Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!

From the Fabius Maximus Website

Larry Kummer, Editor  9 May 2019

Summary: The propaganda barrage for the Green New Deal is accelerating. Science plays a small role in them. Every day brings a new crop of articles like this one. Let’s look under its hood and see what we find.

World-on-tightrope-over-flames-dreamstime_96004453

ID 96004453 © Mike2focus | Dreamstime

Where our New World Begins:
Power, politics, and the Green New Deal
By Kevin Baker in Harper’s, May 2019.

Baker provides an extended argument by analogy. It is propaganda for children – or adults with child-like thinking. Here is a blow-by-blow analysis.

Two-thirds of its 5300 words discuss FDR’s New Deal, although it has little in common with our situation. The history of the New Deal is accurate (although much of the rest is exaggerated or false). Here is the only explanation given why the New Deal history has relevance to us.

“We find ourselves today in much the same place, confronted by an array of emergencies – seemingly disparate, but in fact closely connected – ­that threatens to destroy us.”

That will make little sense to anyone not an avid consumer of doomster literature. The follow-up is misleading.

“Braced against them is a set of ideas put forward in a congressional resolution by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (the notorious AOC), a twenty-nine-year-old freshman congresswoman, and her young, ad hoc brain trust.”

Proposals for a Green New Deal go back at least to 2007 (e.g., by Thomas Friedman). Many have developed it into a proposal for a radical revision of America’s economy and society (see Wikipedia and HuffPo). The Left knows best; we are their lab rats.

Hand holding dry tree in front of a catastrophic background

ID 9523824 © Noahgolan | Dreamstime.

Then follows mockery of those that disagree with the GND, such as this bon mot. Plus the occasional moment of honesty: “we must transform the way our political and economic systems work in this country.”

“It’s the future, Dick, if we’re going to have one.”

Between such rare moments of honesty are powerful but mendacious statements like this.

“We have known that man-made, preventable climate change is happening for a long time. …President Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee issued a report highlighting the potential dangers in 1965.”

Very exciting, but the reality is less so. It refers to a 352 page report “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” by The Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. One  paragraph of 101 words discusses CO2. Of the 104 recommendations, only three mention CO2 – all calling for more research. For a good reason. Appendix Y4 (pp 111-133) discussing “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” gives this mild conclusion about rising CO2.

“This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate …At present it is impossible to predict these effects quantitatively.”

At last, some climate science.

Finally, 6500 words into the article, it mentions science. But it gives mostly misleadingly, exaggerated, or false information.

“We have increased the temperature of the earth by nearly 1° Celsius since the 1880s …”

No, we have not. Natural warming brought Earth out of the Little Ice Age. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions became a dominant force after WWII. As the WGI Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 said, “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

“which has led to climate events of unprecedented frequency and ferocity, including terrible fires, hurricanes, the decline and extinction of entire species, and dire food and water shortages that have precipitated wars and refugee crises.”

All of that is fallacious. Not true about wildfires (see here, here, and here). Not true about hurricanes (see this, and also here and here). As for “extinction of entire species”, the first likely case was this year – the Bramble Cay melomys, which lived on an island in the Great Barrier Reef (species living on one island are vulnerable to disruption, and account for a large fraction of threatened species). The claims about wars and migrant flows are quite bogus.

“We are headed rapidly toward doubling that increase to 2 degrees, which could kill off the world’s coral reefs, melt enough global ice to flood every city by a seashore, and turn “the biggest cities of the Middle East and South Asia …lethally hot in summer,” according to the climate journalist David Wallace-Wells writing in a New York Times article headlined ‘Time to Panic.‘”

First, those claims about effects of an additional 1°C of warming are, to be generous, speculative. For example, to “flood every city by a seashore” would take many generations, or even centuries (see below). Second, this is Baker – a novelist and columnist (see Wikipedia) – citing another journalist, David Wallace-Wells. Neither is a scientists or even a journalist covering the sciences. Third, it was a NYT op-ed, not an NYT article. That is a big difference.

“What will happen when we get to a 3-degree, or 4-degree, or 6-degree increase – all incredibly likely, if we continue to do nothing – is so terrible as to be beyond useful contemplation. Suffice it to say, those temperatures will destroy us.”

