Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Professor Mike Hulme is worried people are ignoring climate warnings, so he suggests promoting climate action with “co-benefits”, convincing people to take climate action for reasons other than climate change. But some advocates of reframing have taken things a step further than Professor Hulme suggests. In my opinion their actions verge on deliberate deception of the public.
Science can’t solve climate change — better politics can, former IPCC scientist says
Natasha Mitchell
It’s not every day you hear that the climate change debate needs to be “more political and less scientific” — but that is exactly what Mike Hulme is calling for.
The 2015 Paris agreement was declared “a victory for climate science“, but Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is not convinced that the Paris deal will work.
In fact, he said he thought climate change was in danger of becoming a “fetish” and that rallying cries to “save the planet by limiting global warming to 2 degrees” could distract us from the “political logjam” in front of us.
“We can actually only deal with climate through the human imagination.”
…
He said a focus on immediate “co-benefits” would give governments, businesses and individuals the incentives they needed to move away from fossil fuels or to create carbon sinks.
Think solar panels or wind farms for those without access to electricity; planting forests that protect catchments and provide shade from the searing heat; or replacing coal-fired power stations — not simply to cut carbon emissions, but to reduce deaths from air pollution.
This approach could be attractive to hundreds of millions of people across the planet, regardless of their views on global warming, Professor Hulme argued.
…
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-02/why-science-cant-solve-climate-change/9711364
Professor Hulme makes reframing climate action as environmental policy sound all nice and fluffy. I’m sure Professor Hulme’s intention is to be open about the climate aspects of reframed climate action.
But in the USA, government employed activists quietly boast about using reframing to secretly maintain rebadged climate expenditure under President Trump.
From February 2017;
… ‘Deliberate framing’
My colleagues and I did a survey of over 200 local governments in 11 states of the Great Plains region to learn about steps they’re taking to mitigate the effects of climate change and to adapt to them. We found local officials in red states responsible for public health, soil conservation, parks and natural resources management, as well as county commissioners and mayors, are concerned about climate change, and many feel a responsibility to take action in the absence of national policy.
But because it is such a complex and polarizing topic, they often face public uncertainty or outrage toward the issue. So while these local officials have been addressing climate change in their communities over the past decade, many of these policy activities are specifically not framed that way. As one respondent to our survey said:
“It is my personal and professional opinion that the conservation community is on track with addressing the issue of climate change but is way off track in assigning a cause. The public understands the value of clean water and clean air. If the need to improve our water quality and air quality was emphasized, most would agree. Who is going to say dirty water and dirty air is not a problem? By making the argument ‘climate change and humans are the cause’ significant energy is wasted trying to prove this. It is also something the public has a hard time sinking their teeth into.”
…
In my opinion such secret reframing verges on deliberate deception of the public.
If local government money is spent on rebadged climate action, that same money cannot also be spent on say improving schools or financial assistance for poor people.
Even if some of the reframed actions are necessary environmental works, say tree planting to protect a water catchment from soil runoff pollution, the fact that some officials appear to be secretly prioritising climate expenditure more than they admit invites suspicion that their judgement is skewed, that the alleged environmental works they advocate are receiving more attention and financial support than they would have received, had such environmental works been subject to a more objective cost / benefit analysis.
I do not think climate “reframing” is OK. If reframers want climate action, they should propose such action openly and honestly to the people, and accept that for most people such climate action simply isn’t a priority. Sneaking around “reframing” climate action as necessary local environmental work in my opinion undermines democracy, undermines the quality of information presented to taxpayers, and undermines the right of taxpayers to fairly decide how their tax money should be spent.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did we just go full circle?
Getting rid of fossil fuels started as a political issue, then climate science was tried (and it failed) so now it’s back to politics?
