” in abundance.

      • Just before the war with Iraq started, a caravan of trucks were observed traveling from Iraq to Syria. And apparently Syria doesn’t have WMD either.
        Jim

      • Five tons of yellowcake uranium were recovered in Iraq, enough to make a great host of radioactive dirty bombs. There were also many chemical weapons found in Iraqi weapons storage bunkers — but for some reason our labs were never able to rule out the possibility they were insecticides.

    • Today’s alarmists are increasingly using marketing strategies. The fear of war is in the air and in the media. Cashing in on that current war- fear is where science meets marketing.

    • David A, sorry that you have bought into the lie about WMDs being a lie. A lot of Saddam’s chemical WMDs and precursors went to Syria. I saw some of the intelligence which appeared to show moving the material in the weeks leading to the war. Put it this way convoys of tank trucks with security guards weren’t rushing to ship oil to Syria. It is my understanding that such intelligence wasn’t used because it would have thereby involved Syria in the war. It is also probable that the chemical weapons Russia did destroy in Syria were by then those same very old chemical weapons shipped to Syria by Saddam. We get lost in the idea that Iraq and Syria were not related in anyway, both were Ba’athists.

      • He also directed his top of line fighter aircraft to fly to his former enemy’s country of Iran and buried some others. No WMD my arse.

  12. In other words:

    “Trust me. Buy now, before it’s too late. Ignore the people who advise you to at least wait 24 hours or sleep on it before committing your time and money.”

    Many (most?) adults are well able to spot an untrustworthy huckster.
    But what schools really ought to be teaching instead of “you will burn in hell if you don’t do something to save the planet”, is “These are the common ploys used by confidence tricksters. They may be companies, sales agents, politicians, or charities. But you should run a mile from these people. The person obviously trying too hard to gain your trust almost certainly does not deserve your trust.”

  13. “There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
    Notice that Davidson doesn’t realistically address any of the objections.

  14. I agree. But not with the threat itself or its supposed but wholly disprovable cause. The tiny changes we see are irrelevant on a global change scale, and unlikely to be controlled to any significant extent by anything humans do, on the science fact.
    The only “civilised” adaption of humans, that has only manifested itself in a technological society in the last short warm interglacial, needs to prepare for the next very probable ice age, coming soon, controlled by forces stronger than this guy can possible imagine, or Hom Sap’s pathetic powers can affect, which will scrape Russia, Canada, Northern Europe, etc. infrastructure off the map and force mass relocation of Billions people 1,000 miles towards the Equator , where they will need to rebuild their cities and their sea ports 100 metres lower to support the next 80,000 years or so.
    PR:>0.999999, or greater. Milankovitch eccentricity won’t change,
    It’s behind you!

    • I read an article nearly 20 years ago on the impending ice age – was only vaguely aware of the 1970s scare, and had never thought much about the matter before. A climatologist was interviewed – I think Calvin was his name, and he went through what would happen in the inhabited northern latitudes. The basic contention was that, according to some ice cores, a civilisation-killing drop in temperature could occur within a couple of decades (the ice sheets would follow in a couple of millennia). For the first five or so years there would be cooperation, then desperation, then war and total chaos. Depends on the time frame of course – if instead a slow and gradual descent, we have a better chance of adaptation and organised migration.
      On the general point that the next ice age is the real worry, I entirely agree. Most people I happen to mention this to have even less idea than I used to – don’t know about inter-glacials, never heard of the Holocene, think ice ages occurred sometime around the dinosaurs (Disney’s fault I suppose), and look at me incredulously when I talk of the certainty of the demise of everything above New York and London being only a matter of time, and not much of it.
      But there was one long (30ky) interglacial 400ky ago – maybe we’ll get lucky.

      • I recently mentioned the ice age scare to my cousin who was in her late teens or early twentys at the time it was going on and just got a blank stare. I still don’t know if she just missed it or didn’t have an answer. I remember it very well. As I recall the meme was we as a society were going to push the next ice age sooner because we were burning stuff and the burned stuff residue would block the sun. The tipping point was that if enough snow fell and failed to melt that the sunlight would reflect and soon we would freeze to death in an ice covered earth. It has been very hard for me to totally believe scientist and the news media ever since.

      • James Francisco
        I was in my early 20’s during the 70/80’s ice age scare and was acutely aware of it. Of course it subsided after a year or two when it became apparent noting was happening and we all laughed it off.
        Little did we know CO2 was lurking!
        The current scare is just another media hyped non event. Only we haven’t learned our lesson yet, not to listen to the media.

      • People are simply ignorant and happier that way, believing whatever is easiest for them. They will probably deny ice ages keep happening or claim that the last one was the only one, anything to avoid understanding inconvenient truths they will never have to experience anyway. How politicians and pressure groups get away with daylight robbery enacted in the name of ignorant fear, of whatever.

  15. “There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
    Um, no, wrong, and wronger. First “climate change” as used by Warmunists is nothing but a Big Lie. It is classic misdirection, and part of their propaganda campaign. It is their boogieman. There is not only no need, but acting on a fake threat, spending ultimately $trillions is stupid on steroids, damaging economies, making people poorer, and causing misery and death of poor people. Secondly those “three primary explanations” are simply straw man arguments, another classic Warmunist tactic. These people have no shame.