This is the big lie of climate alarmists. None of those numbers are “incredibly likely.” There are four scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs), first used in the IPCC’s AR5. The two likely ones are RCP4.5 and RCP6.0. The worst case scenario, RCP8.5, gets most of the attention. But it is either unlikely or impossible (also see this), as a good worst-case scenario should be. Look at the projections through 2065, for which the projections are moderately reliable. After that there, forecasting becomes less reliable.

See this graph from “Robustness and uncertainties in new CMIP5 model projections” by Reto Knutti & Jan Sedláček in Nature Climate Change, April 2013 (open copy here). For another perspective, see Table SPM.2 of the Summary for Policymakers from Working Group I. Temperatures are shown vs. the average of 1986–2005. The likely range through 2065 is 0.9 to 1.8°C. and (more speculatively) 1.1 to 3.1°C through 2100. The closest thing to the range Baker gives is for the implausible RCP8.5 in 2100: 2.6 to 4.8°C. Six degrees C is beyond the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario.

From "Robustness and uncertainties in new CMIP5 model projections" by Reto Knutti & Jan Sedláček in Nature Climate Change, April 2013.

Table 2 of the Summary for Policymakers of Working Group I the IPCC's AR5: temperatures through 2100 by scenario

About that “flood every city by a seashore” – look at one paper’s projections of global sea level rise by 2100 for each RCP (S.Jevrejeva et al. in Global and Planetary Change, January 2012. Open copy here.). The ranges are large, since many of the factors are poorly understood. The average for the two middle (i.e., likely) scenarios are under three feet of rise by 2100. Easily manageable for most cities, although those underwater and sinking (e.g., Venice and New Orleans) might join the list of cities submerged over past millennia by the rising seas.

Increase in global average sea level to 2100 by RCP

Conclusions

“A student in Wendy Petersen Boring’s climate-change-focused class said she woke at 2 a.m. and then cried for two solid hours about the warming ocean. …Petersen Boring, an associate professor of history, religious studies, women & gender studies at Willamette University in Oregon, has been teaching about climate change for a little over a decade. In that short time, she has watched her students’ fear, grief, stress and anxiety grow.” {From CNN.}

This Harper’s article was on the May 8 menu of Naked Capitalism’s daily diet of science-free climate Armageddon articles. These terrify liberals every morning (other than these, I find NC’s daily links quite useful). After years of this, their readers have a largely fictitious understanding of climate science. Much like conservatives’ faux economics and faux history. Amazingly, some activists want more. Naomi Klein wants journalists to deliver even more alarmism and less science.

Most of these climate doomsters articles have three defining characteristics. First, they’re written by journalists – not even science reporters. Second, they ignore the IPCC and major climate agencies – citing alarmists and other journalists. Third, climate scientists ignore their exaggerations and even falsehoods. As the ancient adage says, silence means complicity (see here and here).

But these articles debunking the alarmists are futile. They are long and complex vs. alarmists’ exciting and simple stories. The alarmists will dominate the public media until climate scientists speak out. Alarmists are polluting the public policy debate, making rational decisions more difficult. So we are unprepared not just for likely climate change, but for the repeat of past extreme weather. The price of our folly might be large.

For More Information

Important – Media phenomena like Greta Thunberg don’t just happen. They result from careful work by powerful special interest groups. See how she became an icon for the climate apocalypse: “Greta Inc.” by William Walter Kay at Friends of Science.

Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see The keys to understanding climate change and these posts about climate propaganda. The good news is that the very bad news is wrong.

  1. A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
  2. Scary but fake news about the National Climate Assessment.
  3. New climate porn: it forces walruses to jump to their death!
  4. Weather porn about Texas, a lesson for Earth Day 2019.
  5. Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!
  6. Important: The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
Books about the doomster vision

The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine – “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: what climate change could wreak – sooner than you think.” Expanded into a book: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.

The five ways the human race could be WIPED OUT because of global warming.” By Rod Ardehali at the Daily Mail. H/t to the daily links at Naked Capitalism. Promo for Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?, a book by Bill McKibben.

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!

  1. The green blob has exhausted any credibility they ever had long ago, so it would appear that mostly the young and ignorant accept their claims.

    • A whole generation (maybe two) of young and innocent have been indoctrinated since Kindergarten. That is a large portion of those alive today.

      Wendy Petersen Boring …. has been teaching about climate change for a little over a decade. In that short time, she has watched her students’ fear, grief, stress and anxiety grow.

