NYT: “Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China”

Propaganda photograph of detainees listening to speeches in a Uighur re-education camp in Lop County, Xinjiang, April 2017. From an article titled “用情感敲开心灵大门 用说理舒缓群众情绪”, published by the wechat MP platform account “Xinjiang Juridical Administration”, via baidu baijiahao platform archive https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1564669932542581Original image creator: 牙生, Fair use, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the New York Times, China has to step in as the global climate champion because President Trump.

Trump Is Unwilling to Tackle Climate Change. China Must Step Up.

China can do more. The planet depends on it.

By Daniel K. Gardner
Professor Gardner is the author of “Environmental Pollution in China: What Everyone Needs to Know.”
Dec. 10, 2018

With the Trump administration unwilling to confront climate change, the world needs a more deeply committed China. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the present rate, by 2040, coastlines will be inundated, droughts and floods will intensify and food shortages will be widespread. So the world is facing an immense challenge, made much more difficult by an American president who believes coal, oil and gas are the fuels that will drive America’s return to greatness.

Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China. Political leaders and scientific experts there agree that the planet is warming, that the warming is owing to human activity, that China is responsible for much of it, and that the country is already experiencing its effects, including glacier retreat in the Qinghai-Tibet region and drought in the Hai, Yellow and Huai river areas.

For one, it [China] must stop financing and building coal-fired power plants around the world. China has made reducing coal production and consumption a high priority at home, but Chinese energy companies are behind more than 200 new coal-fired power plants around the world that are either planned or under construction. Fighting a “war on pollution” and calling for “building an ecological civilization” at home while promoting the use of dirty coal in less developed countries makes China look hypocritical, even colonial. Instead, Beijing can and should be exporting the renewable energy technology that it has been so aggressively developing. With this clean energy, underdeveloped countries could leapfrog the outworn development model that sacrifices environmental well-being for economic growth.

We live in a world in which global mistrust of China is widespread, and with ample reason: the military buildup in the South China Sea, the mass internment of Uighurs, human rights abuses, the disregard for intellectual property rights and more. But that mistrust shouldn’t blind us to the reality that in fighting climate change, the nations of the world are on the same side. We should cheer China on whenever it takes steps to reduce carbon emissions — especially as the Trump administration sits by idly.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opinion/china-trump-climate-change.html

Al Jazeera accuses China of holding a million Uighurs in brutal concentration camps.

War could break out at any moment in the South China Sea, thanks to China’s aggressive pursuit of absurd claims that they own the South China Sea.

The Chinese government has repeatedly demonstrated utter contempt for international norms, such as when they recently arrested the head of Interpol, possibly because he refused to issue international arrest warrants against Chinese dissidents.

But greens like Professor Gardner seem willing to overlook these provocations, abuses and crimes against humanity, if China provides a firm commitment to help reduce global CO2 emissions.

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “NYT: “Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China”

  1. …Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China. ….For one, it [China] must stop financing and building coal-fired power plants around the world. China has made reducing coal production and consumption a high priority at home, but Chinese energy companies are behind more than 200 new coal-fired power plants around the world that are either planned or under construction…

    Doesn’t sound as if they need one…

      • Latitude

        They just say they do. Whilst watching the rest of the world making tits of themselves.

        “Amelicans and Engrish; Austrarians, Flench and German gleens…….all sirry plicks!”

        • They made a fortune off us selling fry daddys and windmills…

          ..then turn around and spend $trillions building islands lower than New York

          They don’t believe in sea level rise either

          • Maybe the UN should have some reeducation camps for the Chinese government officials? But hey, they’re gullible enough to believe in CACC so is anyone surprised they believe that China cares about it? It’s only a matter of time before decent working people rise up against the fascist climate believers like the French. Sad..

      • Latitude:Nor in denier movements!!! It was certainly hard to spot a denier in the re-education camp photo.

        Their can be no doubt there is a neurosis affecting a very large number of people who aren’t scientists but who zealously, on say-so, and with no resevation apparently support this ’cause’ as it is revealingly known among core climate science dangerous warming proponents.

