Climate Reframer Mike Hulme: "We can actually only deal with climate through the human imagination."

Tree Planting
Tree planting or “reframed” climate action? By Dewi, CC BY-SA 2.0,

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:

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.”

Read more:

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 1, 2018 7:14 pm

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?

Reply to  Willem69
May 1, 2018 8:32 pm

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..

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 1:36 am

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.

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 3:17 am

The Death of American Democracy –…/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.

David Chappell
Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 4:13 am

@ 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”.

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 5:37 am

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)

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 5:47 am

OweninGA May 2, 2018 at 5:37 am
But these kind of corrections are required or the incorrect remark can become a mainstream belief.

May 1, 2018 7:14 pm

I’m curious about the photo.
Is that tree planting a forest of PLASTIC tubes? I sure HOPE not.

Reply to  Barbee
May 1, 2018 7:45 pm

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.

Reply to  KRM
May 1, 2018 7:59 pm

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Barbee
May 1, 2018 8:00 pm

With so many large holes in the ground to fill, plastic makes great landfill.

Pat Frank
Reply to  KRM
May 1, 2018 8:15 pm

The plastic tubes prevent deer from eating the saplings

Reply to  KRM
May 1, 2018 8:34 pm

Critters like the bark and will ring the tree. Killing it..

Leo Smith
Reply to  KRM
May 2, 2018 2:11 am

In a single word, deer.
If you fail to plant in plastic tubes, not a single tender young shoot will survive.
Been there.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  KRM
May 2, 2018 3:26 am

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.

David Chappell
Reply to  KRM
May 2, 2018 4:17 am

Given the nature of the terrain and the adjoining conifers, isn’t the planting density a wee bit too high for hardwood species?

Reply to  Barbee
May 1, 2018 11:29 pm

Having actually participated in some tree plantings, I often wonder if people return at some point to remove the plastic tubes.

Reply to  AllyKat
May 2, 2018 6:50 am

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.

Reply to  Barbee
May 2, 2018 12:37 am

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.

May 1, 2018 7:17 pm

If Mike Hume is sane, my name is Jonathan Livingston: wind turbine.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  Eric Coo
May 2, 2018 10:35 am

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.

Tom Halla
May 1, 2018 7:18 pm

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 2, 2018 5:48 am

I would also include referring to CO2 as “carbon”.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 2, 2018 1:18 pm

Or Carbon Pollution. Or creating a Clean Air Bill that taxes hydrocarbons.

May 1, 2018 7:20 pm

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.

Joel O'Bryan
May 1, 2018 7:24 pm

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.

R. Shearer
May 1, 2018 7:26 pm

We should imagine to quadruple our air travel and aspire to the use of private jets like Al Gore.

J Mac
May 1, 2018 7:29 pm

An imaginative solution for an imagined ‘problem’…. Imagine that!

Reply to  J Mac
May 1, 2018 7:45 pm


May 1, 2018 7:33 pm

… he suggests promoting climate action with “co-benefits”, convincing people to take climate action for reasons other than climate change.

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.

Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.

Reply to  commieBob
May 1, 2018 11:37 pm

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)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 4:01 am

What’s this “we” stuff?

Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 6:55 am

Sorry, game, the days of Goldwater conservatism are ovah! (like it or not, governments are here to stay)…

Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 9:22 am

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.

Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 9:23 am

BTW, if anyone can come up with a quote of Goldwater’s indicating that he wanted no government whatsoever, I would appreciate it.

Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 5:25 pm

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

Dave Fair
Reply to  afonzarelli
May 2, 2018 9:20 pm

I worked in government, I know government, …. Who the heck said something similar? Was it in denigration of somebody who spoke admirably about government?

Dave Fair
May 1, 2018 7:35 pm

What did Walt Disney call it? Imagineering?

May 1, 2018 7:36 pm

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

Reply to  Eric Coo
May 2, 2018 3:26 am

A very useful word: drivelous (comparative more drivelous, superlative most drivelous) Composed of drivel; nonsensical; meaningless; rubbish. Further reading .

May 1, 2018 7:38 pm

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.

JLC of Perth
Reply to  Eric Coo
May 2, 2018 5:24 am

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.