      She seems oblivious to her part and responsibility in the growth of her students’ fear, grief, stress and anxiety !

    • “their readers have a largely fictitious understanding of climate science. Much like conservatives’ faux economics and faux history.”

      WTH do you think you’re talking to Larry Kummer, Editor?

  2. Sea level rise according to NOAA tide gauge studies is less than 6 inches per century with no signs of acceleration. To get to even the low end of the predictions by 2100 requires an immediate and sustained increase in sea level rise not seen since the end of the Ice Age. Studies of Greenland and Antarctic do not indicate such melting in the warmer past and at the soonest in over 1,000 years. At the rate that Earth has been cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum 8,000 years ago, the next ice age should be near at hand by then. Then the consequences of a very cold Earth should be alarming to the extreme.

  3. “We have increased the temperature of the earth by nearly 1° Celsius since the 1880s …”

    There is no way to know if that is true, though it might be within 1 significant figure. A 2° Celsius rise would prevent more deaths, however.

    • R Shearer,

      “There is no way to know if that is true …”

      True, but the available evidence is strong that is false. It would be more accurate, if still debatable, stated as “we have increased temp by 1C since 1950.”

      But attribution since 1880 would require estimates about global land use changes and emissions that we don’t have. Personally, I don’t have much confidence in the instrument land temperature record before WWI, and the ocean surface temp record before WWII – or 1950(?) – except with really big error bars.

  4. ” The worst case scenario, RCP8.5, gets most of the attention. But it is either unlikely or impossible ”
    It is also not contingent on fossil fuel emissions as its derivation assumes. Future atmospheric CO2 content that might affect global temperatures is nearly entirely a function of natural fluxes. The data we have to date do not demonstrate that the atmospheric content responds measurably to changes in human emissions.
    ( https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ ) The catastraphists lament that we are doing ourselves in with our emissions is a canard. It is however widely accepted and protected by those that use it to promote their tale and their income. Murray Salby tried to bring the lie it to our attention and he had his paper denied, his work confiscated, and his job taken away. Herman Harde tried to move the conversation toward the truth and was censored. Ed Berry tried to get the truth out but had his paper denied with no explanation while two reviewers recommending it be published. Indeed, it is a propaganda battle and not a scientific discussion and “The price of our folly might be large.”

  5. It must drive some of these alarmists crazy: that every thing they have came from capitalism, fossil fuels, and white men.

  6. It’s easy to bash the Alarmists for their obviously outlandish lies. But the IPCC is telling porkies too. They are just more subtle about it.

    • Interesting how “incredible”, adjective – defined as “surpassing belief : too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief [and] hard to believe real or true” – can become “extremely” when used as the adverb, “incredibly”, with definition 2. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/incredible
      With all the many apocalyptic terms and scenarios in common usage these days, “incredibly” as “extremely” will likely soon be upgraded to definition 1, displacing “in an incredible manner”. Will Merriam-Webster allow itself to fall prey to climate alarmism?

  7. “Between such rare moments of honesty are powerful but mendacious statements like this.”
    (mendacious becasue then the actual LBJ report doesn’t support or say what is alleged)

    Not just Harper’s fantasies. The National Climate Assessment (NCA) authors (people who actually carry around labels as “scientist” with PhDs) regularly use similar mendacious portrayals of references in an attempts to substantiate alarmist claims in the NCA. They bank on the fact that drilling down through several layers of science references is both time consuming and something only a true wonk would pursue. Few if any actually examine the references and then the reference’s references to establish whether the many claims in the NCA are actually and soundly supported in this drill-down through the peer reviewed research literature.

    So when the many climate scientists on the NCA themselves are engaging in alarmist mendacity, it is unrealistic to expect them to “speak up” about other climate alarmist junk, as the finger would point right back to them.

    The big problem the climate scammers face right now is the oonce in a lifetime opportunity the 35 year window of natural global warming climate presented is closing rapidly now. James Hansen after taking over at GISS obviously realized this by the mid-1980’s and he started the ball rolling with his 1988 Senate testimony coordinated with Senator Wirth.