  16. It is no mere ‘97% consensus’ that China, Russia, North Korea exist and have nuclear weapons, that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc exist and would do the West harm. It is no mere speculation as to the effect of nuclear weapons, having been to Hiroshima and having seen the footage etc, that is hardly down to some confected ‘consensus’ either. My father fought in WW2 and there is no shortage of actual footage of combat from bother world wars, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc etc.
    Rumours of speculation about climate armageddon and kids never seeing snow again yet then ending up snowed in across the northern hemisphere, of endless drought in Australia and then floods that fill every reservoir on the east coast and then cause floods etc etc.
    Where do these goddamned galoots get their crap from?

    • Komrade Kuma,
      The modern world has seen major wars approximately every generation — WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Middle East — with minor conflicts interspersed. Although, I’m not sure that “minor” would be appropriate for the Rwanda Genocide with something like 2 million victims. The results are well documented. So, it would be imprudent to assume that wars are unlikely and we shouldn’t spend to be prepared just because we can’t be certain exactly when and where the next challenge will be presented. On the other hand, even the climate alarmists, using unverified models, can only provide a range of scenarios of what they think might happen in the future. There is little to no evidence that the scenarios will happen, or what the magnitude of the damage will be.
      It would be prudent to continue to study the situation, but to commit large sums of money for remediation of possibilities of unknown probability would be irresponsible, considering how many other issues are in need of resources. Revamping our economic systems, changing our governmental structures, and dismantling our energy infrastructure based on speculation is irresponsible!

      • Very good comment Clyde. My guess that those minor 2 million killed in Rwanda were minor was because they were mostly humanly killed by machetes and not by the inhumane guns, bombs and gas / sarc off.

  17. Sure, let’s have a war on climate – it will build on the triumphant successes of the other wars-on – the war on cancer, the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty and the war on terrorism. /sarc
    All of these wars-on are code words for gimme all your money. The more abstract and undefinable the subject and the more remote the possibility of “victory” the better to keep the gravy trains tooting along.

    • I am an avid environmentalist. I do my best to limit my ecological footprint. I grow as much of my own food as I can, drive as small and as little as practical, reuse, and recycle whenever possible. I try to encourage others to make their own effort.
      But do I have to be against progress? Do I have to be anti-oil, anti-people, or anti-meat?
      Is there some reason I have to engage in a war on anything, or anybody simply because they are wealthy, drives a gasoline-powered automobile, or work in an industry I do not approve of. Do I have to work towards destroying jobs, impeding commerce, or destroying the profits of corporations? Why must I hurt my fellow man in the name of some rather vague ideology?
      How often does Greenpeace, the Tides Foundation, or the Sierra Club ever protest against starvation in Africa, abuse of women children or elders, human trafficking, or slavery?
      Why is every extremist activist (and most of them are extremists) doing their best to hurt as many people as possible in as many ways as is possible?
      Why do these activist groups and their members think it is justifiable to use lies, misinformation, violence, obstruction, and destruction to illustrate a point that may be questionable to begin with

      • Hello Rockyredneck ! Please SEE MY LENGTHY POSTING near the END of this as I think I have
        the EXPLANATION there for you !
        Just take my word ( AND especially THEIR OWN WORDS ) for it………………IT IS NO ACCIDENT !
        .
        Regards , Trevor.

      • Rockyredneck
        You are what’s known as a reasonable human being.
        I don’t think there’s an abbreviation for that yet, but one is needed.
        RHB?

  18. This item doesn’t mention Prof. Davidson’s field of expertise. Perhaps he is with the University of Austin’s esteemed School of Voodoo?

  19. Todd isn’t really a Texan. He’s in Austin, a city that has been overtaken by hipsters and people from the Left Coast who want everything their way. If he were a Texan, he’d never say such things.
    And let me add here: follow the money. Always follow the money. It’s always about cash, and just about even with it, power tripping.

    • No true Scotsman?
      “Follow the money” is a fallacy too. Very similar to ad hominem -attack. I mean, we all get our money from somewhere so therefore we must all be paid shills, right?. And if i’m dirt poor and claim the sky is blue, I must be right. But if I get 5 bucks from Coca Cola and say the sky is blue, suddenly i’m paid shill and must be wrong? Attack the argument, not the person. If skeptics have to resort to ad hominem -attacks, they are no better than the alarmists.

      • If you’ve ever been to Austin, and the rest of Texas, you would recognize how different the two are.

      • As a skeptic I am not asking for any money from you but as an alarmist you are asking money from me.

      • @ Fredar. Fallacy ? NO , it is what intelligent people have learned to do to avoid bad outcomes .

      • No, he is NOT a Texan. He lives there.
        And if you don’t know, recognize or understand the language of scam or fraud, you are not paying attention.
        Hyperbole and advertising language are two of the tactics used by CAGWers to get attention and then talk you into donating everything you can spare to them, and/or used for getting grants for so-called research that simply culls false results from the work of other “researchers” of the same mindset. It’s the same tactic used by televangelists to separate the viewing audience from their cash. If you don’t believe me, then look up the history of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker – worst thieves on the planet, using religion as a way to filch cash from people.
        Davidson’s approach to “fighting climate change” through “defense and warfare tactics” is ridiculous enough to show that he is simply using it to get a cash grant, and nothing else. It is pure, unadulterated BS that anyone with a working brain can see through. What is he proposing to do? Fire missiles at CO2 molecules? Run roughshod over China and India and force them into submission?
        When I said ‘follow the money’, it’s because he has no real plan. It is gobbledygook disguised as a bright idea, which does NOT BEAR CLOSE SCRUTINY.
        It is absolute BS and it will cost the rest of us if anyone does take this fraud seriously. Period.

