Vox: Conservatives Reject Climate Action Because They have More “Sensitivity to Fear”

British PM Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan at Camp David. Thatcher was a strong supporter of climate action, until she realised it was just a socialist trojan horse.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Vox contributor David Roberts, a right wing army of people in the media always stands ready to kill off the green shoots of Conservative climate action.

Don’t bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change

A new report examines the climate right. It doesn’t find much.

By David Roberts @drvox david@vox.com  Apr 26, 2019, 10:00am EDT

The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it. 

Meanwhile, the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook dedicated to shaping public opinion, stoking it, dragging it rightward. Not investigating it, not charting it, not reacting to it — creating it. 

The left’s technocrats are targeting values-based messages at New Era Enterprisers while the right is out building full-fledged identities, letting conservatives know what they’re supposed to think.

Imagine, if you will, that “innovation” really started taking off and becoming the basis for bipartisan climate policy. Or imagine that New Era Enterprisers really started coalescing around climate action. Imagine that earnest conservative advocacy groups succeeded in generating some small movement, among some part of the GOP, toward some kind of climate action.

If Fox didn’t like it — and Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels — Fox would kill it. Immediately. End of story. Sad trumpet. 

And it wouldn’t be hard. All they would have to do is make up some scary story about how it, whatever “it” is, is socialism, or some variety of Other, and then repeat that story, over and over, for a week or two. Voila: conservatives would turn against … whatever it is. The green shoots would be crushed.

This can be simplified even further, since that trait is highly correlated with sensitivity to fear. The more sensitive someone is to negative or threatening stimuli — even, experiments have found, negative stimuli flashed by too fast for the conscious mind to register — the more likely that person is to prize order, tidiness, predictability, and routine. In other words, the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative. (Ezra Klein rounds up some of the growing evidence for this thesis in this post.)

Read more: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives

David cites a recent think tank study into why Conservatives reject climate action. Interestingly the study David cites hilights the damage combining socialism with green activism has done to wider acceptance of climate action.

Prospects for Climate Change Policy Reform

A Landscape Study of the Conservative Environmental Movement

By: Heather HurlburtKahlil ByrdElena Souris
Last updated on April 23rd, 2019

Climate policy in the United States is in a time of great uncertainty. The Trump administration has moved to roll back much of the policy momentum the sector had experienced in previous administrations. After a number of years of climate policy being a relatively low priority for voters, its salience is rising on the left as progressives move toward a strategy of yoking climate to a larger set of progressive priorities in the form of the Green New Deal. However, as this report explains, such a broad and multi-issue message is less effective with conservatives and may also polarize opinion on some aspects of climate response where bipartisan support had existed. The narrower messages focused on innovation and energy reforms which reach many conservatives, on the other hand, may become less acceptable on the left if they are seen as an alternative to or negation of some of the economic and social policy ideas in the Green New Deal.

Read more: https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/prospects-climate-change-policy-reform/

There is no evidence Conservatives are inherently hostile towards climate action.

Perhaps David Roberts forgets there was a time when Conservatives were strongly in favour of climate action. Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, who stood with President Ronald Reagan during the final years of the Cold War, was a strong supporter of climate action.

What happened to turn Conservatives against climate action? The Ecologist magazine provides a surprisingly thoughtful answer to this question.

her [Thatcher’s] autobiography states: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying.

“So in a speech to scientists in 1990 I observed: whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable all our economies to grow and develop because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”

Read more: https://theecologist.org/2018/oct/17/who-drove-thatchers-climate-change-u-turn

Thirty years after James Hansen announced his climate emergency in Congress, nothing unusually bad has happened to the global climate. But as genuine scientific evidence of the need for climate action faded, the Left and their academic enablers increasingly embraced the climate cause as a political trojan horse to overturn Capitalism.

David fails to question the “army of people in universities”. How did universities become so polarised?

We have one example of how this might have happened – a university which recently compromised academic freedom to purge its ranks of someone who disputed the university’s cosy green consensus.

Fast forward to today, and it is completely obvious what the problem is.

Today’s “army” of politically polarised climate academics embrace dubious temperature adjustments and academic totalitarianism to maintain the fiction that climate stability is at risk.

Most of their friends in the green movement continue to reject obvious low socio-economic impact solutions like nuclear power in favour of promoting an extremist political agenda of green socialism, while forlornly spinning insulting theories about why Conservatives remain unconvinced by their openly political climate dogma and abuse of process.

132 thoughts on “Vox: Conservatives Reject Climate Action Because They have More “Sensitivity to Fear”

  1. One constant with liberals. When you want to know what they are thinking, look first to what they are accusing conservatives of doing.

    • Bingo!

      Seems like a classic case of “projection,” to me.

      “In other words, the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative climate hypochondriac.”

      https://sealevel.info/fear_of_climate_change01.png

      Liberals are terrified of change, even a fraction of a degree of change. Despite the dearth of evidence that modest warming would be significantly harmful, the climate hypochondriacs have managed to convince one another that the sky is falling.

      “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”
      -Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT)

      • “A right wing army of people in the media”.
        What army, what media? A left wing, maybe?

        • Yes, if Fox can squash a new Green initiative, it must be a pretty weak concept.