    A global 65-75 year internal climate cycle was the only way to explain the 1930’s to 1940 warm phase, and the subsequent mid-1970’s global cooling scare. A cycle probably dictated by the oceans. If we start the sine-wave clock from 1980 peak in the last 1990’s, then closing o/a 2015, this was the 35yr window they reliably had to pull-off the climate scam by associating that warmth with the coincidental MLO CO2 record recording the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
    And since the likely culprit AMO can be up to 80 years, then the climate opportunity window began closing by around 2017. Which is what we are now seeing in cold snowy winters returning to the NH. And more to come.

    Conclusion: The climate scam window is rapidly closing now on the scammers and their socialism schemes. Most importantly to very deep pocketed interests are the renewable energy pay-offs to Green investors are now threatened because the “deal is far from sealed.” China’s unstoppable economic and emssions rise, peak oil and gas put off indefinitely, and Trump are the mortal enemies of the climate scam.
    The result is the volume and intensity of climate lies from them is increasing… and will get worse in the next few years, until it collapses on them.

    • Joel,
      Let me get this straight. You are claiming that in about 1985 James Hansen had a better understanding
      of the climate than anyone else and rather than publicising this he decided to use to it create a global
      conspiracy with Senator Wirth that would last for 35 years before being proved wrong? James Hansen
      must really be a genius if he had that level of knowledge about the climate back then. Not to mention
      being incredibly patient to wait for 30 years for his conspiracy to come to fruition. Plus being unselfish since he would appear to have gained nothing from it as well.

      • Izaak,

        It wasn’t a conspiracy as much as he and Wirth (and others) saw an opportunity. An opportunity to at the forefront of new energy economy of the 21st Century. You also have understand that Hansen is a nuclear power proponent. And no one in 1988 could have foreseen the rise of China or the shale fracking oil and gas revolution that are both now shaping the realities and fundamentals of world energy supplies and CO2 emissions.

        Hansen saw an opportunity to produce a policy outcome in 1988, based on what they thought they knew then. Everyone “knew” in 1988 that Peak Oil was coming.
        Everyone “knew” that the CO2 increase, as recorded by the then 28 year MLO record those increases were due to the US and Europe as the world largest consumers of fossil fuel, fuels that would within 20 years start to become scarce.

        You also need to go research and study the history of Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome and Agenda 21.

        The renewables scam grew out of the Green Blob realizing it could instead of harvesting free wind energy and solar energy, it was far more lucrative to harvest wind and solar energy subsidies and guaranteed price pass throughs to customers and electric rate payers. The Democratic politicians realized it was a way to “tax the middle class” without them realizing it, while getting campaign kick-backs. This is why so many public employee retirement funds are invested in Green energy schemes, for an enhanced ROI delivered by political diktats of renewable mandate. And those are all public union retirement funds invested in Green energy schemes, funds that have huge actuarial shortfalls currently in the Trillions of dollars looking for juiced ROIs on the the backs of the middle class.

      • Oh and course Hansen did publish. It’s just he took over GISS in 1981, and as leader of a NASA institute, that was especially empowering. After the Global Nuclear Winter scare went nowhere (deservedly so), it was few years to really come to grips with the temperature records of the 19th and 20th Centuries and what story they were telling. about natural climate cycles. It wasn’t lost on anyone then that the 1975 Cooling scare was ebbing.

        “When you’re a carpenter, everything is nail to be hammered.”
        Hansen had cut his atmospheric physics teeth on studying and publishing Venus atmospheric hothouse and GHGs radiative physics. He thought he understood everything as a greenhouse gas and its role in controlling temperatures of planets.
        You need to also understand when the IPCC was put together and what its task was… human causes of warming, not natural. First IPCC report was 1990. And the ball was rolling.
        Understanding where we are today requires understanding the path behind us.

  8. “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

    Since this is from the summary for policymakers, I would not consider it to be authoritative.

    I have yet to see any clear evidence that warming after 1951 is _not_ predominantly caused by a continuation of the same warming processes that resulted in the end of the Little Ice Age.

  9. “Braced against them is a set of ideas put forward in a congressional resolution by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (the notorious AOC), a twenty-nine-year-old freshman congresswoman, and her young, ad hoc brain trust.”

    revised text: ‘and her young, ad hoc brain,’

  10. We live in a society where a foundation for the preservation of box jellyfish would rise more donations than an association of families having lost members to box jellyfish stings.