        Certainly some are simply gullible. Many actually want a neomarxbrothers quiet revolution regardless of climate. Many, like similar innumerate folk on both sides of the question are divided by id*eology, but aggressive zealots, pushing to destroy the only economic engine that works (even China is on board with capitalism and they are good at it) and to replace democracies with an unelected, UN/Eurocentric government is symptomatic of being unwell.

      • But they do believe in play-acting as if they did, in order to sell the Western world their cheap solar panels.

          • Actually ALL of the value added to anything is ENERGY. Think it through. It is a tautology. Even the information necessary to create the wealth is formed from energy. Wealth, being any thing that may be possessed.

          • Bill,
            In the past, most of the value added to raw materials was labor. The fraction of labor has been on a consistently downward trend since the start of the Industrial Revolution. The failure to recognize this will lead to the downfall of economies that inflate the cost of energy for no other tangible purpose than virtue signaling.

          • indeed co2isnoteveil, however when you boil it down to absurd levels, what is labor but the expenditure of human energy? And China has plenty of cheap human energy/labor as well as the ability to expend more traditional thought of forms of energy (of the fossil fuel variety) and they don’t much care about working conditions (for their human energy/labor) or environmental conditions (for the traditional thought of forms of energy). And yet leftists are looking to them to be the climate leaders of the world.

          • ..;and in Western Industrial economies, mandatory “Compliance” costs across every aspect of production. Compliance is cheaper in China but despite cheaper labour and compliance they are no longer a low cost country and that doesn’t auger well for improvement in China’s environmental management practices.

      • UN DESA

        News: 5 December 2018

        UN DESA & GEIDCO at COP24

        GEIDCO is a Chinese organization launched c. March. 2016.

        Re: global electric grid interconnections.

        http://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/sustainable/un-desa-at-cop24.html

        UN Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 1 Nov., 2017.

        High Level Meeting: grid connections.

        UN Secretary General & GEIDCO.
        http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=13&nr=2541&menu=1634

        UN & GEIDCO. Includes photo.

        China Daily, 2017-06-02

        “Power giants expand grid projects”

        GEIDCO and global grid connections.
        http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-06/02/content_29585964.htm

        Also on the internet.

    • Actually the number is much higher than 200…it was 1600 last year. I know plans change based on revised forecasts but I doubt the cancelled 1400 planned coal plants.

    • Then there is this

      We live in a world in which global mistrust of China is widespread, and with ample reason: the military buildup in the South China Sea, the mass internment of Uighurs, human rights abuses, the disregard for intellectual property rights and more. But that mistrust shouldn’t blind us to the reality that in fighting climate change, the nations of the world are on the same side. We should cheer China on whenever it takes steps to reduce carbon emissions — especially as the Trump administration sits by idly.

      Back in the late 1930’s (WWII) it could also have been written…

      We live in a world in which global mistrust of Germany is widespread, and with ample reason: the military buildup in Poland and along the French border, the mass internment of Jews, human rights abuses, the disregard for personal property rights and more. But that mistrust shouldn’t blind us to the reality that in fighting a greater evil, the nations of the world should be on the same side. We should cheer Germany on whenever it takes steps to reduce their perceived global evil — especially as the Roosevelt administration sits by idly.

      (With due respect to those who lost their lives to Fascism during WWII)

    • A restatement of Thomas Friedman’s affirmation of totalitarian rule. No unpleasant political opponents to derail enlightened government policy!

    • The NYT as usual misleading and dishonest since China has no intention of reducing emissions, already produce more by far than anyone else:

      China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#5dab7c4a628c

      America has stopped increasing their CO2 emissions while China continues to increase theirs although at a much slower pace than before.

  2. China will gladly be the climate change champion. They are all for western countries hobbling their economies now while China promise to reduce their own CO2 output decades in the future (after many years of increasing their CO2 while the west destroys itself)

    • But they’re so weak and struggling economically, (cough, not, cough). They have to have the billions in global welfare as they build hundreds more coal plants and the UN smiles as they buy their low cost goods from them.