  20. Through sudden inspiration, I have arrived at a fair analogy of the AGW scare… I have spent a couple thousand dollars to plant 50 pecan trees, my 12 acres may have room for 100 more, with also additional cost of a couple thousand dollars for each 50 trees. I have done this because the price of pecans has been on the rise, yielding no less than $1.25/lb, and sometimes as high as $3.20/lb, to the GROWER, and this has continued for at least 8 years, even through a so-called “crash” of the pecan market (that was the $1.25/lb year). A mature pecan tree can produce up to 200 lbs of pecans in a good year, I’ll leave the rest of that arithmetic to you. It takes about 8 years to reach a marketable production level, and maturity is usually assumed as 15-20 years and on. There may be failure at the end of this, every one of my pecan trees could come down with blight, or a flood could wash them away, or etc. And now some damn fool with a degree is going to try to tell me I should spend $200,000 RIGHT NOW and pave over my entire 12 acres to avoid the horror of harvesting, or paying someone to harvest, those pecans 20 years down the road. Except it’s worse than that, chances of my pecan orchard actually succeeding and becoming mature enough to produce those kinds of numbers are FAR GREATER than the chances of any detectable impact at all from increasing CO2, and at least we know I planted those trees, we don’t even have proof that Mankind has had anything to do with rising atmospheric CO2 (to forestall this argument, I’ll agree that it’s highly likely that CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels PROBABLY contributed to increasing CO2 levels).

    • …the horror of my southern next door neighbor’s (1/2 mile away) algae growth on his north wall due to increased shade of my pecan trees. …the horror of increased/decreased ant populations in the shade of my trees (never mind that ants can’t live in a paved environment either). …the horror… well, you get the point.

    • Red94ViperRT10
      Keep planting those Pecans mate, Pecan pie is the best thing since sliced bread.
      And I have only tasted the factory versions. If an invitation is in the offing, count me in!

  21. And pedant alert: “…According to University of Austin Research Associate…”…? Is it possible you mean The University of Texas at Austin? I’m unfamiliar with University of Austin, where is that? Even assuming it’s in Austin, Texas, what’s the street address? How big is it? What are they known for? …? 🙂

      • With regard to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), let me see if I got this straight…? Since the most commonly vilified target of the warmunists WWR to “evil” (is there html markup to cause the word to shake and change color?) CO2 emissions is a fossil fuel fired power production plant, let’s start with that as a hypothetical. Wherein they claim one can capture ALL CO2 produced, and hide it away where the atmosphere will never see it again (a proposition of dubious value, but let’s save that for the end). How will they do this? I’m not even familiar with the process to separate CO2 from a stream of mixed gases, I know how to remove water through sub-cooling until the moisture condenses, and draining it away, so let’s assume the process will begin something like that, but CO2, at atmospheric pressure, condenses to a solid upon sub-cooling, so there will then have to be some mechanical collection method, we’ll leave those actual details to others, and then that captured CO2 is sequestered someplace, the most common destination I have heard is underground salt domes or pumped into fossil fuel wells to increase ultimate recovery from the well (oh the irony, but again I digress). So for these processes, sub-cooling, mechanical collection, then compression and delivery, each one requires energy, has someone yet done the figures to determine, if all this is done, isn’t this supposedly beneficial exercise consuming more energy than the plant can produce? All for a result of questionable, and probably harmful benefit? I say harmful because, we have just recently achieved a level of CO2 only double that of bare minimum required to sustain life on this planet (150 is lights-out, 180 is probably a realistic bare minimum, and the atmosphere only recently passed 360 ppm atmospheric CO2, while the more CO2 the better plants do, and harmful levels are somewhere north of 8,000 ppm). I don’t know about you, but as a conservative engineer, I want a larger factor-of-safety than that! So, for anyone to tell me, “CCS is just around the corner!” (usually followed with “all we need is more tax-money to continue our research”) well, I laugh in your general direction! Go away or I shall taunt you a second time! (apologies to Monty Python for massacring, and modifying, the quote)

  22. If the professor is correct and we spend billions on reducing CO2 and the Chinese and Russians do not, then this would be an act of war by them on us. So we need to increase defence spending so we can get a first strike in. (I am sure the professor and his family will be first in the queue to join the draft.)
    Swift wrote a very good book on how stupid ideas could be extrapolated into the realms of insanity

    • The professor’s prescription for fighting climate change would be equally effective for fighting a ground war in Asia.

  23. How can supposedly ‘smart’ people be so effing stupid? Actually I know. I have met a few. Book smart with zero personal skills and zero common sense. Actually I see it all the time. So I’ve answered my own question. Thank you!

    • tom s
      thankfully I have read few books in my life other than “where Eagles Dare” and various Bond books.
      I’m sure some formal education would help me, but I’m largely happy with practical education.