I need to be memory adjusted. I seem to remember that a man named M King Hubbard presented a theory that we were going to run out of fossil fuel. This theory predicted serious shortages in the availability in the near future and it was certainly one of the underlying justifications for introducing nuclear power. We became aware of the negative effect of lead as a gasoline additive and sulfur content in the fuels. A GM engineer of some repute F. Gibson Butler discovered that the orange fog covering San DIego was nitrous oxide. So we got rid of the lead, we reduced the sulfur, and are trying to address the nitrous oxide. Fossil fuels were having a hard political time and the prices were sky rocketing. People were angry. Then we discovered that CO2 was a combustion component. But there was a problem, it was a clear, odorless gas absolutely essential for life on earth. A crisis had to be constructed. Enter a charismatic leader with a strong predisposed following who brought a message of catastrophe and used Sophist logical fallacies and numerous erroneous assertions that scared the hell out of believers. The political point was made. Science is trying to recoup. I think we started with a flawed theory progressed to using science to identify unintended consequences , fixed them through science and then transitioned into a period where politics has stolen science’s voice. The politics of irrationality has become so bizarre that it is life threatening political heresy to attempt or suggest the wisdom of re establishing scientific principles as part of a deliberative process..
Phineas Sprague Jr.
The problem is, anyone can be a politician, no qualifications required.
Scientists must at least achieve a minimum level of competence to call themselves a scientist.
There is genuine, plausible, scientific evidence disproving the concept of AGW.
No such evidence is required in politics.
Politics is the art of compromise, which nobody wants, and which serves only one person, the politician that achieved it.
The Death of American Democracy – http://www.counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/…/01/07/the-death-of-american-democracy
Two hundred and twenty six years since the first democratic election in America and true democracy is all but dead and inverted fascism has taken its place. Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University.
@ur momisugly hotscot 1:36am “Scientists must at least achieve a minimum level of competence to call themselves a scientist.”
Witness “climate scientists”, anyone can call him/herself a scientist. I think you need “be recognised as” rather than “to call themselves”.
thomasjk,
We were never a “true democracy” in the U.S., we were a representative republic with a limited central government. I really hate it when politicians intentionally misrepresent our system to erode the resistance to their increasing violation of our system as founded. The U.S. is not a democracy, though we use democratic methods of selecting those who represent us.
(climbs off my soap box again)
OweninGA May 2, 2018 at 5:37 am
But these kind of corrections are required or the incorrect remark can become a mainstream belief.
I’m curious about the photo.
Is that tree planting a forest of PLASTIC tubes? I sure HOPE not.
If you follow the link there is a caption: “Tree planting. Woodland of the future. In each plastic tube a hardwood tree has been planted.”
Seems a bit wasteful I have to say, but presumably there’s a reason.
Plastic. One our more pervasive pollutants.
Sadly, a lot of the modern environmentalists don’t view plastic as a pollutant. Yet.
Hopefully we can change that.
P..S. Thanks, I see the link now.
With so many large holes in the ground to fill, plastic makes great landfill.
The plastic tubes prevent deer from eating the saplings
Critters like the bark and will ring the tree. Killing it..
In a single word, deer.
If you fail to plant in plastic tubes, not a single tender young shoot will survive.
Been there.
Those are short plastic tubes – protection from small critters. Rabbits, pika etc etc
Deer are a real problem for trees. Being grazing animals they, along with cows/sheep/goats, instinctively know that trees are their Worst Enemy. Grass or grazing fodder does not grow under trees so when they encounter a baby tree, they will destroy it before kit gets too big. No questions.
For deer protection, those tubes should or would be at least 4 feet tall.
There is no Bambi in that wood.
Given the nature of the terrain and the adjoining conifers, isn’t the planting density a wee bit too high for hardwood species?
Having actually participated in some tree plantings, I often wonder if people return at some point to remove the plastic tubes.
I wouldn’t return for several years and only then remove the damaged ones. Rabbits and rodents will chew up the base of the tree without the tubes. It’s prudent to return when you think the trees are approaching the size where they will split the tubes or if you know the lifespan of the plastic, before it disintegrates, but until then, I’d leave them.
The plastics are usually bio degradable. They are used extensively here in the UK with the main purpose to stop the saplings being nibbled by deer, rabbits and sheep, but also to create a micro climate around them and protect them against the ravishes of the weather.
tonyb
If Mike Hume is sane, my name is Jonathan Livingston: wind turbine.