    • China have also managed to remove all human rights from the COP24 rulebook which will make all the greenies idea of taking international legal action based on human rights dead in the water. I guess the last thing China wanted was global human rights which would override it’s sovereignty. Ultimately they will be the largest emitter and probably view such clauses would ultimately cause them problem.

      • Funny that a regime with such a sterling human rights record as China would be against including human rights in the rulebook. Who would have thought! (needless to say /sarc)

  3. The utter foolishness of these profs never ceases to amaze me. China is building coal plants around the world because they’re profitable, which is all that matters to them. China is discouraging some coal in the area of Beijing because their callous disregard for any environmental values at all led them to the point where breathing the air in Beijing is on many days equivalent to smoking 3 packs of cigarettes, and they had to do something. (much like many pre-WW2 heavily industrialized American cities)

    The only interest the Chinese have ever had in “global warming” has been the glee they get from watching their competitors shoot themselves in the foot, while they pay lip service to something they all laugh about behind closed doors. And this prof is fool enough to not realize any of that.

    • Basically the same kinds of people who couldn’t stop singing the praises of Soviet Communism right up till the iron curtain fell.

      ~¿~

    • I’ve been to Beijing. The air pollution there is beyond anything Americans have *ever* seen, including even the bad old days when New York City’s air was dark brown by 3:00 p.m. every day. For the Times to say America should look to China for leadership on pollution has got to set some kind of world record for pointy-headed liberals saying stupid things.

    • WWS

      “…breathing the air in Beijing is on many days equivalent to smoking 3 packs of cigarettes,”

      Don’t believe everything you hear from Berkeley. There has never been a day in Beijing that was the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes, let alone three.

      There is a paper from Berkeley giving the infantile calculation of the “equivalent of smoking a cigarette” and they claim it is 33 micrograms per cubic metre of air. A person inhales about 18 cu m a day. That means 33*18 = 594 micrograms or 0.54 milligrams is supposed to equal smoking one cigarette.

      In fact a person smoking 1 cigarette inhales 45,000 micrograms. So the Berkeley figure, which is widely used to create scares about inhaling air in Beijing (which I do regularly) is exaggerated by a factor of (45000/594) = 75 and the “alarming claim” about Beijing is exaggerated by a factor of 225.

      Is anyone surprised by this level of deceit? No. It is similar to the exaggeration of other aspects of “environmentalism”. Such claims are a disgrace to the serious work done by real environmentalists.

      • Indeed. But regardless of the scare hype about cigarette equivalents, the point made is otherwise a good one. Any reduction in coal use around the big Chinese cities is in response to the high levels of real pollutants in the air of those cities and not anything to do with CO2.

  4. …Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China. …”

    It just occurred to me that what this Prof *Really* meant to say was “…Fortunately, there is no Free Speech allowed China. …”

    which is his real goal, of course.

    • wws

      ……….there is no climate change denier movement in China

      Probably because no self respecting Chinaman believes in AGW.

      If there’s no alarmist movement, by definition, there can’t be a denier movement.

  5. The real chuckle is that the absence of climate skepticism in China would be unremarkable since there would be government re-education camps if it went against government policy. I would imagine the New York Times, and the left in general, would welcome such government action here. The popular CAGW movement is about authoritarian dogma after all.

      • …and yet they impose an intellectual prison through their own hate and stupidity on themselves!

        Is this the best “fruits” Western academia can produce?

        • I’m tempted to make a politically incorrect comment about what the best “fruits” western academia can produce are. But I’ll refrain 😉

    • “authoritarian dogma” has reach a new level within Google:
      Search ‘radiative greenhouse gas effect theory’ with Google and you get censured results with only AWG supporting pages (from what I could tell).
      Search ‘RGHE theory’ with Google and you get results based on ‘theory’ with NO radiative greenhouse gas effect theory results or climate results.
      Change the search engine to duckduckgo or dogpile, ‘RGHE theory’ and ‘radiative greenhouse gas effect theory’ searches produces pages of results with AWG and skeptics pages or as this is known to most everyone as UNCENSORED results or raw results or offensive to those of the AWG bent.