          • I’m confident that I’m not the only 70’s liberal here that feels ousted by the dems for becoming a centrist by 60-something. Using common sense seems to be a right-wing signal to the climate zombies these days. Critical thought is political heresy.

      • The idea that conservatives don’t like change is one of the myths that liberals keep telling each other as an explanation why conservatives don’t immediately adopt every nutty idea that liberals come up with.
        Conservatives take the position that before we toss out a social/economic/political system that has worked for decades/centuries/millenia, prove that it will be better.

    • All they would have to do is make up some scary story about how it, whatever “it” is, is socialism, or some variety of Other, and then repeat that story, over and over, for a week or two.

      But what the author cannot begin o se, let alone understand, is that every singke proposed solution is basically socialism Trojan horse, as Maggie worked out.

      I’d be interested to see one, just one, proposed solution to the believed CAGW that does not involve more taxes, more government control, and just more government!

      • Nuclear power. By embracing nuclear power, France and Sweden proved you can kick a massive dent in CO2 emissions without messing up your economy or political system. But for some reason most greens hate nuclear power…

        • Eric Worrall
          “But for some reason most greens hate nuclear power…”
          Sensitivity to fear!

        • Exactly. That refusal to accept nuclear power as a ‘solution’ proves that the green movement has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with politics.

          Bot noooooooo! Apparently I’m a conspiracy theorist whose opinions are dictated by some vast secret conservative cabal.

        • Greens use the climate to promote socialism, scientists use climate to promote their paychecks and the deep state uses climate to promote governmental growth.

          • After 30 years of actively thinning the scientist herd of conservatives in favor of young activist liberals (and no promotions for honest conservatives that might get funding cut off) the scientists are thrilled to be able to “change the world” while gaining power and recognition (as the brains behind the socialist movement)…and then top that all off by getting the productive taxpayers (your evil capitalist enemies) to fork out ~$10 Billion annually for them to do a respectable job of socialist activist propaganda…while padding their wallets. All the while getting 24/7/365 cover from their fraud by the MSM and Academia.

            What’s not to like about all of that?

        • Greens hate nuclear, and so do green Swedes, they decided to close nuclear power facilities in 1980. It follows naturally, that while committed to this virtue-signalling, they were not committed to the said policy and they are more dependent on nuclear power now than in 1980.

          Swedes just love virtue signalling.

          • The Swedes are a bit more cagey than you might guess. They promised to close nuclear power plants and cut back on CO2. They closed one nuclear plant but greatly expanded the power output of the remaining one. So they both cut and increased nuclear power at the same time.

            Also they managed to get emissions from wood chip burning classed as carbon neutral by the EU. Aside from a small amount of wind and hydro that’s it. They have no coal, oil, or natural gas unless they ship it in.

      • “Conservative fear… conservative media control…”
        This VOX article can only have been written (and/or believed,) by someone fundamentally dishonest with themselves and others.

    • I read their article at https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives What a lot of tripe! Do they actually have readers?
      Anyway as there was no provision for comments I tried a letter to the editor, but there was no provision for a critical discourse on article and when I tried to put it under the nearest heading I could find even that was refused.

      Methinks VOX cannot handle criticism of any degree. Who reads this anyway> They would get more readers by following the royals or TV stars in my view.

      • Their is a browser plug in called “dissenter” that enables comment on web pages etc such as youtube videos with comments disabled etc. Naturally there is a big backlash to ban it from by those who seek to steer narrative.

    • So true!

      I find this quote comical but not funny:

      “Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels ”

      Not funny, because the fact that these people reject center-right Fox and think extreme left is ‘right’ is mind-blowing.

      I’m sure Fox News could improve, they e.g. publish too much human interest in form of mugshots, but then again far-left like CNN and The Guardian have largely lost contact with this planet apparently by reading too much Vox and Kos.

      Far-right media are largely nonexistent. There is Breitbart, but projew, pro-Israel, pro-life is something that far-left has managed to destroy.

      I’m sad because the Soviet Union was anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-religion, pro-arab, antifascist in name but antijewish in reality. And the left (as in greens and communists) share all these values. They attack Israel and side with its enemies never seeing guilt there. They talk about being international just the way the Soviet Union was ‘international’.

      Their idea of economy is anticapitalism, again just like in the Soviet Union.

      And yet they don’t see if they get what they ask for, they’ll get what they didn’t want.

    • Precisely. This is a central tenet of their Religion. Not to be confused with “Do unto others as you would have others do onto you” it is “Project unto others the evil you are orchestrating for the unknowing dupes.”

    • Liberals have a deep-seated fear of change because there are changes they can’t control. The stability of marxist/socialist ideology promises a world where they can control everything, similar to Aldous Huxleys’s brave new world.
      Of course, no human endeavor can control everything. Most people can’t even control what they eat, much less what they think. They do well to get through the day alive.

      You can only “control” what you do to a limited degree. A person can try to control themselves. The top 67% of the bell curve are smart enough to do that- get up in the morning, pick up after yourself, get to work, make a contribution big enough to come back the next day,……..

      To think one can control the world, i.e. the climate, is hubris beyond belief.

  2. “How did universities become so polarised?”