Reply to  Eric Coo
May 4, 2018 11:18 am

“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”.

May 1, 2018 8:00 pm

the climate change debate needs to be “more political and less scientific” …Mike Hulme

i don’t think that is possible.

Reply to  daveburton
May 1, 2018 11:45 pm

best (tie) sarcasm ever 😉

Ron Clutz
Reply to  daveburton
May 2, 2018 6:49 am

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.

Karl Baumgarten
May 1, 2018 8:03 pm

If it takes politics to validate your science, then your science has failed and you’ve become Michael Mann.

May 1, 2018 8:05 pm

Why do so many people have to be talked, coerced, tricked, and manipulated into believing in man made climate change.

Reply to  Latitude
May 1, 2018 8:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 1, 2018 9:08 pm

… where “very very hard” = impossible

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 1:37 am

@ 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.

Reply to  Phineas Sprague Jr.
May 2, 2018 3:34 am

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 .

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Latitude
May 1, 2018 9:06 pm

Because they’ve been coerced and manipulated into disbelieving it.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 9:11 pm

I hope that sounds smarter in your head than it does in mine.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 9:16 pm

In my small universe, I don’t know a single person who has not bought into “climate change” hook, line, and sinker.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 9:17 pm

(Pardon my mixed metaphor.)

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 11:51 pm

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.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 7:05 am

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.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 9:25 am

Do you actually have evidence for this claim this time?
Or is just what you have been told to believe?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 10:15 am

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?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 12:00 pm

UN Environment
UN Inquiry
Greening The Banking System, Sept., 2016
Re: SSE/Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative
More information on these topics on the internet.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 5:52 pm

‘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.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 6:00 pm

Re: Banking & Sustainability.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Barbara
May 2, 2018 9:22 pm

The only people who talk about sustainability are those who have never been responsible for bringing in results.

Mickey r
Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 4, 2018 8:14 am

Jeez, that sounds NOTHING like a brainwashed sock-puppet response.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 4, 2018 8:16 am

Sorry, hit the Enter key before I had finished typing my name. Mickey r is Mickey Reno.

Javert Chip
May 1, 2018 8:09 pm

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”).

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 1, 2018 8:52 pm

A confederacy of dunces.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 1, 2018 9:13 pm


David Chappell
Reply to  Menicholas
May 2, 2018 10:08 pm

Or, perhaps, a consensus of dunces?

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 2, 2018 5:54 am

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).

May 1, 2018 8:12 pm

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.
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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  pat
May 2, 2018 8:54 am

What the hell is environmental humanities?

May 1, 2018 8:14 pm

“If local government money is spent on rebadged climate action”

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

‘My colleagues and I did a survey of over 200 local governments in 11 states of the Great Plains”

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.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 1, 2018 11:49 pm

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.

Reply to  AllyKat
May 2, 2018 4:16 am

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.

Reply to  AllyKat
May 2, 2018 10:10 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ATheoK
May 2, 2018 10:45 am

“a more important policy is to keep one’s mouth shut.” The first (only?) rule of the bureaucrat.
Do NOT disagree with your masters.

May 1, 2018 8:18 pm

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

May 1, 2018 8:33 pm

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.

Lance of BC
May 1, 2018 8:53 pm

Bwaaahahahahahah!!!!! Really…. Imagine?!

You’re lost mike.

Reply to  Lance of BC
May 2, 2018 6:51 am

Imagination is all these people have. Reality scares the daylights out of them.

May 1, 2018 8:55 pm

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.

Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 9:05 pm

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.”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 2, 2018 5:58 am

Don’t bother with it. Kristi is a solid left wing liberal socialist who lives by reframing to hide their real agenda.

J Mac
Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 1, 2018 10:34 pm

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’?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 12:11 am

“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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  paqyfelyc
May 2, 2018 6:01 am

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.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 6:26 am

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!

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 6:56 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 9:00 am

“Air quality and climate change were framed as being extremely related issues.”” Therein is the big lie, Kristi.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 2, 2018 9:28 am

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.