      • But, but, Google’s CEO just testified to congress that they don’t censor anything. I hope someone did an actual search for everyone to see how much of a liar that flaming lib is. But, since it was government, you know they didn’t have the foresight to.

        • Yeah, and the hell of it is, there was a democrat senator demanding that they START censoring – just as long as they censor ‘right-wing’ stuff.

          The reason you can’t write this stuff is because in a fictional story, it would be so obvious as to be contrived.

  6. “Fortunately, there is no climate change denier industry in China.”

    Where on earth is there one?

  7. “Climate Change Denier Movement”

    I didn’t know there was such a thing. I never see any meeting notices posted. I’ve yet to get a flyer tucked under the windshield wiper on my car. Is there a secret handshake I need to learn?

    If there really is a Climate Change Denier Movement, they need to up their game.

  8. OMG.

    Then there is this from the NYT (news week link) about who the free world’s threat nations really are:

    https://www.newsweek.com/us-saudi-arabia-russia-new-axis-evil-paul-krugman-climate-change-1252445

    I wonder what the NYT’s lead staff daily “let’s get down to business and save this world meeting” is like, over coffee and bagels. I would love to see the action items that come out of it and the weekly work assignments for the diligent staff ! The Time’s civil burden for the future of humanity is monumental in scope.

  9. There’s no ‘climate change denier movement’ in China because no-one there gives a crap about ‘climate change’ except to the extent that it allows them to steal manufacturing jobs from the West.

    How dumb are these people?

  10. China has a REAL pollution problem that needs to be addressed rather quickly if the leadership wishes to maintain credibility. At least part of that is Coal PGSs that a less clean than they could be.

    Screw CO2, it’s the least of China’s problems

  11. Isn’t the phrase “climate change denial” a denial of global warming? And a denial of the “consensus science” before that; global cooling? Deniers trying to ridicule other people as deniers? Hilarious.

    • damp,

      ‘Climate change denier’ is just an epithet used as cover to avoid justifying otherwise unsupportable positions.

      Alarmists calling skeptics deniers is classic psychological projection as so many alarmists consistently deny that first principles physics applies to the climate system as many also deny that a scientific controversy even exists.

      • Thank you, co2isnotevil. As the esteemed Dr. Feynman said, “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

        It seems that all real scientific progress is built on the denial of earlier scientific consensus.

  12. The Chinese have a long history of drinking the West’s flavor of the day “suicide kool-aid” Mao douched them with Marxist-Leninism. His 1958-62 ‘great leap forward’ starved 40 million to death. Historians call it the great famine nowadays. The ‘club of rome’ ideas were adopted with full vigor and the Chinese decimated their own national morality and demographic with the suicidal one-child-per-family. So yes, NYT, be hopeful, get Lucy to tee up the football and see if China can be conned one more time into proving the futility of modulating atmospheric CO2 is insane.

    • Well, it seems that the Chinese leadership learned their lesson this time, not that they will ever admit it. Their disasterous past experiences are probably why they don’t believe in a climate catastrophe.

  13. “Climate Change Denier” — that piece of utter-crap label again !

    One. … More. … Time: NO SUCH CREATURE EXISTS !! [Yes, I’m yelling this time]

    Dear writers,

    Stop using this phrase now. You understand the language, right? You see the words, right? You know the meanings of the individual words, right? Now put ’em together and THINK — what does this combination of words actually mean ?

    • Robert, your frustration arises from an assumption that there are some people who believe there are those who deny the climate changes. But Professor Gardner is not ignorant of the language nor does he believe there are people who deny that the climate changes. Professor Gardner is speaking the language of power and control. He wants his ‘tribe’ to run the world. History is very clear on how to start the journey to that power and control. You must first have a noble cause, and then have an enemy.

      It is not necessary for the enemy to be real, or guilty of what you say. Reality will always get in the way of the creation of a ‘good’ enemy, because no one is really evil enough to evoke the emotional response in your followers that you desire. So the opposition must be literally ‘demonized’, that is, ‘made to appear to be an actual, life-threatening demon’! Coupled with a noble cause, the demonization process is a powerful tool in bending the masses to your whim; gaining power and control.