Eric,
Mike Hume was involved in the demonizing of the late Chris de Freitas over the publication (in the journal Climate Research) of a 2003 Soon and Baliunas paper that challenged prevailing UHI data (I think). Phil Jones (Mr. UHI), Mike Mann and several others were co-conspirators in the plot to destroy de Freitas’ career.
Since then, Hume has “reframed” himself as the “thinking” or “moderate” climate scientist (or some such words like that) but the ugly de Freitas blot remains a part of his earlier record.
The worst example of “reframing” is calling CO2 emissions “pollution”. One is begging the question of harm, especially when it is most likely a net benefit.
I would also include referring to CO2 as “carbon”.
Or Carbon Pollution. Or creating a Clean Air Bill that taxes hydrocarbons.
Explain how socialism is supposed to result in cleaner water and air, Mr. Hulme. It never has in the history of mankind. It has only resulted in pollution, death, and poverty. If you want clean air and water then propose policies for that, not rent-seeking, habitat destructing green energy handouts, UN overreach and government control.
I suspect his anecdotal polling is much like the polling of potential Trump voters in 2016. Many held their true thoughts until they walked into the voting booth and put a mark next to Trump. Sadly, being an open skeptic gets one called the d- word too often. Same reason rgbatduke no longer puts his comments here at WUWT. The Left has effectively silenced them.
We should imagine to quadruple our air travel and aspire to the use of private jets like Al Gore.
An imaginative solution for an imagined ‘problem’…. Imagine that!
+10
Good public policy dictates that we don’t put all our eggs in one basket. The policy should be beneficial no matter what inevitably happens to disrupt our plans. Judith Curry recommends “no regrets” policies with respect to the climate.
commie, people interested in this ought also go over to climate etc and read the works of robert i ellison (in the comment sections). There is plenty of overlap where so called climate action makes for good policy in general. Heck, we’re going to run out of fossil fuels one day anyway, so we might as well get on with it sooner than later. (pragmatic energy security is a far better way to go about it than knee jerk climate alarmism)…
What’s this “we” stuff?
Sorry, game, the days of Goldwater conservatism are ovah! (like it or not, governments are here to stay)…
Government is here to stay, so we should make them as big as possible.
While it is true that we will run out of fossil fuel someday, that day is hundreds, perhaps over a thousand years in the future.
Plenty of time to invent and perfect alternatives without artificially forcing the technology.
BTW, if anyone can come up with a quote of Goldwater’s indicating that he wanted no government whatsoever, I would appreciate it.
Who said anything about making government as big as possible? Government isn’t going anywhere and it’s incumbent on government to simply make for good policy. (a pragmatic approach is needed, not ideological liberalism)…
I did not come to Washington to make laws, rather to repeal them
I worked in government, I know government, …. Who the heck said something similar? Was it in denigration of somebody who spoke admirably about government?
What did Walt Disney call it? Imagineering?
Hume knows global warming is indefensible nonsense so he wants to use the perceived threat of it to promote his agenda as an environmentalist. He invented a giant heap of academic drivel to justify it because drivel is his area of expertise
A very useful word: drivelous (comparative more drivelous, superlative most drivelous) Composed of drivel; nonsensical; meaningless; rubbish. Further reading .
This insidious insanity comes from an Amazon UK review of his book ‘Why We Disagree about Climate Change’
“Hulme then goes on to suggest that all climate change arguments should include at least one of the following four “myths” (being a motivational story).
1. Lamenting Eden – To give the idea that the world was stable until man turned up. And we broke it.
2. Presaging apocalypses – Where you should use phrases like “impending disaster” and “tipping point”. This is despite having the knowledge of such predictions (as Hulme states) but should because it “capitalizes on the human inbuilt fear of the future.”
3. Reconstructing babel – Appealing to our fear of advancement and technology. As though anything modern is inherently bad.
4. Celebrating Jubilee – Balancing the cosmic unfairness of the world where well off inherently make this worse for the poor and the balance should be readdressed every 25 years or so.
These arguments have been used so often that they are worn out. People have stopped listening. Personally, these arguments just make me disregard anything else the person says.