May 1, 2018 9:17 pm

Climate Is Imaginary.
Climate Change Is Imaginary Cubed.
Ha ha

May 1, 2018 9:55 pm

We can actually only deal with climate through the human imagination.

Maybe they could reframe it as ‘Goebbels Warming’.

Reply to  Greg F
May 2, 2018 12:00 am

‘Goebbels Warming’.
checked in.

Santa Baby
May 1, 2018 10:15 pm

They are lying about a big lie?

May 1, 2018 10:41 pm

If there were any other good reasons, the hysterical alarmism wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.

May 1, 2018 10:48 pm

Perhaps you should see this as a weasel way to save the alarmist self-esteem AND doing something for the environment – the actual felt-image of envronmentalists. Clean the air amd water – both left and right onside!
Forget CO2. Reduce particulate emissions.
Maybe this is a stealthly slide to sanity.

Reply to  douglasproctor
May 2, 2018 5:59 am

The problem is the studies on PM didn’t say what they wanted, so they had to fudge that too. The problem is they want control and don’t care how badly they have to mangle the truth to get it.

J Mac
May 1, 2018 11:32 pm

May 2018 is the 50th anniversary of Paul Ehrlich’s profoundly wrong environmental flatulence tome know as “The Population Bomb”, published in 1968. He predicted that hundreds of millions of humans would die of starvation during the 1970’s, due to overpopulation of the planet. He assured the world that 65 million of those poor starving bastards would be US residents. Like the current prophesiers of AGW-induced Doom, he was catastrophically, beyond ‘dumb ass’, wrong.
While starvation was a non-issue in the US, nearly 8 million US children did die between 1970 and 1980, legally killed by abortion. From the Center for Disease Control’s on-line data, I calculate 7,977,621 abortions in that time frame.
‘Reframe’ that juxtaposition, socialist scientists!

Reply to  J Mac
May 2, 2018 12:39 am

How Ehrlich has the impertinence to lecture the World today after his laughably bad predictions I don’t know. Has he no shame at all?

Reply to  Graemethecat
May 2, 2018 1:52 am

Ah yes, but you see, he sucessfully warned the world, and thereby saved it—no FAIL!
He’s a hero, just ask him, he’ll tell you. Now please volunteer to pay for his smoked rift valey flamingo dinner, it’s the least you can do.

May 1, 2018 11:45 pm

If people do not buy into the whole CAGW thing, then they are not supporting measures because it is supposedly going to massively affect CO2 levels or whatever. I can think of plenty of reasons to support a city park that have nothing to do with supposed climate mitigation or whatever claims they are trying to make. The fact that a person wants a park does not mean that they believe in CAGW and just don’t know it! *eye roll*
Sounds like people are trying to muscle in and take credit, as well as claiming greater influence than they actually have. The stupid thing is that their own “math” condemns them. Even if you assume they are right, and WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, the math shows that there will be no measurable effect from any actions taken. Period. So even if you buy the CAGW crap, just give up, stop trying to claim anything you are doing is accomplishing anything temperature-related, and join the sane people in trying to improve things where needed, and maintain things everywhere else.

Reply to  AllyKat
May 2, 2018 12:16 am


Reply to  AllyKat
May 2, 2018 4:08 am

“Sounds like people are trying to muscle in and take credit, as well as claiming greater influence than they actually have. ” Exactly. If something is working properly, don’t make excuses for being off with your solution. Take credit for what you didn’t do instead.

peanut gallery
May 2, 2018 12:23 am

From the pic, it appears that someone is gonna be over run with bamboo when those stalks take root. Horrible nuisance plant, almost as bad as kudzu.

May 2, 2018 12:41 am

Reframing? A sensible example would have been to point out that encouraging renewables would mean we weren’t importing fossil fuels, mostly in the form of oil, and in return sending bagfuls of money to nations and regimes who basically hate the western way of life, such as Saudi Arabia.
By the same criteria fracking would prevent the need for oil imports, but few countries other than America have grasped that nettle. A wasted reframing opportunity

Reply to  climatereason
May 2, 2018 12:58 am

Fracking my friend is going to cause very long term negatives consequences for the American nation in terms of environmental damage to underground water systems and health-related diseases. Why else do you think the EU 28 countries have rejected it, despite their being oil and gas resources on their sovereign territories?