  24. Of course it’s good to be cautious, but sometimes you can go overboard too. Like fortify your home, never step outside, and shoot every stranger just in case. Ironically that would be much more costly than the alleged threat.

  25. Here’s a problem that’s been staring us in the face for decades and is basically being ignored due to the belief that we need to control the climate:
    “Aid groups come to Africa and give out solar lamps the size of a pumpkin,” he said.
    “But no one in London or Los Angeles would be willing to make do with that. Don’t tell me that China, Russia and the West should have electricity and black people in Mali or Mozambique should live in huts with light from a solar toy. We need power for cities, factories, mines and to run schools and hospitals.”
    African countries, he said, needed a massive jump in the amount of power they generate.
    “Tanzania, for example, has around 70% of its people still short of electricity while it sits on four billion tons of coal. And still we hear activists from wealthy countries chanting, ‘Leave it in the ground.’
    “Electricity in Africa is not just an ethical issue, it’s the key to security and growth. It’s having no work and no hope that sees people forced into poverty, joining militia or heading for Europe,” he said. “The rich world ignores that at its peril.”
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-03-15-op-ed-clean-coal-is-the-way-to-power-africa-and-sa-academics-know-how/#.WtdEjn8pBhF

    • The EU with colonialism are doing less than nothing. China is bringing infrastructure of all kinds with its win-win Belt and Road Initiative, known also as the New Silk Road. Many nagions realize this is the alternative.
      And after all China is using a version of FDR’s New Deal and RFC financing. Exactly what Trump needs to repair the US economy as well.

    • The good professor is cautioning us to “Be prepared for war” not so much to enter into combat. I see some good rationale in that advice. If the climate changes somewhere the residence of that area will be much more capable of survival and likely able to flourish if they have developed the natural resources needed to provide them abundant, affordable, reliable energy. It seems to me that acting on the professors advice would involve development of fossil fuels or nuclear power until other dense, affordable sources are available.

      • Indonesia with an average yearly temperature of 26C with 70-90% humidity has 270,000,000 people living in an area about 1/5 that of the US is a member of G-20 with a healthy growing economy.
        Isn’t this the climate that we are told to we need to prepare against by proponents of AGW?

    • Right on, Mr Schnurr. A most fashionable development economist of the 1970’s was F. Shemaker, whose book, “Small is Beautiful” boosted the idea of all the micro technologies that could help the poor rise out of the muck in sub-Sahara Africa and other places. Of course, that’s not how we did it. Dig up that coal. Coal-fired power plants are exactly what these people need, now using the best scrubbing technologies of the present day, scandalously ignored by the Chinese.

  26. Since the good Prof. invokes war, Rand Paul reminded everyone only Congress can declare war. Of course that little obstacle along with the 1st, 4th, 5th and now 6th amendments are trampled upon. Would he propose to use Obama’s AUMF to attack immanent global CO2. Not surprising how anti-terrorism legislation would be invoked adainst CO2.

  27. According to his UTA bio
    Todd started his career working for Raytheon where he helped to design and deploy four different missile defense product lines.
    I sure hope that when he was designing and deploying missile defense systems for Raytheon he didn’t have the same casually dismissive attitude towards scientific uncertainty as he is displaying now towards climate change! If he did, I wonder how many cities on Earth could now be at risk from his missiles!
    I find this prospect far more alarming than climate change. At least we can adapt to that!

    • Oops! Sorry for the all-italics in the above post. It should have read:
      According to his UTA bio
      “Todd started his career working for Raytheon where he helped to design and deploy four different missile defense product lines.”
      I sure hope that when he was designing and deploying missile defense systems for Raytheon he didn’t have the same casually dismissive attitude towards scientific uncertainty as he is displaying now towards climate change! If he did, I wonder how many cities on Earth could now be at risk from his missiles!
      I find this prospect far more alarming than climate change. At least we can adapt to that!

      • His education is in Mechanical Engineering, PH.D thesis:Davidson, F.T., An Experimental Study of Film Cooling, Thermal Barrier Coatings and Contaminant Deposition on an Internally Cooled Turbine Airfoil Model, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2012

  28. ‘It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.’
    Who knew that conservatives have some actual power?
    ‘Climate change’ is nebulous. It has no meaning. He demands we empty the treasury on the undefined and UNQUANTIFIED.

  29. I see nothing has changed. The educated still do not know the difference between climate and WEATHER.

  30. We should invade China today to prevent war in the future. That is the solution being put in place to deal with climate change.
    So far to date none of the proposed solutions have actually solved the problem. Rather in most cases they have made it worse.

  31. If you include the direct costs to consumers caused by higher prices, I’m hard pressed to say for certain whether we spend more money on defense, or on “climate change”.

  32. ‘Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN.’ – Viv Forbes
    ‘Addressing the rising threat of climate change’ is a step towards destruction of the West, in the march to global government.