  11. Australia has just re-elected it’s liberal conservative government with an increase seats maybe p
    Outright majority of largely due to rejection of anti coal mining city elite nimbies.
    Great outcome…

  12. Let’s see, AOC has given up on the12 years left claim, Burning Sanders is sticking with it and appears to ride that train to the end of the tracks, and Crazy Uncle Joe, at least for today, is not sure. Willamette University is an official Snowflake Reserve, and the various IPCC reports are all over the map. If Larry Kummer looks under the hood he will seem an internal combustion engine ready to go!

    • Ron,

      “If Larry Kummer looks under the hood he will seem an internal combustion engine ready to go!”

      Nice guess. Let’s see what I’ve actually said so many times during the past decade.

      “Revolutions are won by building support in key institutions and laying the foundation for victory. The alarmists have completed all the steps to win. They need only a bout of extreme weather to panic the easily panicked America public. Gaining public support is the last stage, not the first. They need win only once.”

      • Larry,
        The Frankfurt School developed their policy called, The Long March Through The Institutions, needed to advance Marxism before the second world war. They knew and stated, it would be a generations long process. They planned for a long drawn out campaign of winning the influence in society.
        The media, the educationalists, the academics, the civil servants, the expanding role of social welfare programs, the charities, the NGOs and even religious leaders, all were targeted.
        Here we are, three generation on and not only have they all but captured their target institutions, they have managed to enrol entertainers, rich business leaders plus royalty, into their ranks.
        We should thank our lucky stars, they picked CO2 as the villain needed to fully consolidate and unify their flock in common pan world cause.
        They picked the wrong target when they chose CO2 and climate, even though the h”rills in the movement are now openly stating, “if we are to save the planet we have to stop capitalism”.
        The Marxists can no longer hide the nature or objective of the “project”.
        Thankfully, they handed the realists among us, a huge (hockey) stick to beat them with, when they picked on CO2.

  13. “We have increased the temperature of the earth by nearly 1° Celsius since the 1880s …”

    and SLR has been consistent ever since…..9 inches a century

    ….any further increase in CO2 will have the same or less effect

  14. I cheer on your criticism of Alarmist fever, but After reviewing you links, albeit briefly, https://fabiusmaximus.com/tag/faux-economics/ and https://fabiusmaximus.com/tag/faux-history/ I find myself disagreeing with your bias choice of historical facts and conclusions you draw from them. There are many examples of you bias but this is a good example: ” The USSR begged Britain and the US to open a second front in the west, and Franklin Roosevelt promised to do just that before the end of 1942. But he allowed the Brits, led by Winston Churchill to dissuade him. Britain thought it more important to preserve its own empire, first by securing the link to India and the Far East through Suez, so the Americans landed in North Africa instead of France.

    Some American politicians, like Harry Truman (who would succeed Roosevelt as US president) argued that the US should help the Nazis if the Soviets were winning and the Soviets if the Nazis were winning so as many as possible would die. When the North Africa campaign was wrapped up, the Americans and Brits invaded Italy instead of France, prompting US General George Marshall to accuse his superiors of “periphery pecking” instead of fighting the war.”
    Neither UK or the US were ready for a D-day until 1944 and claiming not doing it in 1943 or unbelievably as you suggest in 1942 is ludicrous. This isn’t your only obvious bias.

    • William, add to that the fact that, in 1942 the US had ALSO found itself in a 2 front war, one that had already cost it a sizable portion of its Pacific fleet. Before they could focus on invading NAZI held Europe they needed to secure their own homeland, just as the British did.

      Frankly, I’m k8nd oder surprised the US focused on Europe as much as they did in those first 2 years. From what I’ve read much of the Citizens of the US were more interested in fighting the Japanese as they were the ones who actually attacked them.

      ~¿~

  15. If the “Green New Deal” is ever enacted it will have one thing in common with FDR’s New deal, it will fail as FDR’s New Deal failed:

    May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau (FDR’s treasury secretary): “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  16. “We find ourselves today in much the same place, confronted by an array of emergencies – seemingly disparate, but in fact closely connected – ­that threatens to destroy us.”

    Nah as you were interfering doomsters. Omniscient and all powerful Gaia is on the job with sustainability and equilibrium-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/plants-are-doing-their-best-to-save-mankind-but-they-cant-do-it-alone/ar-AABzCzJ
    All part of her grand plan for us and Gaia works in mysterious ways and you simply have be true believers 😉

  17. Well, the IPCC verdict may as well stand as it may fail. Only the future could determine that. However, I still have the late Dr. Michael Crichton’s assertion in mind, that humans are insignificant contributors to anything of global character.