      There is no reason to be frustrated with Professor Gardner’s apparent ignorance. He is not ignorant. Instead, you should be terrified that he and all those who use the phrase ‘climate change denier’, are trying to turn you into a demon-threat in the eyes of the masses; the equivalent of a 1930s German Jew, or an early 1990s Rwandan Tutsi.

      Genocide is not the goal. The goal is power and control, but the ends often come to justify the means in such a quest.

      • My counter then is this:

        “Climate scientist” now equals “stupid”, and so every instance where you could use “climate scientist”, you can now use “stupid”.

        For example, the sentence, “Climate scientists agree that humans very likely are the cause of all global warming after such-and-such a date”, now becomes, “Stupids agree that humans very likely …”

        I have successfully demonized “climate scientists”, in order to gain more power.

        This could be productive.

  14. ‘A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the present rate, by 2040, coastlines will be inundated, droughts and floods will intensify and food shortages will be widespread.’

    When does it start, 2039? There is no trend for any of this.

    ‘So the world is facing an immense challenge’

    If you accept No True Scotsman fallacies.

    • It starts in 2028. That is when the catastrophe will be predicted to occur in 2050. It will start again in 2038, where the catastrophe will be scheduled for 2060. The “immense challenge” is remembering what story you are spinning today.

      • Ha ha. That’s the liars conundrum! Trying to remember what he told to whom. Telling the truth requires no special skill. Just repeat the truth to everyone.

  15. This is truly hilarious. After calling anyone who questioned China’s conduct a denier, and asserting that China was leasing the world in tackling climate change – presumably by burning more coal and emitting more CO2, now all of a sudden they are asking China to reverse and tackle climate change by reducing its emissions.

    Real reductions, in tons this time.

    What happened to produce this sudden access of rationality?

    Are we getting to the point where people will no longer be banned from alarmist forums for suggesting China’s rising emissions might matter?

  16. “He is a senior member of the Communist party.”

    Even though he seems to have pissed off the CCP by not arresting and deporting Chinese dissidents, how could a senior member of the CCP ever be elevated to the top post at Interpol, the world police force? This is a joke. Interpol is now a joke. Anything that is remotely connected to the UN is a joke. In 2014 Iran had one of its bureaucrats elected to a UN human rights top position. The world has now become a joke.

    • “how could a senior member of the CCP ever be elevated to the top post at Interpol, the world police force?”

      Pretty much any public-sector or non-profit organization with ‘World’ or ‘International’ in the name was either created by Communists or will soon be taken over by them.

      It all has to go.

      • IIRC, the origins of Interpol was with the NSDAP in the 1930’s, rather than the Stalin branch of the movement. Lefty, but fascist, not red.

  17. China already emits the world’s most CO2. The Paris Accords allow China to continue increasing their emissions until 2030. Why would they need a “climate change denier movement”?

  18. Any clearer example of living inside a bubble than thinking China gives a rat’s about CO2 emissions?

    • ‘..Several NYT editorialists have wished that the US government could be more like the Chinese government…’ — apparently without realizing that the more their wish is fulfilled, the more freedom they, the editorialists and their counterparts, will have to surrender. (The commie-pinko-liberal system cannot work otherwise.)

  19. The events in France have unfortunately proved that emissions can not be reduced because people do not usually allow it. By the way, Donald Trump could not do anything else but he would. Therefore, you need to quickly draw conclusions and quickly introduce geoengineering solutions.

    • Or let this nonsense all die a natural death by doing nothing about it. This is the way the world actually works. Man-caused terminal disasters are impossible when you size up the magnitude of the system and the comparative puniness of our command of power to do.