    When conservatives ran universities, they practiced tolerance and inclusion and were willing to hire people who disagreed with them. Figuring that the debate between the two positions would strengthen both sides.

    As soon as liberals started getting into positions of powers, the first thing they did was to start getting rid of anyone who disagreed with them. While preaching tolerance, liberals have never felt the slightest desire to show any themselves.

    • Not wanting to derail this thread; but I note that if you replace “liberals” with “Muslim” you get exactly the same answer. Mods; delete if this goes too far.

      • Todays newspeak with high level political correctness is killing our languages. If you have two books with same message but different names, there shold be, or even must be a way to point out those similarities. I think it´s great that you bring those up. I take that as a warning, and I´m grateful that you opened a new channel somewhere between my ears. Thank you, sir.

    • Again so true! Totalitarians may get power in a normal way, once in power, they want to destroy the democracy and free opinionating. They talk about democracy yes, but include only totalitarians and their left-leaning supporters as eligible.

      We need to make sure diversity means diversity and not submitting to ‘pork-haters’.

    • George Orwell wrote:
      “In our country … it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.”

  3. Methinks David Roberts is guilty of projection in a big way. Reverse just about everything he is quoted as saying and you come quite close to the facts.

    • ….the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook

      Someone can say this with a straight face?

    • Amen to that, brother. Along with what MarkW said. These knuckleheads like this guy from Vox think we conservatives are stupid. But they fail to fool us. Because we know this is fundamentally NOT about “climate action” (an interesting term in and of itself, because of what it implies in revolutionary terms). It is about power and control taken into the hands of an ever-shrinking number of wonkish elites who think they know better than the rest of us do about how our lives should work.

      I have nothing but snarling contempt for the Vox crowd and their mindless totalitarian sycophants.

      • Larry: I find some small consolation in this thought- if the Vox crowd propaganda succeeds, the first group locked up in the new people’s concentration facilities will be the useful idiots at Vox. History is my guide.

    • My thought exactly; accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing and claim the moral high ground by being immoral!

      I first rejected the proposed climate action because the science supporting such action was horrible. I was politically neutral at the time. 30 years later, the science still does not support the need for the proposed action. Today, the ‘science’ does not even resemble science. It has become completely surreal! The history of the man-made climate paradigm has made me into a staunch conservative. More than anything else, the climate disaster myth has revealed to me how dangerous the left truly is!

    • Well, yes, but you see, if someone is opposing and/or disputing your silly notions publicly, e.g., TV/online media, there has to be an army behind him/her/it. This is because in a closed mind society, one person supposedly speaks for all the other closed minds. Free thinking is anathema to them. They are as close to clones as you can get.

      Can we please just find them their own planet so that this one isn’t threatened by them any more? Alpha Centauri may have TWO habitable worlds they could land on. And no polluting infrastructure to contaminate them!! Whatta deal!!!

  4. Most conservatives recognize that, after the media hype is stripped away, 0.8 C temperature rise in the last century like the IPPC says, isn’t actually detectable by a human being’s senses, and takes very accurate instrumentation and high level statistical analysis to show its existence.

    • And, as the IPCC also stated, any effects of the projected warming will be mostly mitigated by changes in technology and society.

      It’s only people with socialist agenda that are creating alarm, because it’s all just political hype from the Summary for Policy-makers (read ‘socialists) on upward, and almost nobody reads what the scientists actually say.

    • And the IPCC started with the premise that CO2 controlled the temperature of the atmosphere and that humans’s are the major cause of increasing CO2.

  5. Yeah I’m afraid.
    I’m afraid the green new deal proposals will be enacted and kill untold thousands (possibly millions?) of people.

  6. “The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it”.

    This statement is a joke. Nothing in this sophosticated analysis of public opinion comes even close to describing my position on climate or the opinion of any conservative I know.

  7. I am sensitive to fear? Well now, that is a new one. No one has EVER accused me of being sensitive to fear.

  8. From the “paper?”the more sensitive someone is to fear, the less open they are to new experiences, the more they dislike change, and the more likely they are to be a conservative.
    Thank you, now I know why I object to expensive environmentally damaging wind, solar and bio-fuels. Object to sanctuary cities, oppose giving $billions to a country like Iran that supports terrorists, dislike the idea that universities won’t allow conservatives an opportunity to speak on campus, and on and on. It’s because of my sensitivity to fear (not my sensitivity to liberal delusionment like I had previously maintained). Wow, took me 76 years to get “woke”.

    • True indeed. I often go onto aol/HuffPo to play whack-a-libtard, but the censors catch up with me after a while. Like the Guardian. If only the young wide-eyed deluded libtards knew how many comments were removed before they were able to read them.

      This could be a stunt though. After all, wouldn’t this be a marriage made in heaven? Talking, jawing and BSing about getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere IS THE MULTI-HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR industry. Actually having to do it would a) reduce the kleptocrat take and b) cut them out of the equation based on their abject uselessness. I can’t thank my parents enough for not having the libtard genes.

  9. Barbarians’ lack of self-awareness is seemingly absolute. Those who deal in Fear think that some don’t buy their scary message because of…Fear.