  18. Central Banks Are the World’s Newest Climate Change Activists
    http://fortune.com/2019/04/26/climate-change-central-banks/

    Why Central Banks Are Taking on Climate Change
    https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/central-banks-climate-change/

    The Federal Reserve is preparing the American financial system to withstand climate change, Chair Jerome Powell tells Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/07/jerome-powell-fed-is-preparing-us-financial-system-for-climate-change.html

  19. VOX recently published a list of points made by skeptics in criticizing CAGW. Then provided counter-arguments for the faithful.
    Number 10 included that 34 central banks had endorsed the climate promotion.
    With a note that central bankers are very conservative within the financial community.
    No!
    The concept that a bankers’ bank has special wisdom and powers has always been a crock. But many in the financial world believe that a central bank has supernatural abilities.
    Not so!
    The original promoters of the Federal Reserve System knew that financial setbacks preceded recessions. The Fed by intervening would prevent such setbacks and there would be no recessions.
    According to the NBER, there has been 18 recessions since the Fed opened its doors in January 1914.
    Feynman would say something about a beautiful theory but it doesn’t work.
    So the concept of central banking disproves itself with every recession.
    On the practice of central banking, today’s senior central bankers have been the most reckless in theory.
    There are charts to show the excesses.

  20. FDR’s New Deal was a complete economic and fiscal disaster.

    7 years into the New Deal fiasco, Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s close friend and Treasury Secretary, admitted it was an utter failure by saying, “We’re spending more money than ever before and we have nothing to show for it, other than a mountain of debt.”

    The GND would be even worse causing: the national debt to skyrocket, the US$ to collapse,
    massive unemployment, soaring prices, falling real wages, collapsing bond prices, debilitatingly high interest rates, excessive business regulations and taxes, stock and real estate markets to crash, a massive spike in bankruptcies, falling living standards, etc…

    “If we fail to learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it.”

  21. I for one am taking names. Wendy Boring is an addition to the list. Apologies are owed.

  22. I would say that the author of this piece Kevin Baker is another “useful idiot ‘ as any one who supports the New Green Deal has no idea how the world works .
    From as far away as New Zealand it is easy to see that the adoption of the NGD would be economic suicide for the USA.
    Every modern country in the world progress and look after the well being of their population because they have plentiful ,affordable and reliable energy .
    Without any of these three a country will soon run into many problems and even more so it their government has make work schemes that don’t produce what is needed and they subsidies solar and wind power electric generation as in the long run everybody in the country end up worse off .
    The only cost effective energy solutions that do not emit CO2 are Hydro and Nuclear .
    The new greens are against both .
    Therefore they are against the modern world and want to return to the past..

  23. “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions became a dominant force after WWII.”

    If you have to repeat the lies of the enemy, of what use are you.
    There isn’t a shred of evidence to back the claim that after WWII, natural forces disappeared and CO2 took over as the cause of warming.

  24. I’m STILL waiting for ANY evidence which shows that ANYTHING we humans might do will actually have a measurable effect and will in fact even begin to fix the ‘problem’. I think I will wait a long time…
    Most lay people seem to think that if we can build a Panama Canal or a Suez Canal we somehow have the engineering and energy available to change the climate of the whole earth. we are in fact several thousand years from being able to do anything close to that.

  25. I highly recommend for all the true believer in the GND to buy and read Bronowski Ascent Of Man (available at Amazon and all good book shops) or get the videos (also available on Amazon).
    Just one quote from it —

    “It’s said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That’s false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

    Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”

    I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here [in Auschwitz], to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.
    ― Jacob Bronowski

    [My insert and bold]

  26. I spent many years reading peer reviewed medical research publications (reviewed a few myself) and the reality is that even those papers you have to read in a certain manner.

    1. Read the title to decide whether to read the paper, but assume until proven otherwise that the title is exaggerated hyperbole.

    To get published, a paper has to be exciting, new and of wide significance. Perfect veterinary science saying ‘all the cows are healthy, sir’ is rejected by return of post.

    2. Having read the title, go immediately to the results section. Forget the introduction, it is mostly just to show you have read the literature and can quote it to justify what you did yourself.