      Hiroshima was a disaster on a human scale and thousand of them would of course be colossal on a human scale, but on a planetary scale, these are very local and remarkably temporal. Within one year, Hiroshima was back to background radiation, the city was rebuilt and if not for the monuments would be unnoticed. Badly designed Chernobyl actually killed 79 people and these deaths make up 90% of all nuclear accidental fatalities. Yeah others suffered. Today, the “Exclusion” zone has become a nature park ine might calk the Serengeti of Europe.

      Even the traces of large bolides that have hit the earth from time to time and wiped out 90% of species can only be surmised and identified by specialist geologists. The earth itself was relatively undamaged and the biosphere rebounded back to plentitude.

      Manmade global warming, too, is turning out to be a tsunami in a teacup. Might we end up 0.5C warmer than today? Yes, possibly and, as it seems, thankfully. The LIA was worse than a bunch of Hiroshimas and Cherjobyls . The “Great Greening^тм” with its expansion of habitat, bumper crops and no sign whatsoever of a shortage of resources, plus the peaking of population after mid century is converging on a “Garden of Eden Earth^тм”.

      Most remarkably, evidence that global warming that brought us out of the LIA to the present is significantly human-caused, is as yet to be dtermined with doubt growing with the years. At maximum, we might attain 0.5C more doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

  20. Wait, I thought they tried to nominate China as Supreme Leader of the Greenie Cult in Paris, but they refused.
    Maybe they’ll do it this time though, if they ask really, really nicely, perhaps say “Pretty prease, with rice on top”?

  21. A rather boring splutter from the collapsing British Empire and its NY slimes.
    After years of harping on Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the communists, it’s onto the Uighurs and S.C. Sea. Churchill started the Tibet gambit knowing why the SS liked to holiday there, hence their infamous insignia.
    Now with the empire’s favorite ISIS all but defeated in Syria, any trying to return to China will get re-schooling if they are lucky, never mind Chechnya, Turkmenistan, etc…

    Hiding tattered geopolitics behind COP24 circus of smoke and mirrors, is laughable contortionism to make Houdini blush.

    As the Mad Hatter said to Alice – I served at many a Crown outpost, before they all got woodworm.

  22. “…by 2040, coastlines will be inundated, droughts and floods will intensify and food shortages will be widespread.”

    I saw that, and I have to ask: Did someone move the CAGW date again, and nobody told me?

    It’s supposed to snow again today. Could someone please send some of thet global warming my way? Thanks!!!!

      • But wasn’t Global Warming supposed to make snow a thing of the past? Children wouldn’t even know what snow is.

        • That’s a hard one to sell during a snow storm – it’s a lot easier to simply blame whatever DOES occur on AGW.

          Or, to quote Larry Tate: “That was yesterday. Can’t keep living in the past, y’ know.”

          • Indeed, which is why they were selling the “snow is a thing of the past” during a year with hardly any snow in the UK.

  23. I have no hair left to pull out. The idiocy as palpable. So we will control the climate and weather by taxation, is that it?

  24. China laughs at Western CACA spewers. The Communist regime is only too happy to sell us wind turbines and solar panels, which our environmental laws make it impossible to build here, while themselves constructing new coal plants as rapidly as they can. And the US won’t even sell them our high BTU, low pollutant coal, because “death trains”.

    Insanity. Lenin was right that useful idiotic capitalists would sell him the rope with which to hang us. Although no coal.

  25. The NYT obviously did not get the memo:
    ——
    The Road From Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn

    Date: 12/12/18
    Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation

    For all its green talk, China is sticking to fossil fuels

    London, 12 December – While leaders of western countries fret about their greenhouse gas emissions in Katowice, China is forging ahead with new projects and investments in coal and gas. According to a new paper from the Global Warming Foundation (GWPF), the Communist Party’s survival depends on delivering economic growth and cleaner air.

    As the report’s author Patricia Adams explains:

    “The Chinese have spent a lot of money on renewables without results on anything like the scale required. So despite their continuing outward support for the green agenda, China is actually going all out for fossil fuels. The Communist Party’s grip on power depends on it.”

