Reposted from the Fabius Maximus website
By Larry Kummer, Editor
Summary: The results are meager from thirty years of debate about a public policy response to climate change. There is little support in America for action, the IPCC’s AR5 has disappeared from the news, much of the public no longer trust climate scientists, and debate has almost stopped. The weather will determine future policy, not our foresight. But we can see what went wrong and so do better next time – while we wait to see the price we pay for our folly. This is a drastic, and much darker, revision of a post from 2015.
“Thus an extraordinary claim requires ‘extraordinary’ (meaning stronger than usual) proof.”
— From “Zetetic Ruminations on Skepticism and Anomalies in Science“ by Marcello Truzzi in Zetetic Scholar, August 1987.
Scientists tell the UN about the coming disaster in “When Worlds Collide
” (1951).
They put forth the data and allowed debate about it.
Why doesn’t America lead the fight against climate change?
Why does anthropogenic climate change rank low on the list of public policy priorities in most surveys (e.g., these by Gallup and Pew Research) Since James Hansen brought global warming to the headlines in his 1989 Senate testimony, climate scientists have had almost every advantage. Their warnings are broadcast with large marketing budgets (e.g., the expensive propaganda video by 10:10). They have all the relevant institutions supporting them, including NASA, NOAA, the news media, academia, foundations, charities, and even funding from the energy companies (and here), They have support from the majority of scientists.
The other side, “skeptics”, have some funding from energy companies and conservative groups, with the heavy lifting being done by volunteer amateurs, plus a few scientists and meteorologists.
What the Soviet military called the correlation of forces overwhelmingly favors those wanting strong action. Public policy in America should have gone Green many years ago. Why didn’t it?
The burden of proof rests on those warning the world about a danger requiring trillions of dollars to mitigate. That is even more so for remedies proposed by activists, such as a massive decrease in our incomes (e.g., a 9-hour work week) and drastic revisions to – or even abandoning – capitalism (e.g., journalist Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
This is not about the validity of scientists’ predictions about climate change, but why America has ignored them.
How did scientists alert the world to a catastrophic threat?
We have seen this played out many times in books and films since the publication of When Worlds Collide
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report). Jones has not publicly denied it.
The public has been told that most forms of extreme weather increased in magnitude or frequency during the past three decades. That is false (data here, and here), a fact well-documented by the IPCC’s reports. (I recommend Judith Curry’s new essay about extreme weather.) Steve McIntyre has documented the efforts of climate scientists to keep vital information secret, often violating the disclosure policies of journals, universities, and government funding agencies.
In these films, scientists don’t destroy key records, which are required to be kept and made public. They don’t force people to file Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get key information. Their response to FOIs is never like this…
The {climategate} emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FOI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data. These moves were not only contrary to the spirit of scientific openness, but according to the government body that administers the FOI act were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”. {The Guardian}
In these films, leaders of science-related institutions state the facts and welcome debate. In climate science they have exaggerated the threat and worked to suppress debate.
“The time for debate has ended”
— Marcia McNutt (former editor-in-chief of Science, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015. We are already one degree over pre-industrial temperatures. A rise of another degree would not be an “inferno.”
Climate science’s leaders crush dissenters (no matter how well-founded the objections). In this they have the enthusiastic support of activists in the media and other institution (some, not most, climate scientists are activists). Eminent climate scientists such as Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry have had their reputations smeared. For an extreme example, see the campaign against Roger Pielke Jr. in response to his article in 2015 at Nate Silver’s “538” about findings of the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC about costs of weather-related disasters. These were inconvenient facts and so had to be suppressed. Which they were. Four more years of data further validated the IPCC’s conclusions, yet journalists still report fake news about increased costs of weather disasters. Ross McKitrick tells this sad history in the Financial Post: “This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather – so politicians attacked.“
Perhaps worst of all was the deliberate misrepresentation of the policy debate. Activist scientists said that skeptics “denied” the existence of climate change (which is false, and mad), or that they “denied” the existence of anthropogenic global warming and climate change (true only for an extreme fringe). The key questions were and are about the timing and magnitude of anthropogenic climate change – and its future. On those factors depend the nature of the appropriate policy response. This determined smearing of skeptic’s questions short-circuited the policy debate, and eventually poisoned it.
During the past few years, many climate scientists and activists have doubled down on these failed tactics. Stronger denunciation of critics. More extreme headlines such as “Halfway to Hell” in the New Scientist.
These actions by scientists erode trust in their work. This is not how people act when they have a strong case, especially with such high stakes. The warnings about climate change are not a Potemkin Village. But many climate scientists act as if it is one. The resulting gridlock in the public policy machinery is a natural result.
Case study of a dysfunctional debate: the pause
Starting in 2006 climate scientists began to notice a slowing in the rate of atmospheric warming since the 1997 – 1998 El Niño.
By 2009 there were peer-reviewed papers about it (e.g., in GRL), and the pace of publications quickly accelerated (see links to these 29 papers). In 2013 the frontier of climate science shifted from debate about the existence of the pause to its causes (see links to these 38 papers). That year the UK Met Office published a major paper: “The recent pause in global warming.”
- Part one: What do observations of the climate tell us?
- Part two: What are the potential causes?
- Their 2014 review briefly discusses the pause – saying that there were as yet no signs of it ending.
From 2008 to 2016, many scientists gave forecasts for the duration of the pause (see links to 17 forecasts). The pause ended with the El Niño warming spike in 2014 – 2016.
While scientists investigated this unexpected phenomenon, activists wrote scores – probably hundreds – of articles not just denying that there was a pause in warming, but mocking as “deniers” people citing the peer-reviewed literature about it. See these by astronomer Phil Plait at Slate (here, here, here and here). The leaders of climate science, even those writing papers about the pause, remained silent while activists lied. While an impressive display of message discipline, it blasted away the credibility of climate science for those who saw the science behind the curtain of propaganda.
There were rare and mild exceptions, such as this in Nature Climate Change, August 2014. Note the scare quotes around pause, referring to is as “so-called” despite that term’s frequent use in the literature. Also, note that scientists “dismiss” journalists’ questions about the pause, despite the hundreds of papers about it.
“Climate science draws on evidence over hundreds of years, way outside of our everyday experience. During the press conference, scientists attempted to supplement this rather abstract knowledge by emphasising a short-term example: that the decade from 2001 onwards was the warmest that had ever been seen. On the surface, this appeared a reasonable communications strategy. Unfortunately, a switch to shorter periods of time made it harder to dismiss media questions about short-term uncertainties in climate science, such as the so-called ‘pause’ in the rate of increase in global mean surface temperature since the late 1990s.
“The fact that scientists go on to dismiss the journalists’ concerns about the pause – when they themselves drew upon a similar short-term example – made their position inconsistent and led to confusion within the press conference.”
By Catherine Young and The Apocalypse Project.
The decay of climate science
Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.
– Roman adage: silence means assent when he ought to have spoken and was able to.
To convince people to fight climate change, they must trust climate scientists. While events during the first 25 years of the campaign made some people skeptical of the need for action, events in the past five years drastically polarized public opinion so that compromise became impossible.
The IPCC’s Working Group I reports (the physical sciences) are the “gold standard” description of climate research and the most reliable statement of scientists’ consensus. But by 2011 activists were saying they were “too conservative.” This became a widespread response by activists to the release of AR5 in 2013 (e.g., Inside Climate News and Yale’s Environment 360). Now activists explicitly attack the IPCC’s integrity, advocating it twist the science to support activists’ agenda. For example, see this March 2019 paper in Bioscience. (Here is a technical, if narrow, look at the issue from a risk management perspective.)
With little pushback by climate science leaders or their institutions, activists ran wild, making claims with little or no basis in science. Fear-mongering became their tool to gain public support. For example, see …
- “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. Promo for Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?
, a book by Bill McKibben.
- “Climate Change Could End Human Civilisation as We Know It by 2050, Analysis Finds“, about a far-fetched scenario (worse than the unlikely or impossible RCP8.5, the worst-case in the IPCC’s AR5) described in a report by the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration. Many journalists gave it uncritical reviews, such as the NY Post and USA Today.
Some activist scientists endorse these claims. Journalists give even wild claims priority coverage. So we get scores of deadlines for action – climate “tipping points” – during the past 30 years, like trolleys passing by. And we get a stream of stories like those described in these posts …
- Weather porn about Texas, a lesson for Earth Day 2019.
- Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!
- The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science.
- Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
- Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win.
Activists have succeeded in convincing those people who see climate policy as a means to enact their leftist agenda. They have convinced those who love doomster stories: doom from pollution (1960s), from overpopulation (1970s), from resource exhaustion (1980s), from peak oil (2000s). So the media overflow with people saying things like this …
“If we don’t fix it, then, the Earth will be uninhabitable for future generations.”
— “Early Warnings” by Michelle Nijhuis in the NY Review of Books.
Activists have terrified many young people (the young are always susceptible to simple exciting stories), as in this example of successful indoctrination of children for political gain.
“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 and 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.}
As a group, scientists respond to these exaggerations and misrepresentations of their work with silence. Few defend the IPCC against claims of excessively conservative analysis. Rarely do scientists give even mild rebukes to activists’ climate stories (which are usually ignored by journalists who did not want to ruin the narrative). This silence allowed activists’ stories to displace the IPCC’s assessment reports, despite the vast work to produce them, and dominate the news. Scientists describing the consensus were blown off the news by the thrilling claims of activists.