“Imagine” is the first assertion of every Science Fiction story,.. in this case, socialist fiction way of thinking, believing and activating – also known as “magical thinking”.
i don’t think that is possible.
best (tie) sarcasm ever 😉
Good one Dave. To your point Francis Menton explains how complete is the political polarization around climate change, at least in the US.
“However, as things are now playing out in our Congress and in the courts, the polarization on the issue of climate change is nearing one hundred percent. Democrats are in complete unanimity in declaring climate change to be a crisis and demanding massive government-directed “solutions,” while Republicans have fewer and fewer non-skeptics in their ranks.”
Cases in point are the recent battle over the NASA nominee and now recent divergent judicial rulings regarding Exxon climate lawsuits.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-4-30-complete-polarization-in-the-world-of-politics-climate-change-edition
If it takes politics to validate your science, then your science has failed and you’ve become Michael Mann.
Why do so many people have to be talked, coerced, tricked, and manipulated into believing in man made climate change.
We are looking at a peer pressure and group defining ideology. A libelously short explanation is that the political move was well executed. Al Gore lost the election he had a very significant very disappointed constituency. There was already a huge like minded group. He used his PR people and political network to bring forward a theory that was easy to understand and had frightening projections. His theory became a litmus test to belong to the group. Groups represent safety and acceptance. How individuals react to information which falsifies the popularly held theory is classic. The individual rejects the contrary information because the information is not believed. The individual feels that the contrary information might be valid but because so many people in the peer group believe the information they ultimate conclude that the number of people who believe the false theory re on to something and change their position. Individuals also might know that the theory has been falsified but in order to belong to the group adopts a theory know to be false. So there you have it. changing these people’s minds is going to be very very hard.
… where “very very hard” = impossible
@ur momisugly Phineas,
Keep in mind his enlightened doco ‘movie’ occured well after the election loss which was further preceded by single-handedly inventing the internet, and just before escaping the snipper fire in Sarajevo … oh .. hang on .. that was the other outrageous fraud.
So……If a large number of minds are changed are there any changes in natural truths and reality as the sum of all natural truths? This thing has now gone out past the outer boundaries of bizarre and into unnamed territory.
drivelous (comparative more drivelous, superlative most drivelous) Composed of drivel; nonsensical; meaningless; rubbish. Further reading .
Because they’ve been coerced and manipulated into disbelieving it.
I hope that sounds smarter in your head than it does in mine.
In my small universe, I don’t know a single person who has not bought into “climate change” hook, line, and sinker.
(Pardon my mixed metaphor.)
@Kristi
you mean, coerced and manipulated by, like, WUWT?
Strangely enough, you complain a lot here, kristi, but you never complained that WUWT coerced or manipulated anybody. For a simple reason. It doesn’t.
Kristi, who exactly is coercing and manipulating us peons into disbelieving? A larger percentage of our elected officials, 95% of one US political party and a large percentage of the other, believe in AGW. The entire US federal bureaucracy believes. Academia from kindergarten through graduate school spread the gospel of AGW. The so called news media preach the AGW gospel everyday. We have on entire cable channel, while no longer devoting entire hour programs to AGW, still regularly blame AGW on everything from floods, droughts, tornado outbreaks and tropical cyclones. The UN has an entire bureaucracy established to sell CAGW. So who exactly is doing the coercing and manipulating to make us disbelieve? I started tracking the science of AGW back in the 1970s. Initially I leaned towards believing, yet as a trained scientist, where I actually received training in the importance of Scientific Method, I became more and more concerned that the science just wasn’t there. When I realized that most of the dire predictions were based on computer models I became a skeptic having dealt with environmental computer models and modelers. Then it became obvious that “scientists” were manipulating data to fit their preconceived conclusions. Then came “Climategate” where it became obvious what was happening and it wasn’t catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Do you actually have evidence for this claim this time?
Or is just what you have been told to believe?
Read UN publications and documents. Then read government documents The needed information is there.
Also follow the money.
Problem might be that the public doesn’t know where information and documents are located?
UN Environment
UN Inquiry
Greening The Banking System, Sept., 2016
http://www.unepinquiry.org/publication/greening-the-banking-system
And:
UNCTAD
Re: SSE/Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative
http://www.unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/SSE-Initiative.aspx
More information on these topics on the internet.