    Results sections have to show real data or model simulation outputs. You learn pretty quick whether the title was hyperbole or vaguely accurate. For each result, visit materials and methods to see if there are any reasons to raise objections or red flags. More often than not, there may be. Obviously, the more cutting edge experience you personally have, the greater ability you have to spot potential oddities.

    3. Draw your own conclusions from the data presented. Do not accept their conclusions first.

    If you reach the same conclusions given the same data, you believe the deductive reasoning of the authors to be reasonable. That is not the same as replicating the data yourself to ensure that the data itself is sound. For that you have to trust referees and other research groups working in the same field. Three independent groups getting the same data outputs generally signifies robust data or coordinated conspiracy to defraud.

    All of that of course requires professional training and research experience.

    What of Joe Public? How do they get to judge things?

    Well, usually through the MSM, nowadays through independent blogs and in the past certain publications like New Scientist or Scientific American which tried to write in non-technical language.

    Having experienced some honest journos from a Deep South rag pick up a story and want to talk with my boss (who was on holiday) about some medical research, I can tell you that they are in no position to sift wheat and chaff and need to judge who is trustworthy. They were honestly chasing something up but scientists were like politicians, stonewalling them or issuing controlled PR. I explained in three sentences the issues involved and pointed them to two scientists whose work was relevant to the subject matter. They were very appreciative of honest background information which treated them like adult professionals. I was marked down for not contributing to the creation of ill-informed froth….

    So then you have innocent young folks who cannot judge who in the media is trustworthy, which blogs seek to inform rather than manipulate and who cannot possibly judge which reams of scientific data are appropriate, accurate and reliable. They just get snowballed with a relentless barrage of propaganda.

    I was given a very good piece when a young researcher and it is this: do not read too much and clutter your mind when starting out in a new field. Keep your mind clear simply to observe, plan and design experiments. Only as you build up data do you start to need to put it into context.

    That of course requires you to trust your mentor that the research you are doing is a good approach to take.

    How many young folks are told just to block out the MSM and trust their eyes, their ears and their senses?

    Democracy in climate is tricky as the education levels necessary to be informed voters represent wuite a high bar. Both sides have charlatans and most folks cannot recognise them easily.

    Any climate scientist out there capable of writing ‘The XXXXX Lectures on Climate’, analsgous to Dick Feynman’s bible on undergraduate physics?

    It might be a good time to write it…..

    • Steps 1, 2 & 3 on reading research papers are good guide for assessing whether the conclusions follow logically from the presented data – when the reader understands the subject sufficiently.

      Yes, a Feynmann equivalent “bible” on climate would be valuable. But who in the field is capable of producing such a gem?

  27. “most cities, although those underwater and sinking (e.g., Venice and New Orleans) might join the list of cities submerged over past millennia by the rising seas.”
    __________________________________________________

    Venice and New Orleans are not “sinking or submerging”.
    But both cities are sitting on big river deltas and carry lots of sediments.

    As is with the river delta of the Yangtze, the yellow river.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=yangtse+kiang&oq=yang+tsekia&aqs=chrome.

    These estuaries oscillate between sediment building up and getting drained to the oceans.

    depending on “water management” and ocean current, wind direction, ebb and flow.

    all weather. nix climate.

    • Recent SciAm article on New Orleans Levees, “After a $14-Billion Upgrade, New Orleans’ Levees Are Sinking” claims “Sea-level rise and ground subsidence will render the flood barriers inadequate in just four years”. No mention of sediment but instead refers to Army Corp of Engineers study of “reinforcing the system” which “involves scraping off the top layer of grass and a fabric mattress and piling on additional earth before restoring the surface layer. It is unclear how much earth will need to be added to the levees, which stand as high as 35 feet.” Hhmmmm….

      “Sea level rise” is given 4th place by the Army Corp as the problems to be “offset” by the reinforcing, after “consolidation, settlement, subsidence”. Did they just throw that “sea level rise” in there to promote acceptance of the new high costs (how high?) when the first draft of their report is scheduled for release in December and then goes for public comment?
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/after-a-14-billion-upgrade-new-orleans-levees-are-sinking/

  28. “FDR’s New Deal was a complete economic and fiscal disaster”
    Yes and I’m always surprised how many people still think otherwise.
    Canadian Conrad Black whose writing style I admire wrote a book entitled ‘How FDR Saved Capitalism’.
    There have been many pertinent critiques of that book where writers have arrived at entirely different conclusions regarding the FDR socialist experiment.