  10. If conservatives are more “sensitive to fear”, why aren’t we fearing climate change?

    After all, isn’t the claim that it’s gonna kill us all in 12 years?

    Snort

    • Well, remember that climate change’s potential to spoil the earth in 12 years time is the considered assertion of a trained bar tender who would know all about making change (e.g. for a $20 bill). That’s all it takes in this new age of post-modern science for unquestioned expertise.

      Who needs to attend to a record of actual measurements, except to in retrospect adjust for a desirable effect those that others have made who themselves couldn’t read a thermometer just right? I don’t know why my physics professor was so unprogressive to insist that we not change our original entries in our laboratory notebooks. Didn’t he realize that we could then be spot on to our preferred expectations?

      • “Simple way to convince conservatives:
        SHOW REAL EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.”

        Yes, that’s the way to convince me. Unfortunately, after all these years, no such evidence has ever been presented.

        Conservatives have asked for evidence thousands of times. It has never been supplied even once. It won’t be supplied today, either, because there is no evidence of CAGW. Alarmists could prove that statement wrong, but they won’t, because they can’t. Yet they continue to ring the alarm bell over CAGW.

        A little evidence please. Conservatives aren’t mentally defective, they just want a little evidence that CAGW exists and skeptics are smart enough to know the difference between evidence and mere speculation. We get lots of CAGW speculation but no evidence it exists. Why should we believe in CAGW under these circumstances?

    • Actually, first show real evidence that the Greenhouse Effect works in the manner claimed.

      Then Jim’s bit.

      Then show real evidence that a warmer planet is actually bad.

      And THEN – go deal with China and stop blaming the West for your problems!

    • No, that’s not the ticket. They need to show that their lib policies actually make a difference by changing a serious climate change noticeably less serious, while not harming people.

      Atm the policies often harm people and don’t have a freaking chance of making a better climate.

      Remember Ottmar Edenhofer’s ‘We must’. Climate policy is not a climate policy. Never was, in fact. This is all about power and money, all simply a Menckenian hobgoblin.

  11. So that is why I am concerned by insane public policies that waste my tax dollars .
    Cause I fear.
    You know this “expert” could be on to something, for fear does play a part.
    I fear the idiocy of Gang Green.
    I fear the money and power grubbing chicken littles,who have shown themselves willing to lie and mislead in anyway they can imagine to support the promotion of their “narrative”.
    I fear that the idiocy,greed and corruption of these people will gull enough voters to allow the undermining of civil society, leading to the collapse of the best standard of living ever known to the average citizen.
    I fear the willful spurning and premature destruction of viable reliable sources of power, coal power plants,leading to rolling black outs and loss of critical power.
    I fear Gang Green.Their emotional immaturity, their potential for mob violence,their refusal to respect the rights of any who disagree with their poorly thought out points of view.
    Indeed I fear the raving mob. The drooling idiocy and hysterical righteousness of virtue signalling hypocrites.

    See even a stopped clock can be right,2 times a day.

  12. All one has to do is look at a range of issues today to know where the fear and fear-mongering predominates –

    Conservative or liberal:
    – fear of GMO foods?
    – fear of vaccines?
    – Buys only “organic” foods?

    The Left wants people to be sheeple so that can be easily manipulated with propaganda and fear-mongering.

  13. Like most faux progressives, the author at Vox is merely yet another intellectual coward who can’t imagine he might be wrong and who is especially too afraid to actually speak to serious skeptics in an honest dialogue.
    Instead he relies on creating false images and knocking them down.
    At the rate the climate obsessed are using red herrings there will soon be a shortage.
    The climate consensus keeps demonstrating that they are unworthy of a meaningful role in a democratic free society.

  14. ‘The left has an army of people in universities, think tanks, and consultancies, examining public opinion using all the latest tools, producing the most sophisticated reports. The basic model of savvy “realism” on the center left is to study the shape of public opinion, with all its subcategories, and react to it.’

    Bullcrap… _they’re_ the ones shaping public opinion, through their constant brainwashing of young people in schools, from elementary to college, and constant pushing of the message “climate change is real!” in virtually every mass media outlet.

    • The Left has an army in universities, thank tanks, and media that act to silence the conservative perspective

    • It was the left, with their army of outstanding scholars, consultancies and think tanks, that repeated endlessly, right into the “eleventh hour” that Trump had no “pathway to victory”. Sure had their handle on that one didn’t they. Peanuts from Canada.

  15. ” … while the right is out building full-fledged identities, letting conservatives know what they’re supposed to think. …”

    This part I agree is increasingly the case. I regularly see ‘Conservative media commentators’ trying to tell me that I must be Christian or at least support a Western Christian ethos (which I mostly do, but often think they’re just hypocrits) and that I must always cut Israel a free-pass in all things (for no obvious, logical or good reasons that I can see), and that I as a >politicalConservative Party< voter at some damned ballot box. I don't need a blind-guide.

    • Half of that comment went missing in moderation (without explanation).

      The missing parts are that I’m increasingly being told by ‘Conservative media’ here that I must be defined as not having any ‘Republican’ leaning, i.e. that I should not want full Australian Independence from a British Monarchy. Except I do want full independence from Royal Assent and Royal control of critical institutions and law, and I do not want “Her Majesty’s”Australian Ship (HMAS) or Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) plastered on the side off our military hardware and buildings, etc. This is not the British Empire or a Crown family we fight for, so why is their name and Royal Title on our kit? It offends me and I want it gone. It’s not her majesty’s ship at all, it is our ship, we paid for it, to defend us.