  33. So, burning “so called” renewable wood and dung will stop climate change? That doesn’t emit any CO2 right? Doh!

  34. I may have posted this before, but whatever.
    The science is settled. This is an unbelievably stupid statement that can only come from unbelievably stupid people or someone with a political or monetary agenda spouting useful propaganda. Every single scientific principle is questionable or can be defined to a greater accuracy or “truth”.
    Take the time to read at least one of the IPCC reports. You will find that almost every so-called fact is qualified as having some degree of likelihood. The qualifications range from extremely unlikely to extremely likely or presented as having very low confidence to very high confidence. I cannot think of an instance of them making any relevant statement in complete confidence. Does that sound a bit like a Trump tweet to you? Does it sound like settled science? Does it even sound like an accepted opinion?
    There is no such thing as settled science. That can only be construed as a convenient lie.

    • The only science that is settled is refutation.
      We cannot say that the earth orbits the sun in an exactly elliptical orbit, in terms of euclidean space, but we can say with 100% certainty that its ain’t a square orbit.
      Same with climate change. We cant say with anything like certainty why the climate changes but we can say with 97% certainty that it is not affected by CO2 to the extent that the IPCC claims.

  35. I have argued for years that the efforts should go toward preparing for either warming or cooling. Better built housing, farming practices and lots of energy.
    Preparing for war also prepares for peace.
    Trying to control the climate is a waste of time.

    • J.C. precisely. In the passage quoted above he doesn’t seem to be talking about CO2. Preparing for climate change in these terms would for example include building more power stations to cope with the demand for more heating or a/c

  36. What concerns me about Todd Davidson’s comments, and similar hyperbole, comparing the fight against AGW to war is how easy it then becomes to convince the “leftist rabble” to take up arms if they wish to save the world from the evil capitalists. We have already seen violence from the Antifa solely to stop someone they didn’t like from speaking.

    • Yes, Edwin, they cast their opposition as EVIL. There are no constraints when you are fighting evil, you can justify anything. The ultimate “ends justify the means.”

  37. Did Mr Davidson happen to check out how our preparations for war have worked in the past??? He might want to do that before positing such idea.

  38. Calls to action are easy, especially when you’re proposing (indirectly) to spend other people’s money. But would he, will he, put his personal money where his mouth is?
    Let’s use his $590 Bil in defense spending as approximately what he has in mind for climate change “preparedness”. That’s roughly $5,000 per year per family.
    If he’s that convinced this precautionary spending makes sense he would resign his day job and run for office on the proposal we raise taxes on each family by that amount.

  39. As Todd Davidson should realize, the same arguments apply to “global cooling”
    Despite the uncertainty, we should release all the CO2 we CAN into the atmosphere to prevent global cooling and the onset of another ice age. The threat is real and has the potential to be catastrophic!

  40. I totally agree with the professor. I think all Alarmist should prepare for War Climate. Lead the way.

  41. When I was a pup (yeah, I know) a Research Associate was grad student, not a Professor.
    Not that it makes any difference, since a lot of Profs these days write and say things equally as silly.

    • Credential escalation is a common practice in climate change reports, giving them more credence. The more authority, the better the argument from authority.

      • oddly when you seen a long list of authors , then ‘quality’ is not something you first think about .

  42. Maybe he thinks we are going into another ice age. More likely he doesn’t want his “war on climate” grant money cut.

  43. The obvious problem is “how do you prevent damaging climate change when the science is uncertain?” Suppose cutting CO2 emissions makes the climate worse?
    As he has pointed out, other nations may not help his preferred plan, e.g. China has stated it will continue to increase CO2 emissions for at least a decade. This means that the sensible strategy is to cope with changes rather that trying to prevent them.
    Relative sea level rise has always been a problem, due more to sinking land that actual sea level rise. This will remain a problem even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. So identify areas at risk and protect or evacuate them.
    Extreme weather has always been a problem, although the evidence suggests that climate change is reducing it. This will also remain a problem even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. So boost emergency preparations and avoid constructing important things that are easily damaged by extreme weather, like wind and solar power.

  44. Paraphrasing Todd Davidson’s argument, to illustrate the fundamental absurdity:
    Is Todd Davidson a threat to the United States of America? It does not matter—we have an obligation to defend the country against Todd and other enemies, both foreign and domestic, even if the threat is uncertain.

  45. Before girding up for climate battle, it is important to have a good, rousing, climate hymn, to boost spirits and keep morale high. To that end, I humbly offer the following:
    Onward Climate soldiers
    Marching as to war
    With the cross-eyed polar bear
    Going on before
    Onward then, ye people
    Join our happy throng
    Blend with ours your voices
    In our triumph song
    Gore the royal master
    Leads against the foe
    Forward into battle
    See His banners go
    Crowns and Thrones may perish
    Kingdoms rise and wane
    But the cross-eyed polar bear
    Constant will remain

  46. “First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.”
    ——–
    Let’s prepare for an invasion of the “Lizard People” now! There have been multiple sightings. 12 million Americans believe in the existence of the Lizard People and even NASA Gavin Schmidt considers their existence possible! They are cold blooded and will eat kittens whole! The time to take action is NOW before it’s too late!