    • Rick-san:

      Leftists control the print/TV media, academia, the bureaucracy, Hollywood, the Internet, most publishers, etc.

      “He who controls the past, controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past.”

      Leftists are extremely adept at revisionist history, which is why Leftist ideology is still a thing…. if people actually understood basic and actual: history, logic, economics, ethics, morality, epistemology, philosophy, and reason, Leftism would be dead….But, alas…

    • Yeah well, Rick, the newly pardoned and vindicated Lord Black is very fond of praising his own brilliance in understanding history and current affairs (in tediously top-heavy sentences larded with multisyllabic verbosity), but in this case, he could very well be right.

      You can never know what would have happened if things had been different, but you can certainly indulge in thought experiments about what might have happened if FDR had not set his New Deal in motion. One possible outcome would be events similar to those that took place in Russia in 1917. Against which possibility, spending unsustainably large amounts of money might not have been such a bad thing.

      Sometimes going into debt and ignoring the complaints of fiscal conservatives who are not themselves suffering, with the object of alleviating untold human misery and averting the possible total collapse of civil society, can be the right thing to do.

      In any event, Pearl Harbor happened and saved his bacon.

      Keynes (much maligned in these pages) made the point that deficit spending needs to be balanced – and paid for – by building surpluses when times are good. That’s the hard part of Keynesian economics, and it’s been perennially ignored by governments around the world.

  29. So – zero corals from the Ordovician through the Devonian, eh? I mean, there CAN’T have been, given the mean temps of up to 6 degrees above present, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 16 times pre-industrial!

    Why on earth has this enormous transparent lie on the part of the entire hysteric community from pols to NGOs to journalists never been been properly addressed? STFU ABOUT THE GODDAMN CORALS!

  30. So – zero corals from the Ordovician through the Devonian, eh? I mean, there CAN’T have been, given the mean temps of up to 6 degrees above present, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 16 times pre-industrial!

    Why on earth has this enormous transparent lie on the part of the entire hysteric community from pols to NGOs to journalists never been been properly addressed? STFU ABOUT THE STUPID CORALS!

    • Pardon the double post – thought the g.d.-word had sent my post into limbo.

  31. This is how the Marxist model works – their propaganda machine focuses on some natural, or normal human foible or condition, and blames it on whatever they’re targeting – C02, capitalism, a given race or demographic, etc.

    And without fail any ‘solution’ invariably makes the alleged problem worse – or creates one where it didn’t exist before.

  32. The alarmist crowd desperately seeking a large-scale, zero-carbon energy source to save the world is the same one that has spent their entire lives opposing nuclear power.. to save the world. All without any sense of irony, or even self-awareness.

    Then they looked at the science behind GMOs and decided for all of us that it was too dangerous. They can’t even figure out what makes wind impractical for grid power and we’re supposed to trust their judgment on climate models that are unable to forecast or even hindcast all that well, trusting them that we need to spend trillions of dollars.

    Pass.

  33. Why are those who are bought in to the idea that continued warming will be catastrophic never asked where was the inflection point where warming turned from being beneficial to being harmful?

  34. Re. Joel O’Briyan , and other letters May 19, he is the first one to
    explain to me the whole matter of the fiddle carried out by Hansen and Co
    I did not realise that Hansen was pro Nuclear. A bit like Margaret
    Thither and the coal miners strike in the UK.

    But as usual lots of people saw a big opportunity in Green things, and
    jumped on the Bandwagon.

    The Media loved it, all of those blank pages or TV time to fill up, and
    as usual the politicians who are always chasing a vote or two joined in.

    Re. the “Flooding”” from the melting of the ice, I recall reading that ice melts so slowly that it was quite practical to ship ice blocks from frozen lakes in Canada to around the world.

    So what sort of temperatures and over how long a period would be needed to flood the likes of say New York ?

    As for Maurice Strong. He is portrait perfectly in the film “”The Wizard of Oz”” as the man behind the Green Curtain , busy pulling the levers.

    MJE VK5ELL

  35. Steve O, May 20. That’s a very good point Steve. I sometimes say that here in Australia we should be required to obtain permission before travelling from cold Tasmania to the very hot Northern Queensland, which is almost on the Equarter How can we weak humans cope with such a major change in the temperature.

    MJE VK5ELL

Comments are closed.