      Lastly, I said that I’m increasingly told that to be Conservative is at olds with being Secular, and this is most certainly not the case. I AM conservative, I don;t needa definer, and not just for the purposes of being a ” … >political Conservative Party< voter at some damned ballot box." (which is what I said in the original), and I am Secular, and have no intention of being otherwise, just because some political ideology of 'Conservatism' would like me to 'self' define (for me) as such for it's purposes and conditioning.

      I am Conservative long before I'm a political conservative, and I don't intend to alter to match a political ideology's definition of what 'Conservative' is.

    • Actually, it’s kind of a hallmark of conservatives that NO ONE can “tell them what to think.” We also tend to be a bit older, to have seen a bit of history come and go, and have very sensitive BS detectors. Having seen no evidence for pie in the sky, we tend to be realists as well.

  16. I was taught to write to the audience you are trying to reach.

    I have no clue what audience David Roberts is trying to reach and persuade. I’ve been hanging out at WUWT long enough to know that his target audience is definitely the typical denizen of WUWT.

    Does anyone here recognize themselves or find themselves getting the warm fuzzies from that article?……….. I didn’t think so.

    Why is it seemingly just the Regressives on the left that feel they have to analyze the, to them, mysterious and unfathomable psychology of people that are skeptical of or outright reject their positions? And it seems to me that they always get it wrong.

    Whatever it is, we’re not like that.

    • If The Left thought they could persuade people by reasoning with them, then force/coercion/government would not be the sole means of achieving their goals. IOW they wouldn’t be leftists.

    • They also fail to ask conservatives “why”. This is what baffles me the most.

      They analyse the conservative mindset, but they fail to recognize that it’s different to their own. This confuses them, so they make up reasons that make sense to them, but is wrong for us. They’ll never get it right because they can’t imagine someone not believing the things they do, or understand why.

  17. Looks to me like WordPress is throttling comments here and holding them back, delaying their actual posting even though the actual comment submission time is still there when they finally show up.
    Look at the time stamps gaps.
    Nothing right now between 7:25 from “damp” until jim at 8:02pm.
    Now nothing after 8:02pm at 9:00pm. I just did a re-fresh ((reload page) to confirm that.

    I’ve had my comment “missing” now for better than 40 minutes.
    It will show up eventually, with the original submission time on the time stamp, but delying it’s posting is what Twitter does with shadow banning and delaying users with large followers from getting timely tweets to retweet them. By the time they show up, they are stale and far down the time-dependent feed, effectively lost and lowering impact.

  18. Conservatives reject ‘Climate Change’ because they are ‘insensitive’ to baseless fear mongering and fraud.

  19. Conservative = conservation

    Progressive = progression

    Conservation maintains nature.
    Progression changes nature.

    Conservation recognizes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The quickest way to screw up nature is for humans to try and help.

    • Liberalism is divergent, which engenders a perception of tolerance. Progressivism is monotonic change or affirmative action. Conservatism mitigates perturbations through systemic inertia. #PrinciplesMatter

  20. It is now 9:20pm, and no new comments (included my two, now over an hour old). Last comment right now is time stamped 8:02pm from John Robertson. I just refreshed this page before submitting this comment.

    WordPress is throttling comments here at WUWT.

  21. From my perspective, it seems that progressives live in an alternative reality and come up with all kinds of rationalizations to convince themselves that they are correct, and those that don’t agree with their views must have some serious mental or emotional issues — all of which reinforce my view that they are not in touch with reality!

  22. “Sensitivity to Fear”
    ========
    Nope. What I’ve got is a well developed BS detector.

    Those with the greatest sensitivity to fear are those that fear climate change is going to wipe out the world in 12 years.

    Those that don’t fear climate change have the least sensitivity to fear.

    Using fear of climate change has failed because it isn’t scary. Losing your job, that is scary.

    • Come on ferd, bravado is fine but you must admit that 3 mm/year sea level rise is purtty dern terrifying. Think about it … in 30 years your ankles could get wet … who do you call?

    • Would you guys like to see the surf crashing on the shore of Lake Michigan?

      I have pictures!!!! 🙂

  23. There are only a certain number of electrons and as more and more people use the technology the systems have to wait, and accumulate, enough to run you comments through the æther. It’s complex.
    However, to test your hypothesis, I will post this short note at 10:20 PST.
    Then I’m off to bed. I check on Saturday morning to see if it shows up.

  24. “Meanwhile, the right has an army of people on cable news, the radio, and Facebook dedicated to shaping public opinion, stoking it, dragging it rightward. Not investigating it, not charting it, not reacting to it — creating it.”

    A false claim that echoes and expands the similar false claim from alarmists that “big oil” funds everything skeptical.

    FaceBook and most major Tech companies, twitter, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. along with the majority of news outlets,including cable news are hopelessly leftist democrats.