    As a result, analysts expect China’s coal production to continue to grow, with increases of 10 percent likely in the next two years. Such changes dwarf any reductions that are likely in western countries
    —-
    More at https://www.thegwpf.org/the-road-from-paris-chinas-climate-u-turn/

    • It’s not a U-turn when it’s exactly the road and direction they were planning on going all along. Their Paris commitment was to continue increasing their emissions until 2030. And so far they are keeping to that commitment.

      • John Endicott

        Laughably, I doth think the muppets who agreed Paris with China understood what they were getting themselves into.

        Now they are panicking because China has gone haywire with coal plants, cutting subsidies to renewables etc. but they can’t admit they were so politically blind they didn’t know it would happen.

    • Someone should use the phrase, “The Paris-China border.” It was featured in one of JD Salinger’s “Nine Stories.”

  26. There is a significant ground hog day factor to climate science. New day same drivel. A continuous wall of distorted noise.
    Happy ground hog day.

  27. NYT: “Fortunately, there is no climate change denier movement in China” There are no “deniers” anywhere! It’s a BS derogatory term for those who refuse to drink the kool aid of climate communism. I do find it hilariously ironic that they are actually appealing to the communists for help openly. This “professor” and all “scientists” who are fear mongering should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Indeed, and they are looking to the country whose “Paris climate commitment” was to keep increasing their CO2 emissions for the next decade+

  28. Just lol.

    – there is no alarmist movement in China
    – there is no free speech – for they would not like to have an alarmist movement
    – China is building coal like hell and continuing under Paris ‘agreement’ doing so.
    – Trump has had a minimal effect on what Obama didn’t do; there is no point in stabbing Trump since the difference in emissions development is not flattering to Obama.
    – the NYT has given room for a useful idiot
    – ” must stop financing and building coal-fired power plants around the world.” (oh, since you say, well then)
    – “the world needs a more deeply committed China” – did you just say there are no deniers in China?

  29. I assume professor Gardner has a PHD, but then anybody can get a PHD in anything now days given the time and money. Just wondering in what field his PHD is? Not that it really matters though I would like to see a ranking of schools regarding some form of measurement on those giving out worthless PHDs vs those which are more selective about who gets one on what basis other than school politics.

    • If you got the education welfare check grant you got the PHD. It’s as simple as that here in the US nowadays.

  30. “… no climate change denier movement in China …”

    Perhaps, that’s because the entire government has treated climate change with distain.
    It’s easy to be in compliance when you can and will open new coal plats without comment.

  31. Taphonomic,

    It was actually president “from-this-moment-the-oceans-will-stop-rising” Obama who gave the Chinese a free emissions pass until 2030 when the US and Chinese signed a bi-lateral agreement in November 2014 (one year before COP 21 in Paris) allowing China to increase emissions at will while the US cut its emissions by 25% over the same time frame. It was a nice end run on COP 21 and, of course, the sheeple attending the 2015 Paris gabfest uttered not a bleat of complaint nor noted the hypocrisy. But that would be normal for the tame AGW flock.

  32. The good professor is in denial.
    There is no contrarian movement in China because contrary views are not allowed. The good professor also appears to be blind to the fact that China is a totalitarian state.
    Only in democracies can dissenting voices be raised without the fear of ultimate sanction.
    I know that the mass communication media in the west range disproportionately represent the views of the left wing, but there are some who speak for right-minded people. Can he point to any balancing voices in China.

    • The facts be damned. We know the Climate Believer movement is all about what feels good. If it sounds even slightly believable and makes big corporate greenies happy then it must be true. The NYT agenda has been obvious for years and anyone who looks at news objectively knows where the bias is on both sides of the aisle. The sad thing is when the fat bureaucratic environmentalist lobbyist cronies actually get their way we see what happens in Paris. If the masses in California weren’t indoctrinated from birth about how evil the human race is the same thing would have long ago happened there.

    • NYT is clueless indeed, it’s not a U-turn when you are just continuing in the same direction you always were. China’s only commitment was to “peak” their emissions in 2030 which means they are free to increase emissions as much as they want until then and they’ll still be meeting their Paris agreements. And that’s exactly what they are doing, there’s no U-turns there.