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 1:28 am

Because the EU 28 have signed up to the various climate protocols for the last 20 years and the various climate advisers, lobby groups and leaders are very green. The official view (true or not) is therefore that Fracking causes pollution and environmental damage and only substitutes one form of fossil fuel for another.

Reply to  climatereason
May 2, 2018 1:40 am

I believe it is because the average EU citizen is very well aware of the downsides to fracking. There were numerous ground level protests – citizen-led initiatives – that put pressure on governments to reject fracking initiatives

Tom Halla
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 7:34 am

Ivan, you are ignoring the effects of Russian propaganda on the anti-fracking movement. While Gazprom is not the origin, RT and other media outlets spread the discreditable claims of the greens on the health effects. The US EPA under Obama, not inclined to overlook anything that would favor the greens in general, could not find any credible health risks from fracking.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 7:59 am

Ivankinsman, you show your ignorance with that comment. The typical shale formation is several thousand feet underground; else it would not have reached the catagenesis oil/gas window. That is the problem with the near surface/surface Green River kerogen shale. The vertical well portions are double cased for the first ~1000 feet precisely to protect any fresh groundwater aquifers. The fracking takes place only within the horizontal portion of the well inside the shale deep underground. Those hydraulically induced fractures are minute, propped open with sand, and extend radially usually not more than a few dozen feet.

Reply to  ristvan
May 2, 2018 10:31 am

According to GREENPEACE you are completely wrong – several cases have been recorded in several states of groundwater contamination:

Tom Halla
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 10:59 am

Citing Greenpeace is exactly parallel to citing Alex Jones or RT.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 2, 2018 11:23 am

Nope. Well respected organisation known for its enviromental initiatives, except it seems on WUWT.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 12:14 pm

One of its own founders asserts it is wacky, Ivan.
Once anti-nuclear went nowhere, Greenpeace branched out into all forms of environmental extremism in the attempt to stay relevant and garner donations. Science is not their heavy suit.

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 2, 2018 11:10 pm

As usual you choose to go after the messenger and ignore the message when the facts do not suit your narrative:
“Even worse, the oil and gas industry has no idea what to do with the massive amount of contaminated water it’s creating. Fracking fluids and waste have made their  way into our drinking water and aquifers. Fracking has already been linked to drinking water contamination in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, Wyoming, New York, and West Virginia.
An EPA draft report released in 2015 found more than 150 instances of groundwater contamination due to shale drilling and fracking.”

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 9:32 am

Fracking does not threaten ground water. The fact that you have bought into this lie as well is not surprising.
The EU operates on politics, not science. The people of the EU have little to no say in how their union is run.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2018 10:15 am

The chemicals used in fracking do penetrate into groundwater. To say they do not is an unfounded lie and you know it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 10:48 am

Prove it, Ivan. Anecdotal crap is just that.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 12:18 pm

There’s been a grand total of one case, and that was because the storage pond on the surface leaked.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2018 1:56 pm

I remember reading this article some time ago and thought I would share it with you:

Dave Fair
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 3:12 pm

Couldn’t get audio, Ivan, but it appears to be the typical enviro-catastrophic meme. “Those trucks and oil wells will destroy our world.” “I get headaches and nose-bleeds every time I think of it.”

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 2, 2018 10:29 pm

Straight from the horse’s mouth about the negatives of tracking (fracking advocates of course just talk up the positives such as independent energy source blah blah blah).

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2018 3:04 pm

Had Luddites such as Ivan held sway throughout history, there wouldn’t been have much (history).

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 3, 2018 9:24 am

You are aware that hydraulic fracking has been used since 1948, in more than a million cases, including quite a few in Europe, and nobody found the slightest problem until it was changed from chemical gel to slickwater and was combined with directional drilling and thereby suddenly killed off “Peak Oil”- Then it became a big problem. Not environmentally but to environmental organizations.