    Facts that are rapidly becoming known to a majority of Americans during the past two years of tech and news censorship of Conservatives coupled with an onslaught of near constant fake news.
    Many leftist news sites are dealing with major viewer declines while large numbers of people seek Conservative outlets to hear the truth.

    “progressives move toward a strategy of yoking climate to a larger set of progressive priorities in the form of the Green New Deal.”

    Only those people who believe the GND can gain them voter support or greater amounts of donations believe the “Green New Deal” has any function in a real world. The overwhelming majority of people are appalled at GND’s outright push against the American Constitution while strongly favoring tyrannical socialism.

    That David Roberts, Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris espouse this fantasy regarding Conservatives and GND is as others above have commented, pure projection.
    e.g.:

    “If Fox didn’t like it — and Fox wouldn’t, because Fox is still funded by the big-money conservatives whose interests are bound up with fossil fuels — Fox would kill it. Immediately. End of story. Sad trumpet.”

    Fox News killed several stories for lack of verification.
    CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter, Google and a host of others invented and/or repeated partisan and climate fake news practically every day of the last 30 months.

    These same outlets, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter, Google and a host of others, ignored virtually every news article that put positive light on Conservatives. They also banned or minimized every piece of negative news against leftists, progressives, alarmists, climate scientists, climate models, alarmist claims of doom, fraudulent research, inconvenient lack of extinctions, etc. etc.

    David Roberts, Heather Hurlburt, Kahlil Byrd, Elena Souris are following the standard practice of leftists, progressives, alarmists, miscreants, terrible journalism, etc.; and spinning absurd accusations based upon their delusions.

    • CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter, Google and a host of others invented and/or repeated partisan and climate fake news practically every day of the last 30 months.

      And I am sure it will continue for the next 18 months because that is where “The Big Bucks Stop” (November 3, 2020). Hundreds of millions of Big Bucks.

      Yup, with all the liberals, leftists, progressives, alarmists, climate scientists, climate modelers, etc., getting all their news, advice and opinions from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, WashPo, LA Times, FaceBook, Twitter and Google ……. then you can be assured that that is where the 20 (so far) Democrat POTUS candidates will be spending the bulk of their donated money on “election advertisements”.
      Posted @ 1:59 PM EDST

  25. If the green alarmists want to understand why conservatives oppose RE, it would be far easier to ask a conservative, rather than spend months theorising nonsensical BS. The answer can also be easily provided in sign language, for those alarmists hard of hearing.

  26. I’m not inherently hostile toward sensible policies, I’m inherently hostile toward dishonesty, lies, mindless group think, baseless fear mongering, totalitarian impulses, political corruption, the suppression of critical thinking, and the politicization and corruption of science.

  27. One dreams of where the UK would be today if Margaret Thatcher was still in charge of our country. Brexit would be a thing of the past; the global warming hoax supported by the MSM would have been nipped in the bud; our parliamentary system would not have become the useless body which it is today, the countries economy would be booming and we would all still be enjoying those sunlit uplands that Winston Churchill forecast in 1944. She would most certainly have clipped the wings of the lying BBC following its disgraceful recent Attenborough programme on global warming. Dreams have sometimes been turned into reality in the past and a new Margaret Thatcher might emerge, in which case we will reflect on the current period of the nation’s history with perpetual ridicule, wondering what the hell happened for a nation to fall so quickly from its traditional values.

    • Thatcher lost it when she went to war over the Falklands. It was a war she didn’t need to fight, only to save herself from election loss.

      Now the Falklands are set to benefit from oil wealth. Did Thatcher go to war for oil back then to secure it as British?

      • I am curious. Why did Thatcher not need to fight for the Falklands? Would Argentina have simply pulled out and said sorry about that?

        • She went to war for political reasons, to save her ass basically. I have plenty of my mates that lost their lives, fingers and/or limbs. Many still traumatised by their experiences. Those lands have been in dispute for hundreds of years.

          The islanders wanted to remain “British”, the Argentinians thought otherwise, and lost.

          One of the most daring missions was flying Vulcan bombers to the Falklands.

          • I guess Roosevelt went to war with Japan for political reasons. Sovereignty, not so much. (is there any land that has not been in dispute for hundreds of years?). It would have cost him his posterior if he hadn’t.

  28. Okay, now for the counter punch. Climate Alarmists have become infected with toxoplasma gondii which has short-circuited their fear instinct and increased their risk-taking behavior.

    Attempting to dismantle or weaken the modern Energy net that results in assured food, clothing and drinkable water is risky. If the grid goes down there will be a massive die-off from starvation and violence and they will be eaten by their domesticated cats. And the toxoplasma gondii life cycle will be complete.

    • The cats will escape, disease-free, leaving the Climate Alarmists to wither and rot in their closed, not fireproofed apartments, with all their electronic junk gathered around them in piles of empty double-whipped soy latte cups, plastic containers of spoiled tofu, and ugly clothing. The cats will find a kind fellow who likes to feed them in small groups on park benches, and there will be bluebirds escaping over the confines of the city walls.

      And to think that, if they’d only looked beyond those confining walls, they’d have seen a beautiful thing outside them. But they’d have to get a permit to go outside and Us Outsiders will only allow one permit per city per decade.