UNEP FI
‘Guide To Banking And Sustainability”, Edition 2, October 2016, ~ 123 pages.
References and Organizations included in this Guide:
End Notes, p.93
Appendix, pp., 97-111
Also has reasons other than climate change.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/guide_banking_statements.pdf
UNEP FI
Re: Banking & Sustainability.
Information:
http://www.unepfi.org/banking
The only people who talk about sustainability are those who have never been responsible for bringing in results.
Jeez, that sounds NOTHING like a brainwashed sock-puppet response.
/sarc
Sorry, hit the Enter key before I had finished typing my name. Mickey r is Mickey Reno.
I’ve recently finished a book about discovery of the Higgs at CERN. What a magnificent achievement of science and human intelligence.
Then I have to read more of this climate science crap, from ethically-compromised so-called scientists whose work wouldn’t get passing grades in freshman physics at the worst school in the country. The story of how “97% of scientists agree” is an interesting example of just making it up. Comparing this to the analysis required to detect the Higgs should be downright humiliating to Mike Hulme and his ilk.
But somehow it isn’t. This is nothing more than the willfully corrupt using the path of least resistance for an intellectually impoverished slide thru academic life. This is the 21st century, yet I feel like I’m wading thru an intellectual sewer (not WUWT, I’m referring to “climate science”).
A confederacy of dunces.
🙂
Or, perhaps, a consensus of dunces?
The problem I am seeing is that too many science faculty haven’t taken the time to read more than the abstracts and press releases on most of the CAGW papers (they are busy after all). They make the assumption that since they have to jump through a large series of quality control hoops to get a paper published that the practitioners of climate science must do likewise. So they assume the papers and press releases must be true. After all, no one would put obvious drivel out with their names on it, would they?
The other problem at universities is the science faculty doesn’t run the place (administration is not on the list of primary interests for most scientists), so they wind up at the political mercy of the humanities communists running most campuses. When they finally do figure out that it is all caca, they can’t speak out for fear of reprisal. Besides, most scientists have little interest in national/international politics (office politics is a completely different question).
more Hulme.
first 35 minutes is all Mike Hulme, followed by 19mins of landscape architect, Kristina Hill, University of California, on alleged huge sea level rise in San Francisco:
AUDIO: 54mins17secs: 1 May: ABC Big Ideas: Adapting to a changing climate
The social impact of an uncertain and unpredictable climate and building cities to cope with flooding.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/adapting-to-a-changing-climate/9711562
Hulme was speaking at NSW govt-funded Australian Museum in Sydney:
Sydney Uni:Sydney Environment Institute: SEI News: Professor Mike Hulme & ‘Cultures of Climate’
On Monday 23 April 2018, join Professor Mike Hulme for the HumanNature Lecture Series. Hulme’s lecture will explore some of the many fascinating ways climates are historicized, known, changed, lived with, blamed, feared, represented, predicted, governed and, at least putatively, re-designed…
Prof Mike Hulme’s lecture is the third in the HumanNature series, which is jointly funded and coordinated by the Australian Museum, the University of New South Wales, Macquarie University, Western Sydney University, and the University of Sydney.
The Series features leading international scholars in the Environmental Humanities and aims to highlight the key research and developments to come out of the environmental humanities and will feature environmental humanities scholars who are renowned in their fields. Stay tuned for more profiles on keynote speakers in the months to come.
http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/news/sei-news-professor-mike-hulme-cultures-climate/
What the hell is environmental humanities?
The technical term is ‘fraud’.
Government has a lot of funny regulations about planning, budgeting, allocating from taxes, and spending funds for the purpose they were originally planned.
Leaving that
as prima facie evidence of fraud and fraudsters.
It also makes Hulme and his survey conductors accessories, if they fail to turn over that evidence to Inspector Generals.
Do you think Cook and his students helped code things? Maybe these claims are sound and fury… On the other hand, people might just be that dishonest. Local governments are sometimes worse than state and national governments. Fiefdom mentality.
Governments, local, state and national, as a collective bunch tend to have a very strong attraction for those among us who have a natural tendency toward thievery and other criminal behavior.