This is too deep a subject to fully document and explain here. See my posts About the corruption of climate science, and the follow-up The noble corruption of climate science. Also see these articles by Roger Pielke, Jr.
- An example of climate activists at work that shows why they lost.
- An example of climate activists at work that shows why they lost.
- Institutional decay in climate science.
- More misreporting of experts’ reports.
ID 37813605 © Lane Erickson | Dreamstime.
Consequences of a broken climate debates
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
Largely as a result of climate scientists’ actions, the US will take no substantial steps to prepare for future climate change. This political gridlock means that we will not prepare even for the inevitable re-occurrence of past extreme weather.
The weather will determine who “wins” the political debate, and at what cost to America – large or small. All that remains is to discuss the lessons we can learn from this debacle so that we can do better in the future.
“Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
— Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.
For More Information
Climate science is yet another American institution in decay. For more about this trend, see A new, dark picture of America’s future.
For an alternative perspective on these matters, see “Losing Earth” by NYT journalist Nathaniel Rich in the NYT Magazine. Expanded into a book: Losing Earth: A Recent History
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 especially see these…
- How climate scientists can re-start the public policy debate about climate change – test the models!
- Follow-up: more about why scientists should test the models.
- A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
- The 5 stages of grief for the failure of the climate change campaign.
- Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
To help us better understand today’s weather
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
It would be nice to hear the end of debate in Canada. Oh… wait….it has. Replaced by a doubling down on consensus, forest fires, and polar bears. And the Trudeau Liberals’ incessant squall of climate alarm.
Canada will be the next leader of the UN.
[pruned]
I am [pruned].
[Cut it out. .mod]
Quit censoring my posts because you don’t like me speaking about [pruned].
David
Quit writing posts that NEED to be censored.
“Why does anthropogenic climate change rank low on the list of public policy priorities in most surveys ”
Because for most people it doesn’t ring true. The average person can see that the mitigation policies will starve them and worse and scientists understand the REAL science. See below.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Roger
The alarmists want others to jump around and panic and live in mud huts while they themselves keep on living the good life, the hypocrites, they are the worst kind of parasites.
John,
“The alarmists want others to jump around and panic and live in mud huts while they themselves keep on living the good life,”
I doubt that. Leftists use climate change as a wedge issue – as they have and will so many other dangers – to gain power.
“the hypocrites”
Most people hungry for power, Left and Right, are hypocrites. It’s pretty much a necessity.
” they are the worst kind of parasites.”
I don’t believe that is a useful way to describe people seeking power. Some do so for themselves, some from a sincere desire to help others, some are ideologues, some are a combo of these.
It’s not the hungering for power that you have to worry about. It’s what they are willing to do in order to grab power.
Yes, there are bad actors on the right, but compared to the left those on the right are saints.
Mark,
+1
Going to the heart of the matter!
Your article is wrong, Kummer:
You wrote:
“The results are meager from thirty years of debate about a public policy response to climate change. There is little support in America for action …”
That statement is not correct.
The United States has spent a fortune on climate change, both in the public and private sectors.
“Support” comes from people who spend money.
Those who are silent, imply they support the spending by their elected representatives, local utilities, and probably the company they work for too.
We’ve got solar panels, wind farms, electric utilities subsidizing LED light bulbs, etc, etc.
US CO2 emissions stopped growing roughly eight years
ago — how could anyone view that as “little support for action” ?
While it may be true that the Trump Administration is not interested in “action” — let’s say we have a “pause” — we could have a Democrat president in 20 months — do you think the “Trump Pause” will still be in effect after a Democrat is inaugurated ?
Almost without exception, those attaining such power expect to live better than those over whom they have power. Whether that is a primary motivating reason to want power to begin with is a moot point. It’s part and parcel to having power.
In gross, general terms, the Right want the power to live their lives as they see fit; the left want the power to force you to live the lives they see fit, while exempting themselves. Hypocrisy belongs to the Left.
Finally, regardless of their motivation, the Left seek to attain their goals by using the wealth of others. That makes them parasites. The Right, OTOH. seek to attain their goals merely by keeping the wealth they earned.
jtom,
“those attaining such power expect to live better than those over whom they have power.”
Leaders always live better than followers, from those in business, govt, and the army. That’s considered a reward for assuming more responsibility.
There is a name for a society in which everybody shares and shares alike – utopian communism. Is that what you prefer?
Well, utopian communism appears to be incompatible with human evolution – any attempt degrades into a ruling class and gross inequalities – so that isn’t a viable option. Some species seem to succeed very well at it, though.
Those on thr Right seem intent on minimizing the power given to others (specifically, a collection of PEOPLE forming ‘the government’). They incessantly call for smaller government. Those on the Left seem driven to maximize power the power of government.
Regardless, the desire to obtain power includes the expectation, if not desire, to live better than the rest.
There is a name for a society in which all shares and shares alike – utopian communism. Is that what you prefer?
: Once upon a time there was the / in later monasteries / written celtic utopia from the land of milk lakes, to where you had to eat through butter mountains.
The EU produces tank trucks full of milk and semitrailer trucks, the coolers loaded with tons of butter, for sale abroad.
U topia are working that way – its called “long term planning”.
The fundamental difference between left and right has always been that the right focuses on the goals and aspirations of the individual while the left sees the individual as subordinate to the desires and goals of the collective. There are two problems with a collective point of view. The first is, the individual is tangible, he or she will tell you what they want and see as fair but the collective is ephemeral. One can readily convince oneself that the collective desires align with ones personal views/paranoias. The second is that human aspirations overwhelmingly focus on the individual not on the collective.
The end result of a collective focus is that individual rights and goals are trampled in a selfish desire to impose ones personal views on society. The injustices always start against minorities because they are largely powerless to fight back. Its only when the injustices become so severe that they impact on the individual rights of the majority that society pushes back. For example, yellow jacket, Hong Kong rebellion, (Teinanmin square was an example of a minority large enough to attempt a fight back but too small to succeed). By then of course a huge amount of irreversible damage has been done.
Of course, focus on the individual to the total abandonment of the collective is also bad since it leads to the sort of outcome of the workhouses of the industrial revolution. A balance between the two is required. Unfortunately it is far more common to see a balance too far to the left than too far to the right.
I’m sorry LK, I must agree with the characterization of power seeking people as parasites. Anyone, anywhere who depends on their ability to control people through the use of force is a parasite. Politicians are power seekers and politicians are parasites. If you have to reach for a gun to enforce your desires, because if you don’t initiate force no one will let you do what you wish, then you are a parasite.
Voting is an attempt to anesthetize the losing minority by convincing them that they had the ability to change the outcome. Given the fraud that is, and has always been, rampant when anything remotely important to the voting individuals comes up on the ballot, the anesthetization is crucial to maintain stability in the locality.
The fight has been against communism for a hundred years now and most of the American people are still on the right side. Climate change is just a minor (so far) skirmish between the communists and capitalists in that overall battle.
That’s not to take away from the useful idiots like Hansen and the Pope as they are good at getting followers like religious leaders tend to be.
Its bot communism versus capitalism – that is a faux distinction drawn up by communists.
It is really about totalitarian elitism versus some form of democracy.
The communists and global capitalists are on the same side. Both want centralised control of humanity. To its detriment.
“The communists and the global capitalists are on the same side “.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner Bob, now tell him what he’s won!
I think that over the last ten years I have seen scepticism growing massively amongst the scientifically educated.
The politically astute have also noticed the disjunct between predictions and reality and understand the political motivations behind alarmism.
It is a movement that is running out of gas…
I suspect you are right Leo. Seems to me that the majority still pay lip service to the global warming scare but that rational skepticism is growing. In Chicago this morning my house was cold enough that I had to turn on my furnace. That was the second time this week. This winter we had typical below zero weather. People look around them and they can see that nothing seems to be any different than it has ever been and they grow skeptical.
“It is a movement that is running out of gas…”
“Largely as a result of climate scientists’ actions, the US will take no substantial steps to prepare for future climate change.” (Larry Kummer)
Nope, the activists have successfully targeted state and local leaders and got many of them to commit to great increases in “renewables” and prohibition of gas pipelines and fracking—and most such action will come. They have bypassed the federal level. Anyway, Mike Bloomberg’s enormous $500 million donation to green activists in the run-up to the 2020 election will help the Dems take the presidency and the Senate, and then another flood of government money and regulations will ensue.
In the aftermath, maybe ten years down the road, when temperatures turn flat or colder, and the Dems, Dims, and Dooms are ousted, we’ll have the last laugh, and we can mock the alarmists for a century , but it won’t matter because the country will be ruined.
Roger,
” got many of them to commit to great increases in “renewables””
California is the only State, so far as I’m aware of, that has taken serious action to promote (subsidize) renewables. Many States have mandates for 2030 and beyond. We’ll see how those play out, as electric bills rise.
“prohibition of gas pipelines and fracking”
The core of the opposition to those has been from pollution and leaks (esp for fracking).
“Mike Bloomberg’s enormous $500 million donation to green activists in the run-up to the 2020 election will help the Dems take the presidency and the Senate”
Future, Roger. That’s a prediction about future – just like activists’ predictions about future weather. Everybody thinks *their* predictions are god-like, and their foes’ are all wrong. This post is about the past 30 years.
Could somebody please summarize this? Is it just that we don’t find the alarmist claims believable?
Pochas,
“Is it just that we don’t find the alarmist claims believable?”