Reply to  climatereason
May 2, 2018 6:05 am


I believe it is because the average EU citizen is very well aware of the downsides to fracking. There were numerous ground level protests – citizen-led initiatives – that put pressure on governments to reject fracking initiatives

I think what you meant was:

I believe it is because the average EU citizen has been very thoroughly propagandized on the green position on fracking and mistake that propaganda for knowledge. They then take that self-righteous “knowledge” to do what the green activists ordered in the political arena.

fixed it for you.

May 2, 2018 12:54 am

This idea of reframing sounds like a very good idea to me. When people hear or read about climate change they sometimes feel rather powerless to do anything about it. This is instead focusing on concrete initiatives people can implement. A good example is Queen Elizabeth II who is promoting forest planting in all the Commonwealth countries to create a kind of linked canopy.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 1:30 am

Yes, that’s a good initiative. Everyone likes trees.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 6:37 am

Define ‘climate change,’ as in “When people hear or read about climate change they sometimes feel rather powerless to do anything about it.”

Reply to  Gamecock
May 2, 2018 10:17 am

AGW and its impact on the climate.

Reply to  Gamecock
May 2, 2018 12:20 pm

Starting when? The current temperature is still well below the temperature of the last 3 warm periods and cooler than 90% of the last 10K years.

J Mac
Reply to  Gamecock
May 2, 2018 5:54 pm

Gamecock and MarkW,
There you guys go again! Confusing comrade ivan with facts…..

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 2, 2018 9:34 am

If the people don’t buy the first lie, try a second one.

Leo Smith
May 2, 2018 2:14 am

We can only deal with ‘climate’ as opposed to average global temperatures and precipitation, through the imagination, because that’s the only place it actually exists.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 2, 2018 3:56 am

Thanks Leo, just what I’ve said quite a few times.
How does temperature equate to climate. or rainfall. or windiness. or sunshine hours
A person, any person, all persons, record ‘climate by visiting a place and spending time there (needn’t be long) out-of-doors.
There are 7 billion (and counting) ‘climates’ on the world
My old haunt (North Cumbria) provided a lovely proof of that.
Just 3 or 4 miles up the road from my farm lay the English Civil Parish of Bewcastle.
It held 2 distinctions:
It the largest by area of any civil parish within England
It had the lowest population of any civil parish.
Because it had a crap climate. west facing, effectively inland and sheltered from the Gulf Stream, clay soil, lots of marshy ground growing Juncus Effusus and permanently damp. grey and miserable.
As witnessed by Cumbrian damp weather exploding my blood-sugar levels when I’d been working outdoors on a New Years Day
Compounded by what is seen in the English Lake District 40 miles to the south of there.
The Lakes have THE most expensive hotels in all of England.
Political Correctness, one-up-man-ship, romantic notions whatever etc etc, everybody wants to go there but nobody wants to live there.
(Lake District = home to England’s rainiest weather station and Scotland’s wettest (Eskdalemuir) is barely 50 miles north of the (approximate) centre of the Lakes)
It is a minor puzzle – does all the rain make The Lakes or are The Lakes causing all the rain?
Equatorial Rainforest style as it were.

May 2, 2018 4:31 am

There was a very silly movie a few years ago (when I still had a working TV) with the title “When the OIl Runs Out”. It was a panic-stricken disaster movie about gas at the pump no longer available, people shooting each other over a place in line, etc. A huge mistake in guesstimating the volume of an oil discovery. I watched this colossally idiotic (Gore-type) movie and realized that the producers had never spent more than an hour outside their homes or offices, probably because BUGS!!!! or POLLEN!!! or whatever.
I guess they missed the self-sufficiency of the Amish and homesteaders who don’t rely on such things. It was laughable. It was a few years ahead of the Gorebull panic movie. Now I wonder if there was a connection I missed.
I thought it was priceless that the producers said that crude oil came from dinosaur carcasses somewhere in that movie.
Well, some day – and likely not in my lifetime – the oil probably will run out, but we’re clever enough to come up with other solutions, aren’t we? We’re already on that path now. And since trees do help reduce flooding and soil erosion to a certain extent, planting trees is always a good idea.
The real problem is this helter-skelter approach to things. “Reframing” is another way of saying “I’m stealing that idea and taking credit for it”.
The best thing to do is clean up after ourselves, especially after those “climate protest rallies” which seem to attract a lot of trash afterwards – piles of it. If we could just put that trash to good use, something like burning it to create plant food (CO2) and ashes for fertilizer (potassium, phosphates, etc.) which could be bagged and sold to local gardeners. Stuff like that.
I think I’d have a small modicum of respect for people who mean well, if they came up with some practical stuff. But they don’t.