Why the Cook and his ilk distraction?
If Cook is involved, then any reply, after filtration, redefinition, taken out of context, mispellings, etc, may be defined as supporting Hulme’s preferences. Absolutely ruining any credibility.
Then consider Hulme’s overall proposed methodology; someone calls, emails, writes to a government agency with a survey poll.
A) Who would answer such a poll?
B) What bureaucrat would answer, that they wilfully spend funds on unapproved projects?
C) Bureaucrats are masters of verbal sleight of mouth. Any project of theirs that could be considered as fulfilling the slightest desires of alarmists would allow them to answer yes.
e.g. During the 1980s, the Postal Service tried multiple methods for reducing use of imported oil and fuels derived from imported oil. USPS tried battery operated vehicles in California and Propane powered Ford pintos nationwide.
The pintos were kept in service until repairs became impossible, only a few years; while the battery run jeeps stayed in service until the affected Postmasters screamed. One Postmaster was told early the next morning that the Office’s power was out all night, and none of the jeeps had sufficient battery charges.
If any news reporters had inquired if those affected offices were running renewable energy vehicles, the answer would be yes.
Those bureaucrats were well trained, their next words would be, “Talk to the Marketing department for details”. Guess, what task Marketing departments are superlative at accomplishing.
The likelihood is that secretaries and clerical staff would be the respondents with zero effective knowledge for actual expenditures versus budgets or approved allocations.
Nor is it likely that the bureaucrats want to be bothered by the clerical staff that may answer the questionnaires.
I spent several years as a Budget Manager in a Federal agency.
I certainly would not pigeonhole myself answering such questions.
For all I know, that survey was sent by the Office of the Inspector General or the Postal Inspectors.
Honesty, may be a best policy, but a more important policy is to keep one’s mouth shut.
“a more important policy is to keep one’s mouth shut.” The first (only?) rule of the bureaucrat.
Do NOT disagree with your masters.
btw this is a summary of Hulme’s talk from ABC Big Ideas’ homepage:
ABC Big Ideas: Cultures of climate
The idea of a reliable climate has provided a secure framework for human development and planning.
What will be the social impact of an uncertain and unpredictable climate?
Recorded 23 April 2018 Australian Museum
Speaker: Mike Hulme Professor of Human Geography Cambridge University
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/cultures-of-climate/9711568
ABC is CAGW-infested, 25min-plus more of Mike Hulme.
these programs get repeated, so Hulme must be chuckling at getting so much free air-time to help with book sales!
AUDIO: 25mins32secs: 29 Apr: ABC: ScienceFriction: Natasha Mitchell: The Climate Fetish
Science can’t solve climate change, we’ll only be able to deal with it using the human imagination. Really? Leading climate scientist Professor Mike Hulme has had a radical shift in focus, and he believes climate change is at risk of becoming a fetish.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/the-climate-fetish/9700332
Bwaaahahahahahah!!!!! Really…. Imagine?!
You’re lost mike.
Imagination is all these people have. Reality scares the daylights out of them.
So crap like this gets print and legitimate skeptics get nothing? Is this the new free speech? As in free of logic? Science will take a long time to climb out of this pit.
Eric,
You left out a significant part of the story – you didn’t say how the mayors reframed things:
“In terms of economic benefit & resource protection. This framing was deliberate to garner support from residents who did not agree with climate change.”
“We frame the initiative as: energy savings (=$ savings), as smart growth/good planning, and as common sense natural resource management. Climate change is only explicitly referenced in our Climate Protection Plan adopted in 2009. Most initiatives fall under the “sustainability” umbrella term.“
“We mask it with sustainability, we call it P3 (People, Planet, Prosperity)”
“The initial interest in climate change came about as a result of concern about the potential for poor air quality affecting economic development in the City. Air quality and climate change were framed as being extremely related issues.”
“Climate change is framed as one of several benefits of conservation measures. Other benefits of conservation, recycling, walking, etc. include it’s ‘good for the earth’ (regardless of climate change), healthful, economical, etc.”