That is the effect. This post discusses the cause. My opinion is stated in the summary:
“
This was already too long and complex for a general audience, so I do not discuss why climate scientists (as a group) behaved in this way. “Why” is usually the most difficult question to answer, and often we can only guess.
But in this case “why” does not matter. Recognition of their errors, if widely publicized, might push some climate scientists to assume responsibility for their actions – and change behavior.
My prediction is that won’t happen. As seen in the comments here and on alarmists’ website, tribal chest-beating will continue to be the major mode of discussion.
This is an important subject because it illustrates the dysfunctional nature of public policy discussions in modern America. Which brings us to my conclusion:
The Why? The rise of secularism…Everyone needs a religion.
Not really.
“But we can see what went wrong and so do better next time – while we wait to see the price we pay for our folly. ”
It seems to me Larry that you still believe in this fairy tale.
If it gets 3 degrees C warmer why would I care? My city,Calgary, would still be cooler than Denver.
Sounds good to me.
CAGW pegs the B.S. meter of any competent scientist or engineer, i.e. one that is held both legally and financially responsible for their decisions, and that has attempted to understand and follow it.
Anyone care to bet how long until the first comment discussing the subject of this post?
Minutes, hours, days?
you asked, “but why America has ignored them.”
Simple: Because jobs, the economy, and getting through everyday life and paying today’s bills and saving some for retirement and/or kids college are what matters to most Americans.
Most Americans feel real pain at the gas pump when prices ratchet up significantly as the have at times. Do those who consider themselves our betters, the elitist class of Liberals like Bloomberg, Steyer, the Clintons, ever feel economic pain from such things? No. Middle America understands that.
Hence they elites are trying to make Middle America voice mute with socialism. American voters reject renewable mandates, yet Democratic Party run state legislators enact them anyways, like in New Mexico recently. Nulllifying the American voter is what the Democrats are doing. Look at how they used “vote harvesting” to nullify multiple California congressional race results in Republican stronghold districts there last November. They war on the Middle Class by the Liberal elites is real, is happening in stealth mode right under their noses. Because they’ve realized most people are more tuined into getting through each day/week, rather than stupid climate prognostications 80 years from now.
The GreenBlob has created a scientific “echo chamber” of experts. People like Hayhoe, Dessler, Mann, Overpeck all working off script fill this “chamber of experts” to feed stories to non-critical, like minded media of reporters (like Seth Borenstein). All of it is coordinated behind the scenes. Queued-up to write Op-Eds, journal papers, all timed to coincide to certain events. (Background: The Obama White House Nat Sec Dep Advisor Benh Rhodes, a communications major in college and not a national sec policy expert, was the inventor of this modern type of policy “echo chamnber.”) All of this is being financed by GreenBlob deep money interests invested in Renewable Energy schemes to suck wealth out of the middle class and funnel it to underfunded public pensions and green investors.
What I hope will eventually happen to Greenblob investors like Bloomberg and Steyer with their renewable energy investments is like the final scenes from 80’s movie Trading Places with Dan Akroyd,and Eddie Murphy. A classic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLySXTIBS3c
When the CAGW deception finally collapses and renewable wind and solar energy scams collapse and the windmill subsidy machine grinds to a halt, I want to see Steyer screaming “Turn those machines back on!!”
Joel,
“Because jobs, the economy, and getting through everyday life and paying today’s bills and saving some for retirement and/or kids college are what matters to most Americans.”
That’s obviously not the explanation, because other groups have successfully convinced the US people to support other policy initiatives – the cold war, Apollo, programs to control water and air pollution, the Great Society, etc. Those had great costs, yet Americans were willing to pay them.
The question raise is why, with such great resources, climate scientists were able to achieve so little policy action. Why were they unable to convince Americans?
The theory presented here is that their failure resulted from major tactical mistakes.
Tactical failures maybe, but their strategic failure results from two major Black Swan events.
We you read Taleb’s Black Swan description above, one can insert the climate change narrative and how it has unfolded (and likely will continue to unfold). We have “faux experts” on climate (like Overpeck, Mann, Dessler, Schmidt, Trenberth, Hayhoe, Wuebbles, Santer) giving proclamations on cue. They use confirmatory methods that continue to fail year after year on sea-ice, glaciers, droughts. They are now at the point of trying to make every weather extreme part of the climate extreme narrative to compensate for those failures.
Only in hindsight now, China’s unstoppable emissions rise since 2002 and the Shale Fracking Revolution pushing fossil fuel availability/affordability out decades beyond original projections are two very clear Black Swans. These both are high impact events that were unpredictable ahead of time, and even if they were foreseen by some, they were and are scientifically inestimable in final impact. And these “faux experts” continue to try delude themselves and thus the public, that they can predict what will happen re: climate and now even weather events. All of them a charlatans, selling climate snake oil for in exchange for “rent.”
And now with renewable energy mandates, these “faux experts” are continuing in their attempta to give science credibility to building increasingly fragile energy delivery systems in Western economies in order to deliver pay-outs to Green investors who they “dance a jig” on command for. And the energy systemst are becoming increasingly fragile due to unreliability of wind and solar, systems that are vital to both a highly technical electronically connected society. And even more dangerously, these “faux experts” are putting National Security at risk where a China and Russia are under no illusions about the climate scam and their own CO2 emissions.
“The question raise is why, with such great resources, climate scientists were able to achieve so little policy action. Why were they unable to convince Americans?”
But they haven’t. Recent polls indicate a strong shift (of nearly 20%) toward a belief in the CAGW narrative, and as a result (and/or cause) Dem candidates are making a big issue of it, and the GOP in congress recently caved with its own Climate-Action-Lite proposal.
There has been little grass roots opposition to the moves by state and local officials and legislative bodies to commit to renewables, and a half-dozen other green initiatives.
Their theory (hypothesis, really) is wrong. The Russians, in the Cold War, were there, and very visible. The Apollo program was an extension of the Cold War: the Race to the Moon. Cleaning up the air and water had obvious and immediate results. The Great Society programs were designed to help lift people from poverty.
All these had targets that were in plain view and everyone agreed existed, even if they had different ideas about how to deal with them. Now we’re looking at an issue that a large proportion of the population doesn’t even believe exists: anthropological catastrophic climate change.
No “major tactical mistakes” are required. They’re trying to push a narrative that doesn’t exist in the observed world.
As for discussing the subject of the post, “Why we do nothing to prepare for climate change,” I’d say that part of the reason is that we’re not really preparing for climate change, are we? England isn’t preparing to deal with becoming an arid subtropical savanna; the US isn’t preparing for a monsoon weather pattern; Jakarta isn’t preparing for glaciers forming on local hillsides.
What’s actually being prepared for is weather events that have already occurred, and for which existing defenses have proved inadequate. Darwin isn’t purchasing snowplows. New York City IS upgrading their flood barriers, given than when Sub-Tropical Cyclone Sandy hit with a moderate flood surge yet also at the same time as a King Tide at that point.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to plan for topical rain forests to begin sprouting on the desert sands. They need to be planning for what happens when the oil money runs out.
You wrote a long rambling post that never gets to the heart of the matter, doesn’t answer the question in the headline, and now you criticize your audience for not discussing the article in a manner that suits you?
You can skip all the analysis. The simple truth is this. In a democracy, the one thing that will get you thrown out of power will be to sewer the economy. Doesn’t matter if you are right or left, doesn’t matter if actions you take are the root cause. Economy sewers, you lose the next election. So EVERY politician is going to SAY they are going to do things that will attract voters. But once in power, they are faced with the reality of their decisions. As long as the economy is strong, they can whittle away at their promises. Subsidize wind and solar, ban plastic straws. But ban all plastics and all fossil fuels? They know d*mn well the economy would be crushed and they would be thrown out in the next election. Impose a 9 day work week and you probably won’t have to wait for the next election, the white and blue color workers would be in the streets en masse. Actual large scale action politicians will ALWAYS have some excuse for delaying, or watering it down, or studying it some more, or passing out so many exemptions in so many ways that the law stands on paper only and hardly anyone is actually affected. Even if the electorate believes action must be taken, the electorate at the same time will throw out of power any government in power when they begin losing their jobs en masse.
And that my friend is the TRUE reason politicians have not taken strong action on climate change.
Nice post.
In reply to: Why we do nothing to prepare for climate change?
I might be missing something. I did not see any new facts/observations to discuss, particularly those that really do change everything.
Anything important to discuss? Science? Engineering? Public Policy? Propaganda?
The statement that we/someone are not doing anything to ‘prepare’ for climate change is not true. There are US states that have enacted crazy unobtainable climate change policies that will not change the climate but will result in massive job losses and very high electrical prices.
Canada currently is currently working on legislation that will ban the export from its Alberta heavy oil deposit (1.5 trillion barrels, more than the entire conventional oil reserves of which 30% is recoverable without mining using the Cenovus heavy oil recovery technique.) and has set up a carbon tax which result in massive job losses.
What should we do to prepare for climate change? Install stuff that does not work? Bankrupt our country?
Germany has proven that there is a hard limit as to how much sun and wind gathering can reduce CO2 emissions.
Germany has spent 500 billion dollars installing 29,000 wind turbines and has installed solar panels on a million buildings, yet German CO2 emissions are no longer dropping.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#4d08f85668e1
Germany’s carbon emissions are not declining much, despite renewables increasing to almost 30% of the country’s power mix this year (see figure below), and over 50% of its installed capacity. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30% and, along with power purchases from France and other countries in Europe, is used to load-follow, or buffer, the intermittency of the renewables.