Reply to  Sara
May 2, 2018 9:36 am

The biggest stupidity is the belief that oil will run out suddenly.
One day we have it, the next day it’s gone. Completely.
The reality is that oil will run out slowly over many decades, gradually increasing in price so that we have time to reduce demand and introduce alternatives.

Peta of Newark
May 2, 2018 4:35 am

Just wow.
We are trapped in a Magical Thought Bubble.
A lot like a Medieval castle. Strong self fortified place from where it is (relatively) safe to launch projectiles.
Be they arrows, cannonballs or Ad-Homs.
(Oh Noe!!!! Is that where the Crusades went wrong – they didn’t throw sufficient insults at the Muslims)
U iz = Tiny Baby
Diet is (should be) a well proportioned mix of animal protein and (animal) saturated fat with very little sugar (carbohydrate)
As should be provided by your birth-mother or a Wet Nurse if she will not or can not.
Do we take that as a hint as to what out adult diet should comprise.
If not, why not?
(And I DO NOT want to hear that its because ‘someone else’ told you what to eat. Folks living inside Thought Bubbles do that)
Fast forward to England during WW2 – rationing and a time when folks were regarded as ‘never been more healthy’
The daily ration:
880 cals from protein
520 cals from saturated fat (very little vegetable fat was to be had)
310 cals from carbohydrate
No heart-attacks.
Few strokes except in the very elderly
Next to no cancer
No diabetes apart from Type 1
How many auto-immune disorders (There are easily 200+ diagnosable now)
What about Alzheimers and dementia back then. Did folks spend the last 5,7 or 10 years of their lives living as a cross between a cabbage and a new-born?
Compare to now – 2200 cals per day
11% from protein =240 cals and even then, easily half that is vegetable protein.
The rest comes from sugar and vegetable fat
So. Now tally the deaths from cancers, fatal auto-immune disorders, strokes and other cardio-vascular, obesity and diabetic complications. Is Alzheimers a cause of fatality or do any other other thing get you?
Got it now?
Ehrlich’s prediction is actually playing out and then some.
We are in a starvation situation.
We are starved of animal protein and animal fat – as recommended by our birth-mothers (in-loco Ma Nature) and it is killing us in droves.
There is a thought along the Gaia lines in that The Plants are in protection or defence mode.
They have sensed the attack upon them (from huge numbers of us eating them) and are working to reduce our number.
Plants being plants though, have to go about it in the most subtle and undetectable way they can.
And they’ve got it – they go in via the Reward System built into our own brains.
We actually seek out the poison and actively consume it.
It makes us happy – so what could possibly go wrong?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 2, 2018 6:08 am

You left out sedentary life styles of TV watching, video game playing and using virtual experiences as a substitute for going out and doing it. And of course your one size fits all diet doesn’t make sense for everyone.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 2, 2018 9:41 am

“they didn’t throw sufficient insults at the Muslims”
The leadership of Turkey is demanding that the EU make all criticisms of Islam illegal.
Given the linguine spined nature of the EU leadership, I’m pretty sure they will comply.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2018 12:09 pm

The EU already has. Have you not heard of hate speech laws/regulations, Mark?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 2, 2018 9:41 am

You left out that anything coming from plants, whether’s it is broccoli or wheat, is a carbohydrate.
You should also add to that a warning to immediately stop drinking anything that has aspartame as a sweetener. I cut Diet Coke off my grocery list about 2 years ago and I have since then lost 40+ pounds of real weight, as I found when I went to get my flu shot last fall. And I didn’t starve myself, either. I don’t waste money on what is called junk food.

michael hart
May 2, 2018 6:00 am

I’ve nothing against Hulme saying that policies should be argued on their merits, not on climate (twaddle). That is what most skeptics argue for. He often says some sensible things, but somehow seems unable to take the next step and ditch the global-warming spiel from the second part of the sentence. He wants to have his climate-cake and eat it.