  47. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AND READ THE FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS….!
    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
    which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    – David Brower,
    founder of Friends of the Earth
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
    saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
    an ecologically sound society under socialism.
    I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    – Judi Bari,
    principal organiser of Earth First!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
    United States. De-development means bringing our
    economic system into line with the realities of
    ecology and the world resource situation.”
    – Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    These are JUST A FEW of the RECORDED STATEMENTS issued by “World Leaders”
    ( please see The Green Agenda at green-agenda.com )
    .
    This is possibly THE WORST OF THEM :
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “A total population of 250-300 million people,
    a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    – Ted Turner,
    founder of CNN and major UN donor
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
    more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
    – Club of Rome,
    Goals for Mankind
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “One America burdens the earth much more than
    twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
    In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
    350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
    but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
    – Jacques Cousteau,
    UNESCO Courier
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    THIS WILL GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THE DREADFUL PEOPLE WHO ARE
    PRESENTLY IN POWER and THEIR TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES OF
    BILLIONS OF PEOPLE just so they can “SAVE THE PRECIOUS EARTH ” from………..us ?
    .
    So what if an IPA director says “He couldn’t give a rats……….about whether Climate Change Science
    is proven , accepted or TOTAL nonsense”……………it is JUST A MEANS TO AN END anyway !
    And that END is SOCIALISM……….and I mean COMMUNISM ……………………where YOU and YOUR
    OPINION are NOT REQUIRED ! So JOIN THE ELIMINATION QUEUE !
    And I notice “contributors” pussyfooting around about whether they are being “too impolite” or
    “too critical” or whether they MAY UPSET SOMEONE POWERFUL !!!!!!!!!
    .
    FOR “Heavens Sake” …….YOUR BLOODY NAMES ARE ALREADY ON THEIR DEATH LISTS !!!!!
    .
    KEEP YOUR GUNS & RIFLES , GET BUSY HOARDING AMMUNITION & GET BUSY PRACTISING
    TARGET SHOOTING !!!!
    IT COULD BECOME NECESSARY SOONER THAN YOU THINK !!!
    .
    “WE” ARE NO LONGER DEALING WITH RATIONAL PEOPLE WHO CAN BE PERSUADED BY
    REASON OR APPEALS TO COMPASSION AND “THEIR BETTER NATURE”……………………
    AS THEY DON’T HAVE A BETTER NATURE…………ONLY AN AGENDA !
    Part of that AGENDA is your elimination ( minimisation……..slaughter………attrition……..removal )
    so it is NO WONDER that “THEY” have been firing up FEMINISM ( Less breeding stock ! ) .
    ABORTION on DEMAND ( Less to put down later on ! ) EQUALITY OF OUTCOME ( Sure !
    Their outcome is OUR REMOVAL………DEATH sounds pretty equal ! ) FOMENTING TENSION
    BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS ( both with access to Nuclear Weapons !
    NOW THAT SHOULD ACCELERATE THE “AGENDA” IF “THEY” CAN KICK IT OFF !! ).
    .
    So……….. ANY ENVIRONMENTALIST you know IS NOT YOUR FRIEND !
    ( Please refer BACK to the QUOTES ABOVE just in case you think I’ve got it wrong ! )
    “PETA” “Animals are our neighbours, our friends and our fellow Earthlings. They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation or any other purpose”.
    and so on…………..Personally I blame Walt Disney for the Anthropomorphisation of Animals !!
    Just LIKE “radical anti-abortionists” ( who I disapprove of ) “animal rights extremists” ARE PREPARED TO
    KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS as part of their PROTEST. These people are seriously weird……………BUT
    with A BIT OF RE-DIRECTION perhaps…………….???……………they COULD be useful after all !? NAH !
    .
    The CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE and CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS
    MUST be encouraged ( and financed ) NOW , before this AGENDA becomes any more firmly
    entrenched , TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO SAVE OUR VALUES AND OUR WAY OF LIFE !
    The USA should NOT ONLY WITHDRAW FROM “CLIMATE CHANGE” DISCUSSIONS but
    ALSO the UNITED NATIONS which is now shown to be totally corrupt and the IPCC in particular !
    If the USA ( which pays about 25 % upwards to 28% of the total bill !! )
    “These mandatory contributions help fund the United Nations’ regular budget, which covers administrative costs and a few programs, as well as peacekeeping operations. The United States pays 22 and 28 percent of these budgets, respectively. Assessed dues also finance other UN bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Trade Organization.”……………………etc
    “Members may also make voluntary contributions. Many UN organizations, such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the World Food Program (WFP), rely entirely on discretionary funding.
    ………………………………and so on ………and on…………..and on……………………………….!! ”
    In other words…….THE UNITED NATIONS exists BECAUSE of US finances.and ALTRUISM……………….
    and YET THE UN ACTIVELY SEEKS TO DESTROY US CAPITALISM.
    .There is ONLY one system that produces WEALTH…………and THAT IS CAPITALISM !
    COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM are parasitic and ONLY RE-DISTRIBUTE OTHER PEOPLE’S WEALTH !
    The USA has created MOST OF THE WEALTH in the world BUT for the past 30 years or so it has
    “shared the wealth making ability with the rest of the world ” BY allowing jobs and entire industries to
    flow from America to Europe , Asia and Africa in an “altruistic manner” DICTATED BY SOCIALISTICALLY
    INCLINED US Governments , misguided into believing that THIS would DELAY OR AVERT FURTHER
    WARFARE , if OTHER countries were more prosperous too !
    It has been a great success………….USA now has a lot of comparable economies with whom it can trade
    and create more wealth , BUT it is now in a position to be gazumped by those it has encouraged !
    Petro-Dollars are now under threat from Petro-Renminbi ( or Petro-Yuan ) and THAT would enable
    the socialist agenda to very quickly FINISH THE TASK OF CRIPPLING CAPITALISM !
    .
    Too pessimistic for you ? Sorry……………….but YOUR ANGER DIRECTED AT the EPA DIRECTOR
    seems so pathetically INADEQUATE a response to what is unfolding all around you ………and yet
    you fail to see that it is a mere distraction from WHAT THEIR REAL INTENTION will achieve !
    .
    Any ideas ?
    Regards , Trevor.
    ( I am actually an Optimist …..just in case you were concerned ! )
    .

    • Trevor. I think that the recorded statements you wrote about also prove that the people who made them are idiots because only an idiot would allow those views to be known by the masses. The masses that they say are a problem and must be reduced. Apparently they aren’t smart enough to realize that if or when the masses finally get their message that they will be on the top of list to be reeducated. My Dad told me many years ago that the doomsday people have always been around but no one paid attention to them in the past.

      • James Francisco,

        Apparently they aren’t smart enough to realize that if or when the masses finally get their message that they will be on the top of list to be reeducated.

        With respect, I have to disagree. They are elites who think that they are morally and ethically superior because they are “saving the earth.” They believe that the masses aren’t smart enough to ever get their message. That’s why they have no reservations making these statements in public.

    • In a recent conversation with my son after almost 2 years of silence due to Trump’s victory over Hillary, my son vigorously defended a claim that greed is ruining the world, oil companies, insurance companies, all large corporations, etc. I defended with “Do you mean like the greedy corporations which bring us better medicines, technology, and superior agricultural technology to feed the world?”. I had to finally let that go or we wouldn’t be talking for another 2 years.
      The irony is that when my ex moved to Colorado she said that the schools were great there. At the time I thought that’s great. Now I see the fruit that has born, and it raises my blood pressure. Now they have their kids. My sons 4 children, in particular, are all at the top of their classes, and have been both in Colorado, and now in California in the SF/Bay Area. One son especially has my full abilities. I could sense it immediately when I met him. I hate to think of him being indoctrinated in today’s schools system in California in the same fashion as my son was.

  48. Humanity has always been at odds with nature and we would pray to the gods to ensure our survival. Since we are still here, that proves that praying worked. I think we should just do what has already worked rather than try something far more expensive.
    (So says the atheist!)

  49. Has anyone ever seen a study on the warming effects of the CAGW mitigations?
    For example, if we were able to harvest all the solar impinging on a swath of desert, turning it into electricity, how do we know that this doesn’t create more heat than just leaving the desert alone? All the electricity becomes heat eventually, right? Wind farms ultimately create heat from wind, right?
    It would be a hoot to learn that AGW mitigation creates more AGW than it mitigates.

  50. But the science is settled. To better than 3 sigma, the data refutes the alarmist claims. CO2 may have some effect but its a very minor one and climate change such as there is is dominated by natural causes and so there is no point in spending trillions to fail to prevent the odd half a degree that might be.
    The best way to tackle climate change is to develop and deploy standard weather station that can be sited well away from developed areas. It might actually be able to utilise lithium batteries solar panels and a wind turbine to power it.

  51. If are going to prepare for a future climate war, shouldn’t we be ready on both fronts. Nobody knows what the future will bring. So we need to prepare for a hot or cold, wet or dry, etc., future. In other words the proper preparation lies in ‘resilience’.

  52. The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.
    Actually, there is an even better argument against climate alarmism…
    These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.
    The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.
    And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

    • “For about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world.”
      You’re not getting it. WE is the problem. They want WE in charge. If we had WE, WE could solve all problems.
      Current subject, there’s this climate change ‘problem.’ If we had we, we could fix it.

  53. Davidson is simply promulgating the false logic of the climate alarmists and politicians that was formalized at the United Nations Rio de Janerio Earth Summit in 1992. That conference produced the Rio Declaration Principle 15 (now Precautionary Principle), which states: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Politicians have interpreted Principle 15 to mean that science can simply be by-passed when formulating policy. If one can hypothesize a one percent possibility of out-of-control global warming, measures should be taken to prevent global warming. The cost-effective part of the Principle is ignored.
    The fallacy of such an application of the Principle is that the probability of irreversible environmental damage associated with a warming earth may be no greater than the probability of irreversible environmental damage associated with a cooling earth. Policies that might be appropriate for the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case. Under this reality, this application of the Precautionary Principle makes no sense whatsoever. The damage that would be done by acting based on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments to take any action until the science is right.
    Davidson advocates that “we should prepare for climate change like we prepare for war.” The focus on only one extreme outcome is the same false logic that got the U.S. in the first Iraq war, the one-percent solution. Ask Cheney about it.
    My recommendation is to seek advice from a competent statistician and, meanwhile, stay away from Las Vegas. When politicians get in the way of scientists and change the rules of the game, the outcome is not going to be good.

  54. “First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.” How arrogant!! So your belief about the seriousness of the problem over rules all other opinions? We have centuries of experience dealing with bad actors throughout the world so spending money on defense is justifible. But there is absolutely no evidence of climate change happening as models claim. The comparison is not valid.