Germany’s carbon emissions per person actually rose slightly in 2013 and 2015. The country produces much more electricity than it needs and is not addressing oil in the transportation sector.
As Peter Rez at Arizona State University discusses, renewables will not make much of a dent in their total carbon emissions. The problem is that even when renewables produce enough energy to supply all of the country’s electricity, the variability of the renewables means Germany has to keep the coal plants running, over half of which use the dirtiest of all coal, lignite.
Germany has reached the green energy saturation point where energy storage is reached and there is hard push back to install more wind turbines in the German countryside, if there installation will not result in further drops in German CO2 emissions.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/11/wind-energy-woes-german-expansion-collapses-to-near-zero-2019-threatens-to-be-a-disaster/
“Impose a 9 day work week and you probably won’t have to wait for the next election, the white and blue color workers would be in the streets en masse.”
9 day work week? Blue color workers? Sounds like you live in a different dimension, David. 😉
“9 day work week?”
Some British politician proposed instituting a 9-HOUR work-week. That’s what he was alluding to, but made a typo.
David was referring to the Euro “metric work week” which has 10 days 😉
yes 9 HOUR work week.
This is an excellent, excellent essay, better than I would have expected from you, Mr. Kummer. Congratulations!
All of it is excellent, and I am interested in all of it, but I am especially interested in the lying about the Pause because I have encountered it many times and been – just disgusted. The claim that “deniers” invented the Pause is a favorite of activists and other laymen who pretend to know something about climate science and use their fake knowledge to bully and smear others.
Kummer, maybe the readers didn’t respond to your point because get your point? There was no need to insult the commenters.
The United States has a unique climate change history — we have been in a temperature downtrend since the hot 1930s, and the period from October 1 2018 through May 2019 was the coldest October through May on record — and also had record precipitation.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/06/colkdest-and-wettest-october-2018.html
So, instead of getting warmer, the US is getting cooler, and instead of droughts, we have had too much rain and flooding.
Based on our own temperature data, we should want more warming, and less rain — fighting global warming seems ridiculous after such a cold winter !
But the United States is not doing “nothing” about climate change.
Obama gave away $1 billion to the Green Slush Fund, and we still fund NASA-GISS, and NOAA’s global climate activities.
The big difference now is that Donald Trump is president, and his administration doesn’t support “preparing for climate change” (whatever that means) … but the science-free EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding is still in effect, so everything will change when the next Democrat is president.
To “prepare” for climate change, I recommend a national party every time the average US temperature rises +0.25 degrees F., averaged over six months.
How else would one “prepare” for good news ?
The climate has been changing every day of our lives, with intermittent global warming since the late 1600s — we didn’t prepare for that warming, yet we are more prosperous than ever before, with a longer lifespan than ever before.
Frankly, I think the people, and scientists, are experiencing Climate fatigue. How many wrong climate claims can happen before that syndrome sets in over 30-40 years. JMHO….
Have any been correct yet? Just sayin!
when it walks and quacks like a scam…it’s a scam
The author appears to be a true believer who at least recognizes that the actions of those pushing the climate scam have destroyed the credibility of the movement. But he misses one of the most obvious reasons people aren’t buying into it – ordinary people have had hundreds of years of dealing with those who claim “Repent! Repent! Your doom is at hand, ye will all perish in flame!!!”
yeah, yeah, yeah, let us see a little of the “doom” happening with our own eyes and maybe we’ll believe it. Without that, you’re just one more on a long line of frauds and charlatans who have made a living using scare tactics to enrich themselves.
“…..The burden of proof rests on those warning the world about a danger requiring trillions of dollars to mitigate. ………………. How have climate scientists met this challenge?…”
They have taken over the reins of policy making by establishing a single central bureaucratic font of all climate wisdom, and then ensuring that the output from this matches their requirements by staffing all the important posts…
Dodgy,
“by establishing a single central bureaucratic font of all climate wisdom, ”
That is quite false. The national weather and climate agencies (e.g., in the US, NASA and NOAA), the agencies which fund research (e.g., the NSF), the universities and their associated research centers, the many think-tanks and foundations – all are highly independent.
As shown in this post, the only thing remotely like a “center” is the IPCC – and that has been largely sidelined since AR5 as “too conservative.” Alarmist studies, reports, articles, and books dominate the headlines (several examples are cited in this post).
‘…..all are highly independent…..
Not so . Birds of a feather ….
Dodgy has it right , except that “they” aren’t scientists. Maybe “fake scientists ” is a better
description .
😉
It is hard to understand why any rational person would be in thrall to the politically-contrived theory of alleged dangerous man-made global warming when the alleged problem remains unproven and unconvincing, when its postulated globalist “solution” is so painful as to be utterly unachievable short of a totalitarian world government being installed and when the climate change movement has been mired in dishonesty since its very beginning. What sort of a movement is it that needs to constantly insult the intelligence of the general public with such high levels of spin, dissembling and blatant lies? Establishment politicians have created a climate change monster but will they end up being devoured by their own creation?
It all started when American lead author Ben Santer was prevailed upon politically (probably by climate fanatic Vice President Al Gore) to flagrantly change the conclusion of the 1995 UN IPCC climate report, contrary to the latest scientific data and against the opinions of his fellow scientists, to say that there was “a discernible human influence on global climate”. The politicians used this false “evidence”, given under duress, to launch the man-made global warming scare which for some unfounded reason they had been itching to start for years. The scientists have been in the pockets of the politicians ever since. Almost a quarter of a century later that supposedly discernible “human influence” in the form of a signature tropospheric “hot spot” has never been seen: if it had been found we would have heard all about it.
We’ve had the 2009 Climategate revelations of climate science skulduggery, complicity to deceive and other professional malfeasance, including the ostracising of honest scientists who refused to toe the party line on the establishment’s man-made climate change dogma, the whole affair disgracefully whitewashed by an establishment apparatchik.
We’ve had the head of the UN blatantly insisting that the “science is settled” which is patently untrue given the large number of dissenting voices, for example Emeritus Professor of Physics Hal Lewis who declared “The global warming scan … is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist”. We’ve had top UN IPCC officials openly revealing their ulterior political motives which have very little to do with climate, such as “to transform the world’s economic development model” and to negotiate “the distribution of the world’s resources”, themes of anti-capitalist global social engineering and wealth redistribution.
We’ve seen how the Summary for Policymakers reports of the UN IPCC are written by politicians and issued months before their Science reports which get retrospectively revised as necessary to support the predetermined political conclusions. The UN IPCC dishonestly presents itself to the public as a scientific organisation when it is first and foremost a political organisation, always careful not to disclose its deliberately restricted mandate to assess only human-induced risks to climate, not climate in the round. This restriction allows them to surreptitiously downplay natural causes of climate change such as oceanic effects, cosmic rays and solar activity including UV and magnetic field effects, omissions which render their “one-trick pony” (man-made CO2) climate reports worthless to anyone other than obsessive agenda-driven politicians who have no interest in the real truth.
Doug, Yours is a much more revealing account of underlying motives than the article itself’s lament over the misfortune of torn fabric in a tissue of lies. However nothing quite illuminates (in short form) the underlying corrosive program of manipulative wizardry behind Oz’s curtain like the testimony of a former KGB agent who had himself participated in embedding it in our mentality, viewable at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA . This is a much more ambitious effort than most will have guessed at without taking account of its wide subscription that survives its original operatives, while serving the same would-be masters.
Weather and climate are about extremes. It’s money well spent to prepare for the worst and be happy with “normal”. Trying to change the weather is a fool’s game!
Unable to convince adults the climate alarmist turns to scaring children into submission to their false claims.
What is in it for the leaders elite, the destruction of conventional fuel industry and with it farming. Then the purchase of those industries and farming on the cheap to save us from the poverty, hunger and depredation when the green doesn’t work. And of course with huge personal profits. And dictatorship.
If you move to a desert community, and none of your neighbours have grass, but someone tells you the rains are coming next year, next decade, someday, you probably still aren’t going to buy a lawn mower, nor insist that the local government subsidize a lawn mower factory, of course unless you’ve been promised a job there. Just sayin’, the effect of CC just hasn’t been felt by Joe Average…and at 1 degree per two lifetimes, never will be….so Climunologists are pushing the “lawn mower factory” aspect fairly hard now.
If they aren’t then the difference is too small to worry about.
Any claim that CO2 is going to warm the planet by more than around 0.5C is simply not supported by the real world data.
Some politicians do in fact do something about climate change, albeit ineffectively. NH and Maine recently passed legislation to increase subsidies to renewables to 60% and 100% by 2050. These policies seem to make people feel good even though they will never impact a non-existent problem. Supporters tout the great new jobs they supposedly create as a justification, sorta like diversity administrators at high schools and colleges.
Trying to speak out against these policies can be difficult when state newspapers refuse to print your letters.
“…The other side, “skeptics”, have some funding from energy companies ….”
This is an untrue statement.
There is more funding for CAGW from energy companies than all the skeptics combined.!!!
Jon,
“This is an untrue statement. There is more funding for CAGW from energy companies than all the skeptics combined.!!!”
Please read more carefully. To say that there is “some funding” does NOT mean there is “more funding than for CAGW.”
OK, but funding for skeptics is negligible compared to the gov/academic/industrial/NGO/rich-activist funding. Prb’ly 1000 to 1.