May 2, 2018 6:09 am

he suggests promoting climate action with “co-benefits”
Here ya go, Mr Hulme, when it’s cold, put on your coat, when it’s warm, take it off.

Dave Anderson
May 2, 2018 7:32 am

“planting forests that protect catchments and provide shade”
At the same time, in some places, forests are being clear cut to set up solar cells.

May 2, 2018 7:39 am

It sounds like no regrets solutions. For instance, restoring grasslands for the medium term. If the sale is about emphasis, I don’t see the problem.

Hokey Schtick
May 2, 2018 9:05 am

“My personal and professional opinion”. Who gives a rats about your so-called opinions? Oooh, my professional opinion. Everybody take cover, bloke here’s got an opinion. So important, your opinion.

May 2, 2018 10:10 am

Hulme didn’t bother to notice U.S. life expectancy falling from insurance-provided opioid deaths. It took open minds to find and report that.

May 2, 2018 10:28 am

Climate itself is an imaginary constructed in an attempt to understand the billion year planetary history within human lifespan. A thirty year timespan is asinine when some cycles affecting the weather have timespans at least twice that. Even worse is that reliable measurements are limited to the last 50 years.

Joel Snider
May 2, 2018 12:25 pm

We can only deal with climate change through human imagination?
Boy, I’ve been citing an entire generation living in virtual reality for a long time, now – it’s almost amazing to see it spoken so openly – and blithely.
This is what they meant by the term ‘flake’ – the inability to deal with the here and now.

john cooknell
May 2, 2018 1:42 pm

Nothing new in framing Climate Change as a thing to be dealt with by the mechanisms/politics/religion used by human society. It was happening in 1661.
Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.
House Of Lords 11th jan 1662
The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach.
¶Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled.
Samuel Pepys 15 jan 1662
fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day

May 2, 2018 2:08 pm

This reminds me of the scene in Woodstock where the hippie crowd are exhorted to direct their thoughts towards the sky. “No rain” they shout, flexing their muscles at their newly found mystical new age powers. Segue to the torrential downpour.

Dave Fair
Reply to  BallBounces
May 2, 2018 3:14 pm

They should have pleaded with the CO2 Gods, Ball.

May 3, 2018 9:53 am

Professor Mike Hulme was the founding Director of the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in 2000. Under his leadership, the Tyndall Centre introduced Social Science into the business of implanting the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming into the Public Consciousness:
“Global Warming – The Social Construction Of A Quasi-Reality”
From the Tyndall mission statement in 2000:
Tyndall Centre wishes to –
“exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy”.
integrate scientific and social disciplines in promoting the idea of dangerous climate change and to stimulate public policy initiatives on energy and transport.
motivate society into an acceptance of the catastrophic perception of climate change and to impart the view that it, (society), has the ability, but needs the willingness to “choose our future climate”.
A Tyndall Briefing Note No. 16 November 2006 commented on the role of the media in “getting the message out”, but Hulme was now having doubts about the very catastrophism he and his institute had promoted.
“It is apparent that the vast uncertainties associated with climate modelling necessitate a wide range of possibilities, the extremities of which produce fertile ground for sensational reporting.
However, whilst this ‘creaming’ of scientific results for attention-grabbing headlines is a boon for interest groups, sceptics and politicians alike, our understanding of its effect upon the lay observer is lacking due to the absence of any kind of detailed investigation.
There is, however, growing concern that the social construction of the issue of climate change and its amplification by normative communication channels may be acting to distance or even remove much of the lay public from a point at which they feel they can take action.”
He enlarged upon it in a BBC interview:
“Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions?
…the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes – the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.
…the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.
The Exeter conference of February 2005 on “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” served the government’s purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of “climate change is worse than we thought” news reporting and group-think. ”
“By stage-managing the new language of catastrophe, the conference itself became a tipping point in the way that climate change is discussed in public.”
He became notorious for a short time for his exposition of “Post-Normal Science”
“Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.
But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights