Guest commentary by David Middleton
From Politico…
‘The existential threat of our time’: Pelosi elevates climate change on Day One
By ANTHONY ADRAGNA and ZACK COLMAN 01/03/2019
[…]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought up the issue in her opening address while touting a new select panel to come up with ideas on how to solve it, and the Energy and Commerce Committee announced that climate change would be the subject of its very first hearing this year.
[…]
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Republicans who control the Senate have shown no interest in pursuing dramatic reductions in carbon emissions — meaning no House bill is likely to become law — even as scientists warn that time is running out to get a handle on the situation.
The Democrats’ change in tone is evident in the name of the new panel. It is now called the “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,” compared to a focus on “energy independence and global warming” when Democrats formed a similar panel was formed a decade ago.
“We must … face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,” Pelosi said in her opening address to Congress Thursday. “The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”
[…]
Progressives, led in part by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are tugging the caucus into a more urgent posture that they say best reflects what scientists have called for to avert climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year that the world has 12 years to put policies in place to avoid irreversible, catastrophic effects of climate change.
“At least come out as appearing the Democratic Party has an agenda on this issue. That would be the biggest win,” Greg Carlock, Green New Deal research director with progressive think tank Data for Progress, said of his hopes for the committee.
Still, some Democrats are cautious about what a panel devoted to climate change might entail. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who co-chairs the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, said he plans to speak with incoming select panel chairwoman Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) about the direction and scale of climate legislation.
“We’ve got to find a way that we can accommodate our goals and not be seen as anti-business,” Cuellar said. “A lot of the oil-and-gas state folks feel the same way.”
Moderate and establishment Democrats largely prevailed in their first showdown with liberals over the select committee. Whereas protesters, joined by Ocasio-Cortez, stormed Pelosi’s office last November demanding the panel be empowered to issue subpoenas and write legislation, the committee that Democrats will establish Thursday can do neither of those things.
[…]
Progressives, led by the Sunrise Movement, were dismayed by the panel’s final structure and especially that it lacks a requirement that Democratic members pledge not to accept campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies.
“This committee is toothless and weaker than the first Climate Select Committee from a decade ago, and it does not get us meaningfully closer to solving the climate crisis or fixing our broken economy,” said Varshini Prakash, the movement’s co-founder, in a statement. “This is deeply disappointing, but in losing this fight on the Select Committee, we have won the biggest breakthrough on climate change in my lifetime.”
[…]
Where do I start?
“We must … face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,” Pelosi said in her opening address to Congress Thursday. “The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”
Threaten the planet and the future? I’m fairly certain that time will not stop… So, the future is not threatened. Regarding the planet, I’ll let George Carlin handle that one (warning: lots of F-bombs):
Progressives, led in part by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are tugging the caucus into a more urgent posture that they say best reflects what scientists have called for to avert climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year that the world has 12 years to put policies in place to avoid irreversible, catastrophic effects of climate change.
12 years? We only had 10 years back in 1989…
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
[…]
“This committee is toothless and weaker than the first Climate Select Committee from a decade ago…”
So what’s the point of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis?
“At least come out as appearing the Democratic Party has an agenda on this issue. That would be the biggest win,” Greg Carlock, Green New Deal research director with progressive think tank Data for Progress, said of his hopes for the committee.
The purpose is to make it look like the Democrats are saving “the planet and the future.”
What does this mean for people with real jobs?
Not much. The Democrats probably can’t even get anything too damaging through the House, much less the Senate. In the 116th Congress, the Democrats only have a 54-46% majority in the House… And House Democrats aren’t fully Ocasio-Cortez-Stupid…
Still, some Democrats are cautious about what a panel devoted to climate change might entail. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who co-chairs the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, said he plans to speak with incoming select panel chairwoman Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) about the direction and scale of climate legislation.
“We’ve got to find a way that we can accommodate our goals and not be seen as anti-business,” Cuellar said. “A lot of the oil-and-gas state folks feel the same way.”
Moderate and establishment Democrats largely prevailed in their first showdown with liberals over the select committee. Whereas protesters, joined by Ocasio-Cortez, stormed Pelosi’s office last November demanding the panel be empowered to issue subpoenas and write legislation, the committee that Democrats will establish Thursday can do neither of those things.
So Watts Up With That doesn’t need to worry about subpoenas from the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis… That’s a relief… 😉
UE under 4%, record low unemployment for blacks and Hispanics, real wages rising for the first time in years, yet the leader of the Sunrise Movement thinks the economy is broken. Just another reason I cannot take these clowns seriously.
“We’ve got to find a way that we can accommodate our goals and not be seen as anti-business”(Henry Cuellar (D-Texas).
======================================
The Climate-Industrial Complex is turning capitalism into corporatism gradually eroding individual prospects and freedom, facilitated by a compliant MSM.
In 2005 Robert Conquest wrote:
“… In addition to the current international changes and challenges, there is a tendency in the West to move in the direction of a non-totalitarian but nevertheless single-minded corporatism—stultifying and intrusive on law and liberty.
The long-term prospect, in fact, is what a French commentator has called “pink Fascism.” There is no need of a monolithic party if the effective apparat is in general agreement, makes the same assumptions. The totalitarian attempt to control all aspects of life was untenable in the long run. A far greater leeway on small matters, even disagreement on tactics, is much more viable.
This dilute corporatism does not exclude a contest of political parties. But these parties have become more and more alike, differing only on what would have been thought peripheral in earlier days …”.
The greatest danger to humanity has always been politicians who can make others pay for their narcissism. “Climate” will never come close.
Are you kidding me? Existential crisis. “Existential” is one of those words you hear from self adulating people who want to impress others of their superior intellect. I.e., they want to hear themselves talk. I remember hear this word first in Philosophy 101 in undergraduate school … existential philosophy as in whyy-yy are we even here on earth… what is the purpose of my own individual existence in this unfathomable universe and we should worry about the plight of individuals who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad. OMFG.
In Nancy Palsy’s case it is a word fed to her by aids. You can always tell when her comments don’t come from a script by the deer in the headlights look, stuttering, stammering, and intervals where she stares into space saying nothing.
And we only had 10 years to save ourselves IN NINETEEN EIGHTY NINE.
The science is settled, but our understanding of the science is still evolving. /sarc
They say it is existential…but they describe it like it is a phantasmagorical threat. Constantly changing and morphing, but definitely anything WEATHER that is BAD, is because of the phantom menace caused by Capitalism running amok.
…..’“This committee is toothless and weaker than the first Climate Select Committee from a decade ago, and it does not get us meaningfully closer to solving the climate crisis or fixing our broken economy,” said Varshini Prakash, the movement’s co-founder, in a statement…’
Broken economy? Huh.
The U.S. economy seems to be doing pretty good (from what I’ve heard and read) for a broken system. I am wondering what exactly it is in the economy that Varshini Prakash feels needs fixing…..probably the elimination of fossil fuels.
Job openings here in Wisconsin are going begging. Companies are even advertising those openings on TV or with signs in front of their offices. Being disconnected from the reality can be a real bummer.
This salary truck driver just got a $150.00 per week raise. And I know who to thank for the conditions that made that possible and it isn’t Nancy or Obama.
All the money is going to people who work, not activists and college professors. Therefor the economy is broken and must be fixed via government fiat.
“The U.S. economy seems to be doing pretty good (from what I’ve heard and read) for a broken system.”
That’s exactly how it’s broken. The Democrats don’t want a thriving economy, they want people reliant on government handouts to survive.
Sadly, maybe what is required is for the dems and liberals in Can. To pass some of their loony legislation so that the people will really get angry and put an end once and for all to this lunacy of calling CO2 pollution etc.
Climate Action policies are the biggest existential threats we face as a society. They are a graver threat than than the invasion from the south.
Batshit crazy Democrats like Ms. O-C and Ms Tlaib are the gifts that keeps on giving to Trump and the Republicans. When they make the original batshit crazy Democrat, that is Nancy Pelosi, seem like the voice of moderation, we know things will go well for Republicans at the next election.
From your mouth to God’s ear…
But I don’t have a high level of confidence. Much depends on a continued strong economic performance.
You can be sure if economic growth hits 5% and then drops back to 4.95%, the propaganda ministry, er, news media will be talking about the Trump Depression. Or if it just keeps improving, the jobs will be called low-paying, dead-end jobs.
For Trump to pull off a win in PA, or WI without a tone deaf Hillary Clinton in the race taking those states for granted, seems very highly unlikely. Only if the economy is roaring and the dems are promising to destroy it will I become an optimist.
If you think a half-brain Kamala Harris or Pochantas can appeal to white, blue-collar workers in PA or WI, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The straight white guys like Bullock, Biden, or Hickenlooper would be a serious, real threat in the general election to Trump/Pence. But they have about as much chance in Democratic Primaries as Bernie does to get the nom, and he’s not even a registered Democrat.
Hold on a sec, I’m gonna get me a beer.*
😉
*Elizabeth Warren
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1080554654352793609
Hold on a sec, I’m gonna get me a beer.*
*Elizabeth Warren
who does she think she is, Brett Kavanaugh? 😉
Uncle Joe’s been a laughing stock for a generation. I can’t see him being a serious general election threat.
“Stand up Chuck”
The sad thing is, the other prospective contenders for the Dem nomination (Fauxahantis, Creep Porn lawyer, Spartacus and the tears of rage Booker, Crooked Hillary, et al) actually make old uncle Joe look like a reasonable candidate. If I was voting in the Dem Primary and was given a choice of all the people who have been touted as potential candidates, Uncle Joe would look the one of the few sane choices in the bunch.
Rich Davis
When it comes to the economy the number most Americans care about above all others is that of the dollars going into their pockets. All the others are window dressing. There are many more cards being played that are going to continue bring that most important economic figure up. Cards the general media refuse to report or discuss. Here is just one aspect of several of this type:
I urge everyone to take the time to read this fairly comprehensive description of what is going on
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/06/u-s-preliminary-trade-delegation-arrives-in-china-for-initial-discussions-of-technical-details/
The multinationals that have been fighting this have just taken their best shot, helping to create the conditions that resulted in the massive “correction” in the US stock market. The effects will not be lasting by any means and the market is recovering nicely.
It’s long past time for a fully coordinated, concerted and robust pushback against these climate loon-buckets.
Sceptics continue to play fair with logic, rationale and reason but guess what? – those tactics are useless against activist alarmists.
Sceptics should be targeting the sensible public and remorselessly humiliating alarmists. The alternative is allowing the Pelosi’s of this world to dictate policy and down that road lies a far more likely disastrous outcome.
We can’t build a wall on the border to help stop the illegal activity that threatens us, but we must build a wall against the imaginary enemy of climate change that will cost orders of magnitude more, drastically raise taxes, and do virtually nothing to affect the climate. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel…
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
Earthday 1970.
Professor Gunter must have been invoking the horrors of human-caused Global Cooling (CAGC) if he said this back in 1970. That was the fad back then because the temperatures kept getting cooler and cooler. Then, when the temperatures started warming in the next decade, the fearmongers switched over to citing the horrors of human-caused Global Warming (CAGW). The doomsters are going to get us coming and going.
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt.
The same Earth Day as above.
Thanks for the quote, BruceC. 🙂
Then, when the temperatures started warming in the next decade, the fearmongers switched over to citing the horrors of human-caused Global Warming (CAGW).
Indeed, and funnily enough the cause (man’s emissions) and the solutions (reduce the population, give all your money and freedom to one world government) remained the same.
It’s easy to make fun of Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, but remember: they have plenty of power (probably more than any of us reading WUWT) so they must be taken seriously. The damage they and their fellow travelers will cause could take decades to repair.
Pelosi came out the other day claiming that she has equal power to the POTUS.
Apparently, like her protege, she doesn’t understand the “three chambers of Congress”
Has she ever looked in a mirror?
Or maybe she has but can’t see herself?
(Like that other bloodsucker of legend.)
So why don’t the Dems follow the Royal Society, NAS report question 20 and answer?
If they believe this and their alarmist scientists they should tell the voters that WE can’t change temps for a thousand years and co2 levels for many more thousands of years.
That’s IF WE STOP ALL EMISSIONS TODAY. Fat chance of that happening, just ask China, India and the (soaring emissions) non OECD countries.
So are the Dems really true believers or not. Here’s question 20 and their answer, certainly endless trillions $ at stake for a ZERO return on this lousy investment. OH that’s if THEY truly believe this joint Royal Society+ NAS study
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
We have to clear our message. Make really simple. Such that ordinary people understand it.
1. Climate change is natural and very slow
2. It is beneficial to plants, animals and mankind
3. Carbon taxes and carbon trade are massive wealth transfers from poor to rich
4. and their impact is extremely low and unsure.
5. It is better to use our money to cope with the weather conditions that nature brings us
6. People’s future will be great and prosperous
7. Hydrocarbon and nuclear power solutions will improve in the future
Getting temperatures back to what they were during the Medieval Warm Period is going to end life on Earth?
The alarmists have lost all connection with any form of reality known to science.
What she should have said was:
“We must … face the existential threat of our time: the stupidity crisis, …”
I’m not sure what the best strategy for the Republicans would be.
To put climate realists on this panel in a vain attempt to eliminate the weirdest stuff before it gets out of committee.
Put their own climate alarmists on the panel in hopes that the results of the panel are so incredibly off the wall that it completely discredits the Democrats and climate alarmism. Especially knowing that the weirdest stuff has little chance of getting past the whole House and no chance of passing the Senate.
“I’m not sure what the best strategy for the Republicans would be.”
By far the best “counter” would be to propose $10 billion or more in funding to be spread among companies trying to construct low-cost fusion-power plants. Trump might go for it.