Re funding, see my guest thread, “Notes From Skull Island – why climate skeptics aren’t ‘well funded and well organized’”
If our side were well funded and well organized, as warmists charge, it would have the following 22 characteristics–which it doesn’t.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
I prepare for weather changes all the time — from daily to seasonal. “Climate” is nothing but a math construct.
I agree. People live in weather, not climate. If global climate change cannot predict what weather changes will occur, no one cares. If they lie about the weather, people eventually notice. Now they are trying desperately to drag weather in as a scare tactic, but I think it’s too late for that to fly.
If you haven’t heard this: weather determines what you wear today. Climate determines what is in your wardrobe. If the weather turns warmer, you will gradually replace heavier clothing with lighter, snow tires replaced with rain-optimized tires, etc. You will change these things as fast or slowly as the – wait for it – climate changes.
ClimateSeasonal weather determines what is in your wardrobe. You will change these things as fast or slowly as the – wait for it –climatesynoptic/seasonal weather changes.There, fixed it for ya.
Alarmists claim we are in the middle of a slow-motion disaster, like a frog in a pot of water on a flame. I really think most of them believe it. It is an easy argument to make because they will all be long gone before the truth will be known. In the meantime they feel virtuous and as if they are saving the world.
I, myself, would like to see more specific studies on the actual effect of CO2 levels on atmospheric temperatures. The alarmists claim that science is “settled.” I don’t buy that claim for a second.
They believe the science is settled and point you to GHG plastic bottle experiments reinforcing their views.
What is sad is that there are honest, logical arguments for preparing for climate change that been squelched by the tactics of the activists.
We know there will be climate changes. Any disagreement? We know some areas are prone to devasting droughts, floods, heat, or cold. At the present, we, meaning no nation, have any plans that I know of, as to how to respond when a change occurs. We seem destined to wait until the change is upon us to start CONSIDERING action.
So what could we be doing now? Using California and Australia for examples, contingency plans for dealing with droughts could be developed. For instance, desalinization sites could be determined, environmental studies done, all permitting needed for start of construction, etc. so when the trigger is pulled, you don’t have a multi-year permitting process and activists trying to stop it (I would write the law in such a way as to require specific legislation to stop the construction, even if a state constitutional amendment were necessary. Keep the courts out of it). Exactly what to build, and how it would be funded, would be determined and updated, say, every five years.
Do something equivalent in flood-prone areas, or areas that could be impacted bysea-level changes (up OR down).
We are adressing energy efficiency fairly well, justified by economics (the cost if my new washing machine was recovered in three years just by the reduced water consumption). But is there an opportunity for more innovative ways to insulate houses (needed regardless of which directionthe temperatures go)? How else could we prepare?
Do we have a national contingency plan in the event of massive crop failures? (maybe we do, my ignorance has no limits).
So I think spending money to address future climate change is justifiable, but include the possibility of major cooling. And we don’t need to launch a crash spending program. Just on-going funding directed at adapting to whatever the future holds for us. As long as we are being hammered by the absurdities being promulgated by today’s activists, though, I see little chance for either side agreeing to this.
jtom,.
“What is sad is that there are honest, logical arguments for preparing for climate change that been squelched by the tactics of the activists.”
Yes. That is the issue discussed in this post. Why were climate scientists not able to successfully deploy those honest and logical arguments? Why have mainstream climate scientists been displaced in the public debate by activists?
The theory presented here is that this outcome was a natural result of climate scientists’ (as a group) tactics.
Your climate scientists (Gore, Kerry, McKibben, ?) are now riding in the rumble seat. The kiddies have the wheel.
What fun!
Agree with your hypothesis.
Almost twenty years ago, when I was still in my investigatory phase, I attempted to make comments on a warmist site run by a climate scientist (one that was popular, but I can’t remember which). They were predicting all sorts of near-term mega-disasters. I had the audacity to say that, should the climate models prevail, but extreme predictions fail to materialize, they would have no credibility in the general population, and absolutely nothing would be done. They would, in effect, be consigning us to the worst possible scenario, climate change with neither action nor preparation. (I took no position on climate change, per se). My comments were banned from the site. According to quotes I have seen, this was a deliberate tactic of climate scientists who felt it necessary to scare society into action, without regard to future credibility or even being correct on the science.
Thus endeth the conversation with them for how to address climate change, man-made or otherwise. They will not countenance any solution other than destroying economies to save the planet. The majority now just wishes them to go away, and are not interested in any discussions on preparing for climate change.
As you can see by the comments here, there is a reluctance for any discussion pertaining to what to do when a change occurs. Hopefully, it will be gradual over time, but I see no harm in developing processes and plans as to HOW to address any and all potential environmental changes should they occur. Commitments on solutions or taking action? Not until we fully understand how the climate is changing, and what is changing with it.
I think it would be a better expenditure of limited resources than building wind turbines. Unfortunately, because of the tactics of the catastrophists, there is almost a knee-jerk reaction by skeptics not to have this discussion, too. One must predicate any such discussion with a disclaimer that we are not talking about THAT climate change, but what would we do if, say, climate returned to the little ice age?
I guess it will be every person for him or her self.
You confuse weather with climate change. We don’t know which way our climate is headed – warmer, cooler, or sideways, so how in heck can we “prepare” for it? No, what we need to do is what we’ve always done, and that is to continue advancing technologically, and to continue to advance our wealth and living standards. It is those things which will do the most to protect us from whatever vagaries either the weather, or as the case may be, climate might throw at us. Wasting money on “climate change” schemes and scams is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
There is nothing to be done to prepare for climate change, except to study it.
We do need to prepare for the vagaries of weather, and to a certain extent we do. Every important engineering project requires a study of the effects of extreme weather of the kind that can present every 50 years and the measures taken in the design to face that.
Global warming has the effect of reducing extreme phenomena associated to atmospheric circulation, as it is the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator what determines the strength of atmospheric circulation. On top of that a more active water cycle due to warming has the effect of reducing the amount of energy available to perform work by the atmosphere. Most studies show surface wind has been stilling for decades over most of the planet.
McVicar, T.R. and Roderick, M.L., 2010. Atmospheric science: winds of change. Nature Geoscience, 3(11), p.747.
On average, terrestrial near-surface winds have slowed down in recent decades. This change will affect both wind energy and hydrology.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim_Mcvicar/publication/253941667_Atmospheric_scienceWinds_of_change/links/567b69e508ae1e63f1dfad36/Atmospheric-scienceWinds-of-change.pdf
Really, climate change is a non-issue for as long as it does not turn into serious cooling. That’s why nobody is acting on it. Sit and wait is the right approach to this “problem.”
“a non-issue for as long as it does not turn into serious cooling.”
So sitting and waiting for that to happen (which it will, eventually), is better than spending a little money on contingency planning, some of which could overlap with other disaster scenarios? Contingency plans for massive crop failures would be beneficial regardless of the reason for such failures.
We (the US, specifically the Pentagon) has contingency plans in the event we are invaded by Canada. Personally, I think massive food problems is a likelier scenario.
Not what I said. What alarmists and many skeptics have in common is that they don’t understand that climate changes very slowly. When warming turns into cooling it will be the same. After decades of cooling the temperature will go back to where it was in the early 1980s. The idea of a little ice age that will lead to massive crop failures in our life time is silly. And no plan or amount of money spent now on planning for that will be worth a penny in 50 years.
It is funny seeing how people that think global warming is not dangerous believing global cooling is going to be very dangerous. We already went through that false scare in the 1970s. Climate change might be a huge problem for some future generations but the only thing we can do about that is to ensure that knowledge and progress continue advancing.
The idea of a little ice age that will lead to massive crop failures in our life time is silly.”
Actually if you look at how catastrophically behind normal planting schedules every farmer in the midwest is RIGHT NOW, you may not think it’s very silly at all.
and it’s early, but so far this is looking like one of the coolest summers in recent memory, at least in the US. How’s this for a reason people aren’t buying into the “warming” arguments – because they’re looking out their back door and seeing cooling instead. Right Now.
That’s weather, not climate. And local, not global. 2019 should be warmer than 2018.
To paraphrase Tip O’Neill, “All climate is local.”
“Global” anything is only an artifact of averaging. In the US, 2000 well-distributed weather stations in the NOAA Global Historical Climate Network show cooling trends over the past four years or so. However, there are 6000 stations that show a warming trend. Once the homogenization, weighting, and averaging has been done, lo and behold, the US has a warming trend. Yet 25% of the stations were heading in the opposite direction.
Since 2008, all the Indian stations show a flat trend; from 2015 to present they show a cooling trend. Is that unimportant to people living in India? What does it matter to them if 2019 is “warmer than 2018” on average, when they are cooling off locally?
If you run least squares against each station in NOAA’s GHCN dataset over the last four years or so, there are 4969 stations that show a cooling or flat trend, and 8348 that show a warming trend.
That’s more than a third of the world stations that show no warming, but I’m sure that after all the adjustments and weighting is complete, the world will show yet more warming.
Global anything lies only in the statistics . If one looks at individual stations, the picture is quite different.
James
good comment.
there are indeed many stations at places where mankind is. But what about measuring where nobody lives?
That could indeed make a big difference in trying to establish and if for some reason – like me – you do not trust the sats.
Note what happened in Las Vegas – where they changes a desert into an oasis over the past 40 years or so: Tmin went up by 5K…..
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6011cd61-5241-4597-af0c-60fe397eb4a4
OTOH
Note what happened in Tandil (ARG) where they chopped all the trees: Tmin went down by 2K
You see what I am getting at? More green causes more warmth….
But I think that this type of change does not really affect natural climate change…
anyone who disagrees with me on that?
It is a point of view, yet there is value in obtaining averages and seeing how they change over time.
For example you might be getting richer, but if the average citizen is getting poorer that information is valuable to understand the socio-economic evolution.
The planet has been warming for the past 300 years, and is still warming. The cooling since 2016 does not mean a change in the long term trend. And I am one of the few that thinks the present cooling is highly significant:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/14/the-planet-is-experiencing-an-unexplained-major-cooling-and-scientists-are-ignoring-it/
Javier – the weather can destroy this year’s crop – and next year’s. By the time you are convinced there is a climate shift, the damage will be ongoing and any mitigating reaction possible too late.
Is it really too much to suggest a plan be developed ahead of time? For example, decide ahead of time that if crops have suffered from adverse **weather** of the same type for x consecutive years, that farmers be given a subsidy to grow hybrids on some of the acreage that would have been more successful in the **weather** that was experienced rather than the typical **weather**, just in case there is yet another repeat of the same bad **weather**?
Without such preplanning, we will be at the mercy of politicians deciding they need to take action, deciding what action to take, then implementing said action. Farmers will be broke and we’ll all be starving by then.
“The idea of a little ice age that will lead to massive crop failures in our life time is silly.”
I have to partially disagree with you on this one Javier. While it may take decades for a long term LIA to materialize, the fear for our current civilization is a short term cooling event over 2-3 years from some externality like a severe multiple volcanic forcing that comes out of the blue and is timed and located to do maximum damage to spring/harvest crops in the NH so as to damage a significant amount of current available food supply. Which would be even worse if we enter a simultaneous natural secular cooling event. With the population now approaching 7.5 billion people, having this type of near instantaneous disruption to our civilization would be deadly if there is a sharp reduction in the food supply. The longer term political fallout could even be worse than the actual short term event as nations struggle to adapt.
History is clear that short, brief sharp downturns in the average global temperature caused major temporary problems with food supply which led to dire consequences. That would be especially problematic with a very high global population. We don’t really know how bad things would be, since we haven’t been tested in a major way with this scenario which perhaps only happens very 150-200 years on average. Acknowledging this scenario has happened multiple times in the past and which is a current possibility is the first step. Planning for this possible eventuality through resilience would be a very wise thing to do.
Again, that has nothing to do with climate. Getting a “year without summer” from a Tambora-like eruption is not climate. It is weather. Volcanic eruptions do not affect climate, as their effect is gone in a few years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/10/the-effect-of-volcanoes-on-climate-and-climate-on-volcanoes/
Preparing for any type of disaster is wise. But preparing for a climate disaster is not, because the climate changes very slowly in human terms with some exceptions that do not apply under the present conditions. It will take many decades for the climate to change. Any effort preparing for that will be wasted as nothing will be comparable in 50 years. No plan survives that long.
There is nothing to be done to prepare for climate change, except to study it.
We do need to prepare for the vagaries of weather, and to a certain extent we do. Every important engineering project requires a study of the effects of extreme weather of the kind that can present every 50 years and the measures taken in the design to face that.
Really, climate change is a non-issue for as long as it does not turn into serious cooling. That’s why nobody is acting on it. Sit and wait is the right approach to this “problem.”
Yes. The whole “climate change” scenario is a false-flag trap set by the lefties. It has nothing to do w/common-sense preparations for reasonably plausible weather/environment extremes, not scare-mongered, manufactured imaginary extremes.
Recommendation to anyone — stop using the term “climate change”, it just gives credibility to the lefties’ goals.
“– Doing something is better than nothing.”
=========
Act in haste, repent at leisure.
After spending $100 billion on climate change there has been ZERO progress in determining climate sensitivity.
That is $100 billion that could have cured cancer. But it turned out that cancer was the only thing on the planet NOT caused by climate change.
Got hemmeroids? Turns out Preparation H is not the solution. Apply a Carbon Tax and you will quickly forget the pain in your ass.
Touché!
We prepare for bad weather .
Preparing for “climate change ” is a waste of time and money because it changes so slowly .
Better to prepare for retirement and old age ….
😉
Why we do nothing? Well that’s because when you put up lots of windmills and solar panels and all it does is screw with your power bills and does next to nothing with reducing plant food emissions which have been on the rise globally last year. That after the GFC and people reacting to higher power prices by cutting back power consumption with CF/LED globes, heat pumps, solar HWS and the like. However you can only do so much plucking the low hanging fruit and now demand is on the rise everywhere again.
From The Australian Jun13
‘Average global greenhouse gas emissions are rising at double the rate of Australia’s, exposing the mismatch between the “hope and reality” of meeting Paris Agreement goals, a report has found.
A major report by energy giant BP said the world was returning to coal, and without shale gas from the US and LNG exports from Australia the emissions reduction picture would be much worse.
Massive investments in renewable energy were needed but would not be enough to satisfy increasing demands for power, most notably in China and India.
BP said global emissions overall were up 2 per cent last year as the unexpected return to coal gathered pace.’
It was always going to be the moonbat prescriptions that would find the doomsday cult out and then ordinary folk put 2 and 2 together.
I am indeed someone who does not believe in man made climate change or man made warming is indeed too small for me to even find it to measure it. Click on my name to figure my story.
That means most observed warming/cooling is natural.
Yet I do believe in natural climate change:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d6ec23b0-6f50-4758-b93f-80dfdbe4e289
By my latest investigations I can see that there has been no warming around the equator. In fact, it looks like it is cooling there. That means: less rain ‘manufactured’ to go to the higher latitudes. Hence, the hunger years are here…
it happens every 87 years due to the GB cycle. There at least 2 reports mentioning the coming droughts?
Climate change is a journey, not a destination.
No.
First the alleged climate scientists must keep to their disciplines!
1) Alleged climate scientists assume preferred conclusions that they coach with waffle words.
2) Alleged climate scientists then leap from their assumptions to predictions of disasters; in a world where reliable accurate two week weather forecasts are unusual. Even with accurate 2-week forecasts, the forecasts for the second week are usually broad generalities.
Alleged climate scientists are not soothsayers; their predictions border on bunkum.
Nor have alleged climate scientists invested serious science and research into definitive causes and mechanisms. Their promoting loose associations into correlated causations lets the alleged scientists to assume mantles of omniscience allowing them to push specific solutions.
Leaving everyone with a touch of common sense wondering just how climate scientists became omnipotent deities able to solve imaginary world problems.
Financial investments towards keeping the CAGW scam going are stunningly large. Which stands to reason; if a $trillion dollars is spent on climate research and political solutions, then a significant portion of that $trillion can be spent silencing opposition voices.
Bringing us back to alarmist climate researchers;
Some are true believers, in a fashion. Many of Jim Hansen’s early papers included Hansen harping about how the climate was not cooperating. Hansen truly believed his alarmism, to the point that he was willing to subvert scientists and data to back up his beliefs. i.e. their belief is a religion requiring adherents and converts.
Others, believe they are doing the right thing; not that the climate is truly suffering from too much CO₂, but that solutions they propose are correct for humanity; i.e. Noble Cause Corruption.
Still others, are in the alarmist camp because they receive far more publicity, fame and money than they ever would have as mediocre weather forecasters. i.e. glory hogs.
Quite a few of the alleged climate scientists combine two or more reasons for their advocacy.
Research necessary to develop true solutions to climate problems requires solid proof of causation in all situations and conditions; plus a full understanding of the entire mechanism causation follows.
Then and only then can engineers investigate, design, test and implement possible solutions.
Yet, in this alleged climate science environment, every alarmist scientist already knows what solutions will solve the claimed problems.
Un-mentioned are negative repercussions to proposed solutions.
Rather than acknowledge and seek to circumvent negative repercussions, alarmist scientists refuse all negatives. They’d rather send eagles, raptors, carrion birds into extinction than admit their heavily pushed and subsidized solutions are unreliable disasters. After all, they’d only blame renewable caused extinctions on climate change and mankind; then they will wash their hands.
Outside of the climate scientists are the NGOs, Politicians and many pity ploy alleged charities that depend upon greater and scarier stories to keep their coffers full of donations or voters. None of these folks/organizations care about reality, they are in it mostly for the money and voters, some expect glory too.
e.g.:
e.g. 2:
Except Guterres ignores this recent science:
Guterres is pushing socialism and globalism, which is Euro speak for global socialism. Neither the science or reality matters, only his using climate change to force world submission into socialism.
RE: “Why doesn’t (The United States of) America lead the fight against climate change?”
The USA does lead the fight against ‘Climate Change’. Forty years of flailing exaggerated claims and failed predictions of impending AGW doom have sufficiently educated the majority of American citizens to the inescapable conclusion that ‘Climate Change’ is a science fiction fraud, fronting for a socialist political agenda. The USA is fighting the nonexistent problem of Climate Change through derisive rejection!
Every year, polls are taken to assess the concerns of US citizens and how they prioritize those perceived problems. Each year, ‘Climate Change/AGW/Man Made Global Warming/yaddayadda’ is shown to be of the lowest of priorities. We elected (finally) a President that recognizes the will of the American people and is acting on it. He is leading the fight against Climate Change chimera…. and we are applauding and backing his efforts! The USA has real, large, and urgently pressing problems that must be addressed now. Focusing on our real priorities is how we Make America Great Again!