  29. “What happened to turn Conservatives against climate action? ”

    I’ll tell you what happened – fifty years of dire, apocalyptic predictions of disaster, drought, food shortages, famine, pestilence, locusts, disappearing Artic ice, et. al., without a single one of them coming true. It’s a spectacular record of failure (and by this point regarded by myself and many others as pure horseshit) and futility that could only be matched by me taking 150 at-bats in Major League Baseball. Mr. Vox writer, you are hereby invited to stop blowing smoke up our collective asses. STFU and GTFO, thank you very much.

  30. They have managed to infer a universe and beyond. Why not resort to the same systemic conflation of logical domains and infer the past, present, and future? The scientific logical domain is notably limited. People need to believe in something, and will with sufficient secular incentives, a “consistent with” ensemble of models, and promises of redistributive, per chance, retributive change. #HateLovesAbortion

  31. According to Roberts, climate change is simple, and you don’t really need to know “the science”. Here’s an example of how he spins a web of lies about how our climate has been stable the last 10k years, staying within a range of +/- 1 C, and that there is a 50-100 year time lag in the climate response to increased CO2. He then goes on to describe his sci-fi fantasies about how, if we continue down the road we’re on, by the year 2300 we could see a temperature increase of 12C. Some places on earth would reach temperatures of 170-180 F. The video (done in 2012) is mercifully short (15 minutes). Notice the occasional nervous laugh he gives – a telltale trait of habitual liars.

  32. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I think that is a basic conservative value.

    Before conservatives go to fixing the Earth’s climate, you first have to show them it is broken. To date, that has never been done.

    I thought it was funny listening to AOC the other day when she was pontificating on Veterans Health care and she said of the VA: “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” I bet she didn’t know she had conservative leanings!

    Of course, she is wrong about the VA, it is broke and does need fixing, and Trump is doing a pretty good job of fixing it, although I must say my personal experiences with the VA health system have been completely satisfactory in every respect. They treated me like a rock star.

  33. The media is has been totally taken over by the climate doom-mongers, and it would appear that the world of science is heavily infested as well.
    They’ve won.
    I’ve found it impossible to discuss the subject with most people. They have no interest in figures or alternative views, and don’t question what they’re told by the media or do any research for themselves.
    In a recent letter to a local UK newspaper, I cited temperature records from the UAH satellite data.
    The response of a warmist? He wrote a letter saying that ‘he tries to justify his nonsense from an obscure university in the US bible belt where there are laws about not teaching evolution.’
    This individual ignored the figures, offering no comment to suggest that he had the remotest interest or appreciation. It’s the warmist ‘shoot the messenger tactic’, of course.
    That’s the UAH put in its place, then……
    The newspaper hasn’t as yet printed my robust response. Maybe it will, maybe not. Given the response of the individual concerned and so many others, I have difficulty imagining how reason can prevail.

  34. Vox: Conservatives Reject Climate Action Because They have More “Sensitivity to Fear”

    More projection — exactly opposite the reality. Progressive kooks are the ones w/no emotional maturity.

  35. Dave, many posts above, used the line “Climate hypochondriacs”.
    Outstanding!
    A line going around for a while is for government “fear is a growth industry”.

  36. This article reminds me of similar to garbage from writer Caroline Haskins who penned, “Climate Realists are Delusional” for Vice/Motherboard. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wjvqvz/climate-realists-are-delusional

    From Haskins’ article, “Claiming that any radical and necessary plans to mitigate climate change, such as the Green New Deal, is “unrealistic” is disingenuous. The people who make these accusations are either delusional or actively disregarding the facts.”

    • I have never heard a conservative say that the world will end in 12 years. So who lives in fear – or uses fear to attain their political goals?

  37. The one most important thing the “right” has that the “left” does not is scientists who actually follow scientific method and engage in actual science.

    • So where are they? Why do those scientists, except for a very few, not speak out? Why have they allowed their professional societies to espouse the CAGW / CCC line?

      • Retired Engineer Jim: there are some excellent books available – for example, the late Professor Robert Carter’s ‘Climate – the Counter Consensus’ and Dr. Roy Spencer’s ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder.’

      • Retired Engineer Jim: this article by Richard S. Lindzen makes for interesting reading:
        https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

        So does this resignation letter by Dr. Lewis from the American Physical Society:
        Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
        From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
        To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
        6 October 2010
        Dear Curt:
        When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
        Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
        How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
        It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
        So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
        1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
        2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
        3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
        4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
        5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
        6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
        APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
        I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
        I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
        Hal
        Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics and former Chairman of the Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara; former Member and Chairman of Technology Panel, Defense Science Board; Chairman, DSB Study on Nuclear Winter; former Member, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; former Member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman, APS Study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman, Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; former Member, USAF Scientific Advisory Board; and author of the books, Technological Risk and Why Flip a Coin.

      • Retired Engineer Jim:
        Here’s how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived.
        In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be accessed via the internet.
        Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
        Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
        The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
        These were:
        1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
        2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
        The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
        Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
        ‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
        Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
        In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to be the most knowledgeable!
        Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
        So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
        Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.

      • Who controls the universities? What happens when a university research scientist disagrees with the climate change narrative?

        Or how about this: where were the intellectuals, scientists, and economists in the USSR when the government was claiming how great things were?