Eric, “reframing” isn’t hiding anything, it’s just saying things a different way that doesn’t trigger the emotional response that “climate change” does. It’s also LEGITIMATE to frame it in terms of energy savings over time. Wind and solar are natural resources. Do you think the mayor’s going to get a new pavilion in his budget and instead turn it into a solar garden? Just because someone doesn’t believe in climate change doesn’t make them unable to understand what a wind turbine is.
“If local government money is spent on rebadged climate action, that same money cannot also be spent on say improving schools or financial assistance for poor people.”
Well, yes, but maybe the alternative is a new coal plant. Presumably this is about long-term economics, an investment.
And maybe some of the residents actually believe in AGW and want to do something about it..
It’s just politics, Eric. Those in power are going to do try to get done what they feel is right even if some of the people are not in one’s party. So politicians frame things differently. “Save American jobs” was Trump-speak for “crush the American solar industry.”
In my opinion “reframing” is lying by omission, maybe exaggerating alleged non climate benefits, to slip climate action past people who would object to wasting money on climate action. I haven’t seen anything so far to convince me otherwise.
Don’t bother with it. Kristi is a solid left wing liberal socialist who lives by reframing to hide their real agenda.
Lotta talk about ‘framing’ here. Framing – employing a deceptive method of communications to secure a desired end state; AKA ‘The Ends Justify The Means’. Yep – that’s something a politically biased social scientist would advocate.
You can ‘frame’ a burglar as being beneficial (stolen goods must be replaced, stimulating the economy… blah blah blah) but honest folks know that’s crap, just as is such drivel attempting to make the continuing climate change con job out to be a concerning issue of any importance. As for ‘some residents believing in AGW’, they should pay for their own religious beliefs and catechism directed actions. We have ‘freedom of religious expression’ in the USA, not coerced or forced participation in what you deem to be the new state religion.
“Wind and solar are natural resources.”
So are nuclear energy, both fission and fusion, coal, petroleum oil, tar sands, natural gas, peat, firewood, dried animal dung, whale oil, seal oil, horses, oxen, donkeys, mules, llamas, water buffalo, etc.
What’s your point, if any???
““Save American jobs” was Trump-speak for “crush the American solar industry.”
Is that just your irrational perspective? Or an expression of your heartfelt religious beliefs, in a myopic attempt to ‘Frame the President’?
“Well, yes, but maybe the alternative is a new coal plant. ”
I hope not, When would a coal plant get tax money?
“Presumably this is about long-term economics, an investment.”
An investment is something that earns or save you some money. CAGW action is costly
“And maybe some of the residents actually believe in AGW and want to do something about it.”
Obviously they don’t or they would to do something themselves. Like, cut their emissions by four, which need no tax money, and use the save money to, say, plant trees.
“It’s just politics, Eric. ”
Yes, politics, That is, war, deception and lies according to Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.
How cute.
When a liberal uses the term “investment” it is tantamount to the casino telling you the amount of money you buy in with at the roulette table is an investment.
Kristi, it’s NOT just politics.
This is simply one more example of the Progressive elite thinking they know better than everyone else what’s good for us. “Maybe if we put a little sugar in our advice, they’d swallow it.” Observational data doesn’t seem to impact their convictions of certainty.
Of course “reframing” is hiding something; just reread the articles!
Yes, politicians lie and lie most of the time, especially on the Left. However, that does not make it right. “That’s politics” to excuse this lyinig is the same as “Oh well, deaths happen” to excuse drunk driving. Yes, people die. But dying might be moved out a decade or two if drunks didn’t drive. “That’s the way it is” is actually callous and uncaring.
I think most supporters fully understood Trump’s meaning—Chinese built is out and government support of losing business entities. Since Trump has businesses overseas, I would assume he also understood that some businesses would be hurt. Those who opposed him had a different interpretation, of course.
“Air quality and climate change were framed as being extremely related issues.”” Therein is the big lie, Kristi.
So you admit the mayors had to lie to the people to get them to support their climate change measures.
And you are proud of it.
Climate Is Imaginary.
Climate Change Is Imaginary Cubed.
Ha ha
Maybe they could reframe it as ‘Goebbels Warming’.
‘Goebbels Warming’.
checked in.