  55. Despite the uncertainty in the timing and location of military threats, we are always ready for war just in case. The same approach of readiness should be used for climate action, because despite the uncertainty in how climate change could impact the world, the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.

    Not the same at all because one HAS occurred before and the other, climate change (global warming) influenced by puny humans, has never been observed before to claim that it has ever happened before.
    In another example despite the uncertainty that aliens may wipe out all life on planet Earth in future. We should be ready and spend billions/trillions in case this threat ever occurs in future, despite also never been observed in the past.
    The final point being evidence has been increasingly against the climate change conjecture and that is not the case for war.

  56. According to Todd Davidson we should be spending trillions on detecting Bertrand Russell’s orbiting tiny teapot postulate going around the sun out beyond Mar’s orbit.
    Globe warming is always the big danger out there in the future and it has been for 30 years during which the Arctic should have become ice free, polar bears, penguins, cariboo, walruses…done in, children not knowing what snow Is, the Westside Hwy under 10 ft of water, crop devastation ….a billion climate refugees, the disappearance of coral islands and delta’s … Such a failed laundry list, a temperature trace that has proven to be 200-300% too high despite the desperate jiggering of records and a 20 yr pause in temperatures actually has removed uncertainty considerably. The construct is a tiny teapot.

  57. Is the science of imminent attack by space aliens settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain. We need to have recordings of Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call” available to all, and especially for broadcast over public address systems and loudspeakers. And that’s only for planet Mars.

  58. This is simply an academic progressive appealing to a stereotype.
    Mention ‘war’ – that’ll get’em conservative deniers on board.
    Just like mentioning ‘money’.
    I’ll say this – they believe their own bigotry.

  59. “Climate change poses a more significant threat to global security than the low probability event of a ground war with China”

    An absurd twisted strawman falsehood.
    A) Todd Davidson equates America’s entire military complex as based on the currently fallacious claim that there will be a war with China.
    B) Davidson then amplifies any to date falsified climate risk as a greater threat than war with China would be.
    Over the top delusion comes to mind; with the following thought that this “associate” is off his meds.
    C) Davidson fill in more specious assumptions to bolster his fantasy while diminishing non-climate items of import.
    At least Huxley knew he was writing about fantasies caused by drugs.

    • A) Todd Davidson equates America’s entire military complex as based on the currently fallacious claim that there will be a war with China.

      Hmmm…aren’t China (and India) leaders in the emissions of dreaded gas CO2?
      A ground war?
      Maybe we should “save the world” and just Nuke them both now.
      According to the “Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming” dudes, a Nuclear Winter might be a good thing.

  60. … we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.

    We have an obligation to ignore idiotic, self-contradictory statements, even if they are uttered by highly credentialed academicians.

  61. Wait, don’t liberals advocate “cower in place” as the best defense?
    Incidentally, now that some classrooms have been issued buckets of rocks in case there’s an “active shooter” — (as opposed to those lazy, I’ll-get-around-to-killing types) — I am circulating a petition to ban high-capacity buckets. There is no plausible situation ever where anyone would need more than 2 or 3 rocks.
    And no high-caliber rocks. Pebbles are more than adequate.

  62. I used to frequently watch Charlie Rose on PBS. I got to the point where I’d rather watch the narcissistic celebrities talk about themselves and some dopey movie they were promoting than the scientists. That’s because the scientists seemed to be on the show to talk about some huge breakthrough on the horizon if only they had more money. One wanted to send men to Mars. Another was begging for money for Alzheimer’s. Another for cancer. Another for ebola. And on and on. They seem unaware that money doesn’t grow on trees. That we serfs have to actually earn the money before the government can confiscate it and funnel it to them for their pet projects under the guise of saving the world.

  63. Um, that’s the University of Texas at Austin, not the University of Austin. Either way, these idjits cause me embarrassment as a Texian.

  64. It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense

    Way ahead you, prof.
    “Enemies foreign and domestic”.
    That’s why many of us are skeptics….and not PC.
    (I’d like to see the day when “Politically Correct” actually meant politics that “Constitutionality Correct”. Nobody’s going to hear that in your classroom!)

  65. “We must launch a war against the pink unicorn horde set to invade our shores at any moment! Does it matter that no one has ever seen a pink unicorn, or that it’s scientifically impossible for them to exist?! NO!! We must spend the $100 TRILLION dollars demanded by the Paris Unicorn Accord to mitigate the threat! Our very existence is at stake!
    Surely the conservatives can see that this logic is bulletproof, and they must therefore agree to spend our great-great-great-great grandchildren into debt so we can save ourselves from a fairy tale!”
    These people are so disconnected from reality that they’ve become laughingstocks.

  66. To Hotscot and Allan MaCrae……………………………..Ah YES !
    “We” ( most of my direct ancestors were Scottish !! ) owe a lot to GLOBAL WARMING !
    A mere 10,000 years ago SCOTLAND was COVERED with about a kilometre or so OF ICE !
    And THAT is where ANAESTHESIA and ‘SCOTCH’ were BOTH INVENTED !!
    Without benign global warming Scotland would be uninhabitable and “we” would not exist !

  67. Again, why did George Bush even bothered to argue that Saddam did have WMD, when he could just claim that Saddam could possibly have some or could possibly have the intention to maybe think about acquiring some?

Comments are closed.