Finally, Fusion Power Is About to Become a Reality
Long considered a joke, or a pipe dream, fusion is suddenly making enormous leaps
Brian Bergstein Medium (blog)
https://medium.com/s/2069/finally-fusion-power-is-about-to-become-a-reality-c6b8b5915cf5
Here’s the 2006 Vinther et al study of Greenland’ s long instrumental temp record. This is a very long study over 200 years and co-authors are prominent alarmist UK scientists Dr Jones and Dr Briffa.
Looking at temps over this long period we find that much earlier decades are warmer than the last few decades and they even hold up well against some of the decades over one hundred years ago back in the 1800s.
Here’s the link and TABLE 8. So what will be their excuse when the AMO changes to the cool phase, perhaps sometime in the 2020s? Or has it started already? Who knows?
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf Here is TABLE 8 from the study comparing decades over this long period of time. But best to view TABLE 8 from the link.
[Reformatted table entries in “pre” html text. .mod]
Simple solution for these shrill climate shills and there’s no special committee needed: Just walk the talk by walking and not using petroleum or any other CO2 producing things if you truly believe that CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe. Don’t use coal-fired electricity, petrochemical plastics, food that is transported to you or creates any CO2 (that includes break rising and baking it), any transit that uses petroleum as the energy or lubrication, any heating or cooling that requires electricity, and so on and so on.
At present in the UK the MSM are having a field day promoting Veganism.
Vegans will have nothing to do with anything that they believe exploits animals, so no meat, milk and milk products, no wool, no beekeeping.
I haven’t worked out how they deal with pests that affect themselves and their vegetable and cotton crops.
No companion animals, especially as cats cannot survive on a vegan died, they must have some meat or fish.
How does one survive as a vegan Inuit or Masai?
Nevertheless less these people seem to be the ideal candidates for trying out zero fossil fuel use.
Oops, how do they get on without fabrics made from fossil fuels? Maybe they should move to a nudist colony in the Carribbean!
“We must … face the existential threat of our time: the Ocasio-Cortez crisis,” Pelosi said in her opening address to Congress Thursday. “The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threatens the Pelosi future.”
Suddenly she discovers the word “SCIENCE”? Who lent her a dictionary?
What worries me is describing Occasional- Cortex and Pelucida as “progressives” along with all the other climate alarmist scammers. There is nothing progressive about people who are busily engaged in destroying the advances of the last hundred years and sending humanity back into poverty and misery on an epic scale. We really are on a blue planet in green chains.
Heh… its quite funny how suddenly climate has now become a crisis of the mind… Do any of these dingbat Democrats even understand what existential even means??
“it’s an existential crisis” – Dems
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya
Pretty simple. Show me a body of someone who died from GMO’s, climate change, or eating sausage.
You ever hear of hurricane Sandy you SNIPPED
(Ever try to leave out the baseless name calling? your other one stays in moderation) MOD
I have also heard of a lot of hurricanes that happened before man released significant amounts of CO2. Apparently you are under the delusion that storms did not happen back then, which makes you opinion worthless.
Are you suggesting that hurricanes did not exist before the Industrial Revolution ? D’OH !
Sandy was not a Hurricane at land fall at it was weather and not climate, try getting an education.
You ever hear of hurricane Sandy
Yes, so? I’ve heard of lots of hurricanes going back centuries (long before man’s industrial use of fossil fuels is said to have taken control of the climate). hurricane sandy was a weather event and no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change.
I would guess that Daniel would have to answer no to… “You ever hear of any hurricane of these hurricanes?”
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Publications/GSAB2001/JDonnelly/Succotash/Succotach.pdf
Daniel might also be unaware of the climatic history of the North Atlantic…
Donnelly J. P., S. S. Bryant, J. Butler, J. Dowling, L. Fan, N. Hausmann, P. Newby, B. Shuman, J. Stern, K. Westover and T. Webb III. 700 yr Sedimentary Record of Intense Hurricane Landfalls in Southern New England. GSA Bulletin Volume 113 no. 6, pages 714 –727 (June 2001)
D. Keigwin, L. (1996). The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea. Science (New York, N.Y.). 274. 1504-8. 10.1126/science.274.5292.1504.
It should be noted that it is good politics to showcase your stupidest policies immediately after an election; that way they are old news by the next election.
The idea is to convince activists that Democrats will take action on climate change initiatives (raise taxes, increase regulation, agree to international wealth transfers, build windmills, oppose coal) while letting more moderate voters believe that Democrats are simply pandering to the Left, and surely would not take action that is destructive to the economy.
What Democrats will actually do when in power depends on how far left they can push things. For them, climate change isn’t something to be addressed. Rather it’s something to be USED.