  38. I always liked Monckton’s epithet of “climate bedwetters” for the Alarmists, but perhaps that could be updated to “climate snowflakes”. Particularly apt because, if you question their climatist religion, they likely will have a meltdown.

  39. Fear? It’s what caused the better pioneers to survive in wilderness conditions. It’s complacency and acceptance that destroys.

  40. Since we are talking about the differences between liberals and conservatives here are a few: Words and Numbers, liberals are great with words but not numbers; Emotions and Reason, liberals are great with emotions it’s why movie stars tend liberal; Future versus Immediate, liberals always care about the immediate pleasure not the long term consequences.

    It is the last one that makes me not trust liberals on the climate change. There is no other issue where they care about something that is going to happen in fifty years. That is why I believe the climate change issue was invented as a way to swing conservative votes. The fact that they are against those things that would actually make a difference like, nuclear power, desalination and food that is not ‘natural’ shows that they don’t really care about the climate.

  41. Leftist media is obsessed with Fox. Fox is a cable news channel. On a good night they have 3 or 4 million viewers. That is a fraction of the declining number that still watch the three letter networks, and an even small fraction of the total population.

    However, in an effort to appease the left I am willing to trade Fox for ABC, NBC, and CBS.

    Deal?

  42. Why can theses folks that write screed about conservatives ever say that conservatives think they have history. Geology and science on their side?

  43. Do these people realize how stupid they sound? The real “fear” is that which is generated by the climate alarmists to whip their left wing puppets into a frenzy. One need look no further than to AOC for what that looks like.

    Good God these people are mental cases.

  44. I am still trying to figure out what “Sensitivity to Fear” means.
    For Lefty Lib’s it’s all about the words. All they know is how to twist the words around to make people believe them. As some one once said “God is not Dead …..Truth is” ……………………..

  45. Please do not mistake Conservatives for conservatives. There is very little conservative in the doctrines of Theresa May and the party and the direction in which she and her puppet masters are attempting to lead the Conservative Party.

    Equally do not mistake Liberals for liberals. There is nothing liberal about policy of the rump Liberal (Democrat) party which is currently vying with Corbyn’s Labour Party to be crowned the true apostles of socialism.

  46. Let me get this straight. The people who reject the end-of-the-world fear mongering are doing so because they are extremely susceptible to fear mongering. Laughable!!!

  47. “How did universities become so polarised?”

    Through ILLEGAL discrimination. The result is the nation will gradually tilt to the Left, towards Socialism, and towards the abyss no matter who wins whatever argument today.

  48. How about checking the models, model biases, and failed predictions? Is that so hard? I guess it is since they don’t go their in lib land and the climate crusades.

  49. Thatcher was originally a supporter of climate belief but when predictions failed she rejected it. This rejection went unnoticed because she was ousted by the same people who had supported her becasue she had supported them.
    As for sensitivity to fear.We are hardened to it by the insults and name calling like denier with its clear cut associations with the most extreme right Nazi supporters. On top of that if we are not afraid of the consequences of burning fossil fuel surely in their minds we must be suicidally reckless.

    • D Cage: when I first became interested in the CO2/AGW claims many years ago, I was astonished by the arrogance, rudeness and vitriol of the ‘warmists’ I encountered online. I’d never come across anything like this in my entire career in science and technology.
      It didn’t take long for me to develop the proverbial thick skin.
      I had to laugh when a warmist claimed in in a newspaper letter that I ‘would destroy the world for my false beliefs’ – and did he supply any evidence or data for his claims? No, of course not.

  50. I reject Climate Activism because of the inherent political origin of activism and because the estimation variance of the GCM upon which such activism is derived renders any results from that method laughable at best and criminal at worst! Model divergence from reality measures the amount of false signal contained in the GCM, which makes such pratitioners guilty of subverting science!

  51. “..even, experiments have found, negative stimuli flashed by too fast for the conscious mind to register — the more likely that person is to prize order, tidiness, predictability, and routine.”

    Oh the negative stimuli are not too fast for the mind to register and if you wish to label my concern fear you go right ahead. Thinking you can run a communal power grid on solar and wind without breaking the grid is certainly negative stimuli along with plant food taxation. Now I can afford a backup generator and even the taxes but I’m aware many can’t and that means yellow vests and carbeques and hence my concern. I’ll leave the climate hypochondria to lefties to worry about with their inundating seas and their list-
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

  52. Eric tells us: “Thirty years after James Hansen announced his climate emergency in Congress, nothing unusually bad has happened to the global climate.”

    It has warmed more than 0.5 degC in the last thirty years, a trend that will produce another 1.3 degC of warming by the end of the century IF IT CONTINUES AT THE SAME RATE and a total of more than 2 degC above pre-industrial. And more warming after GHGs stop rising. (ARGO says about 30% of current forcing is disappearing into the deep ocean, so the planet will reach a steady state after GHGs stabilize only after an additional 0.6 degC of warming.

    Is that bad? If your debt increases by $100 or $1000/month for three months, is that a problem? Possibly not. That will total $12,000 or $120,000 in a decade. Passing judgment about short-term change without context and without asking the whether a trend will continue is moronic.

Comments are closed.