A. model makes predicrions if and only if the argument that is made by this model is logically sound but in this case the argument can be proven to be logically unsound.
First off, Mr. Oldberg, what “model” are you talking about?
.
Second, what “argument” are you talking about?
.
Lastly, please provide us your proof that it is logically unsound.
LMFAO: “predicrion”
This author sounds like a true believer who can’t understand why other “believers” aren’t doing more.
He is like some Social Revolutionary after the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, being thrown into a ditch to be shot, unbelieving at the betrayal by his revolutionary comrades. Don’t they realize that the SR’s are the most pure communists of all?
Only fools believe this narrative, and they are useful tools. They will be dealt with when the time comes.
Love the ‘2 degree guarantee’ on the lede picture!
My biggest concern of this distorted science is that if a real foreseeable existential threat is discovered by scientists that could be averted by a large expensive project, it won’t be because too many scientists have damaged their credibility and will not be believed.
We prepare for changes all the time, just not in the manner that activists recognize as prudent.
When there is a new “disaster” like flooding due to rain or hurricane, the area is generally rebuilt with more controls, higher dikes, and raised surfaces. This is by definition preparing for future change since we wouldn’t do it if we didn’t expect the conditions to reoccur.
Personally, I wish we would prevent building up areas near the high risk coasts (that is coasts likely to be hit by exceptional strength storms) – turn all that land into Federal park land over time. Just buy up ruined property and let the people build further inland – no more insurance to build at the coast. Whether the boundary be 3 miles or 5, it would certainly help reduce capital damage and make for a more pleasant beach or wildlife area. (Note: Existing large cities I presume we want to adapt, not move, so raise the surface area as new buildings are put in, larger/better dikes, better water and flooding controls, etc.)
If rich people want to keep their beach-front property, they get to pay for all repairs when it gets knocked down – no state or federal money what-so-ever. If they ever decide to sell, they have only the Federal Government to sell to.
The same principle could be applied to near fresh-water areas that keep flooding. Either raise up the land that is built on or return it to a natural state. You choose to live in a flood prone area, you pick up the tab. You plant in a flood prone area, its your loss – no government refunds. (Note: I am saying “flood prone”, meaning areas that have repeatedly flooded…not an area that has not flooded before and then experiences a fluke flood. Defining flood-prone I leave to the reader and possible implementers of such a regulation)
All of this is common sense – which seems by definition to mean our government is incapable of achieving it.
In any case, this “adaptation” could occur over the period of 50 years, there is nothing to panic us into performing such an action over night.
There is a limit to many times someone can scream that the world is coming to an end before people stop listening. Nuclear war, global warming, Y2K, peak oil, financial collapse, incurable diseases, acid rain, DDT, population explosion, athlete’s foot – just call in the next ten minutes and we’ll double our offer and throw in this automatic nose picker for free. Have your credit card ready.
My belief is that the worst part about this whole global warming business is not so much how much is manmade but rather the idiotic solutions that have been offered by the majority activists. In this regard I believe that molten salt small nuclear reactors are the future of energy for every reason one can think of , especially its superior economics. I believe that, all things equal, economics trumps
everything else and will motivate the replacement of just about every power generation technology (save hydro, existing conventional nuclear) with molten salt nuclear. IN other words, if everyone calmed down, the issue of too much CO2 and other harmful emissions will be laid to rest by simply following the path to the most economical means of power production, which also happens to be the safest. Expect commercialization mid-late 2020s
Problem, predictions were made within living memory(people have seen them fail)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4iNwUkT1bY
The scare stories are for the young.
I want the CO2 so I can turn it into jobs and money. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
Has anyone else turned on their fossil fueled heater today like I just did here in central Indiana USA?
The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and it will continue to change whether mankind is here or not. Current climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up weather cycles with true climate change. Currently we are still warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than 1500 years ago. The climate change we have been experiencing is typical of the Holocene that has been taking place for the past 10,000 years.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even is all of mankind stopped the burning of fossil fuels altogether, the effort would have no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. Mankind has not been able to stop one extreme weather event let alone change the earth’s climate. We would be much better of trying to improve the global economy then wasting time and money trying to affect the Earth’s climate.
The AGW conjecture seems quite plausible at first but upon closer inspection one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is all a matter of science.
An activist warning the public about dangerous climate change.
Holthaus is a meteorologist.
Here is the graph his shows of Greenland Melt extent 1981 – 2010: https://mobile.twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1139234563400634368/photo/1
The good news is that he shows this using basic statistics, too seldom done in climate science (vs. the almost valueless “record high/low” and “record since XXXX”. But there are two points that illustrate why 30 years of activists’ warnings have had so little effect.
First, how does a meteorologist state never happened in the ~40-year record as “never happened before”? That’s a material error, one often made by climate activists.
Second, there are thousands – tens of thousands – of such weather metrics taken daily. Looked at as a whole, a ~3 standard deviation spike is commonplace. Looked at in isolation it is cherry-picking – perhaps the most common fallacy (of both sides) in the public climate debates. But I seldom see this mentioned.
If Holthaus is a climatologist, Bill Nye is a scientist. Having a degree in meteorology doesn’t make one a meteorologist.
Oops, I meant meteorologist, not climatologist.
Most of the comments here miss the point of the post.
(1) The question here is not are climate scientists’ warning correct. It is why they have had so little effect on US public policy after 30 years, despite having almost every advantage in the debate.
(2) Comments conflate two very different things: warnings by mainstream climate scientists – such as the official statements of the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA – and warnings by activists (exaggerating or misrepresenting the work of mainstream climate scientists – or just making stuff up). That activists have come to dominate the public debate is another aspect of climate scientists’ failure.
Similarly, comments conflate recommendations by mainstream climate scientists with the more extreme recommendations of activists.
So you reject the possibility that enough people believe the “Climate Scientists” are indeed wrong is the basic cause of the “lack of action” you lament?
Quotes chosen carefully.
From the article: “To convince people to fight climate change, they must trust climate scientists.”
I think the problem here is that the CAGW promoters have cried “Wolf” too many times and people look around and they don’t see a Wolf. The weather looks like business as usual to them.
In order to convice someone to fight climate change you first have to show some evidence that climate change is an issue and that humans can change it. There’s no evidence for any of this.
And btw, the global temperatures have been cooling for the last three years even while CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. The CAGW claims are looking less likely by the day.
Maybe it’s the chill in the air that keeps people from taking CAGW seriously.
It is hard to know what to make of such a confused jumble of thoughts. Apparently the author thinks it is erudite. I think it is just confusing. Even the title premise is not correct.
If you think that just because the Trump administration pulled the US out of the Paris Accords, and the U.S. EPA no longer uses “sue and settle,” that nothing is being done in the US to destroy the economy in order to counter the perceived treat from CO2, you are not paying attention.
Hundreds ( the number I remember is 400) of US cities now have “climate action plans” to make their city “carbon neutral” by 2050, either in place, or under development. Most cities have a “Department of Sustainability” that has receive large grants from NGO’s to develop these plans. These departments have worked with the likes of the Sierra Club and local activists to come up with economy crushing plans under the guise of “saving the planet.
Of course, if you live in the UK, or Germany, or Australia, you are already living under economy crushing plans that are supposed to save the planet, so you know that something is being done, and it is not good.
To ask why nothing is being done, is to be uninformed in the extreme, The real question is why are we permitting these economy crushing plans to go forward, when there is so little hard evidence that they are needed.
“Hundreds ( the number I remember is 400) of US cities now have “climate action plans” to make their city “carbon neutral” by 2050, either in place, or under development. Most cities have a “Department of Sustainability” that has receive large grants from NGO’s to develop these plans. These departments have worked with the likes of the Sierra Club and local activists to come up with economy crushing plans under the guise of “saving the planet. … To ask why nothing is being done, is to be uninformed in the extreme,”
Yes, the extremist/alarmists are winning and will continue to win. I’ve already made some comments upthread in the same vein.
Part of the fault lies with the TV networks, which have failed their public duty (especially public networks like PBS and NPR) to host extensive debates on the issue. They should be entirely defunded for this continuing and inexcusable sin.
As to why we do nothing about climate change. There are a bunch of reasons, but here is one:
Elementary game theory tells us that no person or country will put itself at a disadvantage relative to another. That is why treaties and such are so hard to negotiate. Humans fight wars, they do not all get together around some grand idea, unless it is how to defeat the next guy. If there is advantage to be gained, people will fight for it.
Nations exist to provide benefits to their citizens, not the the citizens of other countries, especially ones they don’t like. Climate change, whatever the cause, creates winners and losers.
If Canada gets a warmer climate and prosperity from a longer growing season, are they going to agree to some fictional climate action to reverse their good fortune just because Australia is now drier? Not likely. There is zero possibility of any global climate action.
Ditto for large scale personal or national action. Will Bob and Sally give up their new Chevy Tahoe for bicycles? Anyone who does is seen as a fool by the rest. Australia, one of the chief weepers and wailers is in fact the largest exporter of coal in the world – 46% of global in 2018. More than twice as much as next biggest, Indonesia. Australia has announced it will no longer contribute to the Green Climate Fund. Indonesia is threatening to leave the Paris Accord altogether because the EU is trying to ban palm oil.
And just check out the status of the Paris Accord Green Climate Fund. By 2020, there were supposed to be distributing $100 billion per year. Since it started, they have only collected around $4 billion, built a dandy new office building for themselves and have only actually distributed around $500 million, of which 30% is UN overhead. Their major project is restoration of a hydro system in Africa, which the other member states are bitching about and threatening to mutiny because they didn’t get the money. Only three of the 45 supposed donors have forked over more than a token amount.