  33. There are no climate change believers in China, at least believers of the warming kind. China is building railroads in Africa, e.g. Trans-African railway, positioned to prosper from the greening of the desert. Future exports including food will be going to China. China is expecting a cooling climate.

    • I’m shocked, shocked to find that China doesn’t follow the rule of law (with apologies to Captain Renault)

  34. Oh my, where to begin…

    Apparently this New York Times “reporter” doesn’t know there are more Christians in China (~300,000,000) than Christians in the US (total population ~320,000,000).

    And Christians tend to revere their God more than the State (especially an all-controlling Communist regime).

    Such Christians are perfect “deniers”– they view a warmer (?) earth with more CO2 as a greener, more hospitable place!

    What’s not to like?

    Foodstuff production is up 15-25% in the past 50 years due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere! At the same time, tree growth has been estimated to be from 30 to 70% higher (depending on variety)!

    In a place like China where survival for a significant part of their population is directly linked to crop yield and wood production, God-fearing people would find additional CO2 to be a blessing rather than a curse like CAGW alarmists would have us believe.

    Yes, Christian people make perfect “deniers”!

    And the New York Times strikes out again!

  35. Can Dr. Gardner actually be that naive? That China is a TRUE BELIEVER in the Church of Changing Climate? They’re building coal plants all over the world, for themselves and others, they are the largest producer of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, they have the highest concentration of CFCs, since they keep using them, what would it take for this fool to get the message?

    The air in Beijing is yellow, the rivers are a ghastly color, they use lead paint on children’s toys. Their obvious leftism is the only thing he believes in, and thus it allows him to ignore that most environmental calamities, take place in socialist/communist countries, where there is no reporting of them, and nobody responsible, because the government says so.

    • Can Dr. Gardner actually be that naive? That China is a TRUE BELIEVER in the Church of Changing Climate?

      China is a true believer in the church of changing climate – only to the extent that they can benefit from the West’s economic suicide while not having to commit to performing the same self-immolation for themselves. Ask them to participate in the self-inflicted economic destruction and they’ll give it a hard pass.

  36. The NYT is NOT a wholly owned subsidiary of the democrat party. The Communist Chinese owns a big chunk of them too.

  37. “Trump Is Unwilling to Tackle Climate Change. China Must Step Up.”
    ——————-
    LMAO!

    Emissions are going down in the US. Fossil fuel use is skyrocketing in China and emissions are rising accordingly. China has committed to making no effort to cut emissions.

    How did they get it so backwards? If they really care about cutting emissions, they should be encouraging China to follow America’s example.

  38. China is back to the warlord practices it employed for centuries (if it ever left them).

    Challenge the warlord and, based on the level of offense, they would:

    1) Kill you
    2) kill you, your friends, and family
    3) kill you, your friends and family, and your village and all of their friends and family. and the friends of your friends.

    Now it’s “re-education” and who knows what else?

  39. Shall we go to the archives and remind ourselves what then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had to say about China in regards to Climate Change?

    Here’s a hint – the first word is Rat and the second rhymes with Not Safe For Work.

  40. In China Climate Deniers social credit score will go to zero and they cant go to college, find work, travel or obtain loans.

    This will be coming soon here so get ready

    China of course with little energy resources has a lot of interest in alternative energy and taxing countries with the most oil and gas reserves will be a boon to energy poor countries as those carbon taxes will be used to aid them in producing expensive clean energy. Denial of Climate Change is unpatriotic

  41. Fortunately, there is no need for a “climate change denier movement” in China because they don’t have rags like the NYT either.

  42. “China’s aggressive pursuit of absurd claims that they own the South China Sea.”

    Not quite true. China doesn’t claim it owns the entire sea. It claims that it owns a lot of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and the bits of water around those. Nor are the claims to those islands entirely absurd. They do have a case that sounds at least as legal as the cases of the other countries claiming the islands. (I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say whether it is good case or not.)

    Of course, the area is of great strategic importance to China, so they are not going to withdraw just because some Americans get apoplexy over it.

Comments are closed.