Politicians make grand promises that they have no intention of keeping, especially if doing so will harm their chances of holding onto power.
“Activist scientists said that skeptics “denied” the existence of climate change (which is false, and mad), or that they “denied” the existence of anthropogenic global warming and climate change (true only for an extreme fringe). ”
Well, let’s see.
If the IPCC says there is no increase in Extreme Weather for more than a century;
And tide gauges don’t show any trend for accelerated rise in sea levels;
Sea surface temperatures were cooler than thought until Tom Karl “warmed them up”;
And global temperatures over almost 40 years are increasing at a rate barely above 1 degree C, and actually warming rates are decelerating since 1979– even though CO2 levels (overwhelmingly from natural sources) rose substantially over the past four decades
Then what the hell is “Climate Change”? Please define… and what role, if any, have humans played at all in this nebulous thing called “Climate Change”? It’s not an “extreme fringe” to ask such questions ’cause all I’m hearing from non-catastrophic climate scientists is that insufficient data exist to detect a human signal in most aspects of the climate record.
“Activist scientists said that skeptics “denied” the existence of climate change (which is false, and mad), or that they “denied” the existence of anthropogenic global warming and climate change (true only for an extreme fringe). ”
Well, let’s see.
If the IPCC says there is no increase in Extreme Weather for more than a century;
And tide gauges don’t show any trend for accelerated rise in sea levels;
Sea surface temperatures were cooler than thought until Tom Karl “warmed them up”;
And global temperatures over almost 40 years are increasing at a rate barely above 1 degree C per century, and actually warming rates are decelerating since 1979– even though CO2 levels (overwhelmingly from natural sources) rose substantially over the past four decades
Then what the hell is “Climate Change”? Please define… and what role, if any, have humans played at all in this nebulous thing called “Climate Change”? It’s not an “extreme fringe” to ask such questions ’cause all I’m hearing from non-catastrophic climate scientists is that insufficient data exist to detect a human signal in most aspects of the climate record.
How do we prepare for climate change?
Do nothing that costs any significant money until the people who are warning about climate change demonstrate they are capable of making reliable predictions.
LK, one last comment: After reading many of the above comments, I think your question should be, have the actions of some climatologists and extremist now made it impossibke to DISCUSS possible climate changes, effects, and options?
Consider that three years ago, California was experiencing an extreme drought. Scientists, not just activists, quickly proclaimed it was the result of GHGs ‘tipping’ a drought-prone area into a permanent drought, the New Normal. IIRC, the science presented here trashed those claims, brought up the historical mega-droughts, lack of empirical evidence, etc. Of couse, the drought ended, we rejoiced at the catastrophists once again looking absurd, and moved on.
Now imagine if this whole climate change farce had never arisen. No Gore, no Nye, no wind turbines or EVs. What then would the discussions have been on a SCIENCE site? Perhaps, is the drought a return of a mega-drought? Are there any identifiable precursors? Evidence of a recurring, somewhat predictable cycle? Then perhaps discussions on how such a drought could be accommodated. A water pipeline to Lake Michigan? Very deep wells? Towing icebergs? Desalinization plants – how many and how to power them. Perhaps there would be a discussion on the costs and impacts of relocating millions or what to do about agriculture.
But I don’t remember seeing such discussions. We were all distracted by the nonsense of manmade warming, and that is because of the tactics of some climatologists and their acolytes.
jtom,
“now made it impossibke to DISCUSS possible climate changes, effects, and options?”
Climate change is discussed endlessly. The media overflow with discussion.
“Now imagine if this whole climate change farce had never arisen. No Gore, no Nye, ”
This is about the behavior of climate scientists. Not politicians and TV showpeople.
I do hope you meant that tongue-in-cheek. Climate change is only discussed in the media in sense of “What should we do about climate change?” — meaning catastrophic anthropogenic climate change — therefore treating it as a given, not something under discussion. The other topic of discussion in the media is “How horribly should we treat the heretics that don’t believe in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change?” — also treating it as a given, and apparently not remotely interested in any other POV.
What about using the IPCC very words against them. When they say as I
believe AR5 says, that the weather come the 30 year climate is simply too
chaotic for any conclusions to be able to be drawn from it.
So circulate where possible, plus the numerous “”Deadlines” since the
1970 tees, plus the scientists who told us that the “”Ice Age is coming “,
then changed to Global warming. Then how Global warming got changed to
Climate Change, which now has evolved into Extreme weather etc.
There is lots of material for use since the 1970 tees.
Hopefully the economic facts of ever higher energy prices will get through
to the Politicians as is happening here in Australia with a near recession
situation. Whilst fortuity with the possible exception of the State of Tasmania,
we live in a warmer land than Europe or North America and Canada, but
we do feel the cold following our very hot summers. So we have high cost
electricity bills resulting from Air Conditioners in the Summer and heating
in the Winter.
MJE VK5ELL
Why should we prepare for possible climate change based on scenarios stretching out to 2100, versus preparing for extreme weather that does occur occasionally but unpredictably? Perhaps if you believed in extreme scenarios like extinction by 2030 then you would change your lifestyle today.
Why do we do nothing to prepare for climate change? Really! How many billions have been wasted on solar panels & wind turbines by the west, whilst China & India continue to import African & Australian coal? Teresa May, not content with screwing up Brexit, wants her legacy to be zero emissions by 2050, at a cost exceeding £1 trillion.
There is a rather more important issue at hand. President Xi Jinping is using today’s high-tech tools, such as mass video surveillance powered by artificial intelligence, to enforce his rule. An intelligence service law from 2017 obliges all ‘Chinese organisations and citizens’ to ‘support, aid and co-operate with the work of the national secret service’. Already, the impact on individual life is phenomenal. At railway stations in cities like Guangzhou and Wuhan, for instance, entry is only allowed to people once their faces have been scanned and checked against a police database. And this is just the beginning.
The citizens of Hong Kong understand the extent of the state’s reach. During the protests last week there were long lines at the metro ticket machines because people didn’t want to use their rechargeable Octopus cards for fear of leaving a digital trail that could connect them to the protest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7143749/Under-eye-dragon-reality-modern-China-face-tracked.html
The Chinese leadership will brook no dissent as they modernise their country. The Greens in the west would leap at the chance to silence debate about climate science using the same technology & weaken the USA, the EU etc., with their craziness. They are Useful Idiots, a pungent phrase usually attributed to Lenin. They are driven by Pathological Altruism, believing that they know how to run our lives better than us and believing the Western Guilt stories. Some qualify as members of the Lunatic Fringe.
Perry,
“Why do we do nothing to prepare for climate change? Really! How many billions have been wasted on solar panels & wind turbines by the west,”
Let’s replay the summary: “There is little support in America for action …”
This post discusses American public policy, not the “West’s.” Really.
Got hit by the pessimist bug, huh?
Try spending some time at a fishing pond where you may or may not take home a bunch of blue gills or a couple of trout, like my friend who goes there with his fishing tackle, an ice chest (or a couple of thermoses) and spends the day there watching the wind blow ripples across the lake surface.
Really, seriously, this climate frenzy is a fad and a scam to get money from the government, and it will pass. It’s part of a cycle, and ALL cycles have a beginning, a middle and an ending, and this one is no different. This loud, squawking clamor over data results that are inappropriately applied to get more grant money – and remember it’s a grant, not wages – has led the press to create a loud, squawking mob very similar to the loud, frenzied mobs at rock concerts and wrestling matches: they don’t care who gets hurt, they just want the noise, the excitement and the hubbub.
Lighten up, Francis. Take a chill pill and go fishing, even if you don’t catch anything.
I married a wonderful woman who introduced me to the serious top of values clarification.
One cannot argue that the world suffers from lack of good realization of the values effects of our decisions.
It is easy to say that if the NEXT guy would only…hardly ever, “If I did…”. This being said, consider that raising the standard of living of exploding populations leads to reduced family size, and more hope for the future.
Torturing our children with fear of climate change has had the same effect, only our of fear for their future.
These two areas, ie good courses in values clarification and getting the socialist out of public education would go a long way towards insuring a good future for our planet.
About that movie “When Worlds Collide”…
As I recall it, the scientists and government folks never told the commoners about the impending doom until they were forced to by the sight of the onrushing twin destroyers.
I remember the scene in the swank restaurant in New York, where Randall the pilot lit a cigarette with a $100 bill, saying “I’ve always wanted to do that.” He offers a light to the dowager at the next table, which she refuses with a derisive shake of her head. Randall laughs and turns back to his table.
I always imagined the poor lady a few weeks later, struggling for her life in flooded New York streets, before the tides brought the skyline down upon her.
Very funny.
Larry Kummer, there are times you strike me as naïve. I have read quite a bit of your stuff, disagreed with a significant amount, agreed with a large amount and just shook my head at some of it. In all fairness, if I wrote articles and placed it on a public website you would probably do the same to me.
But back to my original assertion; naivety.
This isn’t just about mistrusting scientists or the inappropriate methodologies used by activists. This is about underlying issues that go far deeper.
Critical thinking has always led me to question underlying motives for peoples actions. If you were to contemplate motives it would cause you to question everything.
Americans are not suspicious of the global warming scam because we don’t trust scientists. We are suspicious because deep down we know where this leads.
And it is NOT to a bright new future.