Democratic Party wrongheaded climate alarmism – time to revisit “The stupid party”

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The so-called “debates” of the Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls have allowed these individuals to display their extraordinary lack of knowledge and colossal ignorance of the world’s energy, emissions and climate realities.


The global energy, emissions and climate alarmist deceptive and dishonest propaganda claims this Presidential election cycle compared to the last such cycle in 2015-2017 can be properly characterized as “it’s worse than we thought” to borrow a much overused phrase from the climate alarmism community.

The inane energy and emissions concepts contained in the Green New Deal along with other related climate alarmist antics supporting this absurdly costly, ineffective and unnecessary scheme are totally loony.

During the prior Presidential election cycle which commenced in 2015 Dr. Judith Curry wrote an excellent article highlighting the inappropriate politicalization of climate change issues by “alarmist in chief” President Obama. She laid out her criticisms of the anti-science approach employed by the Democrats in addressing climate issues instead of that Party undertaking a science-based discussion.  

Dr. Curry’s article was appropriately titled “The stupid party” with the introduction shown below.


In her article she had provided quotes from then Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz as well as comments from the Democrats climate alarmist propaganda champion President Obama.

“Cruz has made the following statement about climate change in a TV interview, with the following unedited remarks reported by the Washington Examiner:

“I think debates on these issues should be driven by the science and the data and the evidence. Global warming alarmists don’t like to confront the actual evidence because it does not support their apocalyptic theories.

“Specifically, satellite data demonstrate there has been no warming over the past 17 years. That’s despite the fact that the computer models relied upon for this theory showed there would be significant warming, and yet the actual data don’t back up those flawed computer models. So what did the alarmists do? Rather than look to science to understand what’s happening, they simply modified the theory.

“Now you don’t hear them talking about global warming, you hear them talking merely about climate change. The reason for that alteration is because the data demonstrate the Earth is not warming. And I would note whenever anyone makes that point, you immediately get vilified as a quote-unquote ‘denier’ without anyone actually refuting the facts.

“And the language of denial is revealing because one usually hears of deniers in the religious context, dealing with heretics. And much of the global warming hysteria is pushed forth as a religious truth that no facts can dare contravene.

“It is altogether worrisome when you have scientists treating matters — denouncing those pointing to the actual facts and data as deniers. And indeed I would point out that was the exact same conduct the Flat Earth people demonstrated toward Galileo. And the global warming alarmists in their treatment of those looking to the facts and evidence often behave like modern day Flat Earth proponents.”

She then noted views regarding the Democrats approach to addressing the climate issue.

“While we’re on the subject of ‘stupid’, in case you missed this in the Week in Review.

On President Obama’s website,, there is a site Climate Change Fantasy Tournament:

Despite the overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and man-made, these sixteen members of Congress prefer to live in a fantasy world, refusing to accept the basic facts. You can learn more about their denial here. Help us pick the worst of the worst. Vote now!

97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country. Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change. Find the deniers near you—and call them out today.”

Dr. Curry concluded with the following regarding her assessment of the election process climate debate in her reflections section of the article noting:

“I find nothing at all wrong with Ted Cruz’s statements about climate change that I have cited above. In fact, I think they reflect some actual nuance of understanding of the climate change issue.”

“I REALLY object to President Obama’s ‘denier’ hunt, and insistence on the 97% scientific consensus in support of his policies. The extreme scientization of the political debate by President Obama is absolutely pernicious to academic freedom and is hampering scientific progress in understanding this complex problem.

It remains to be seen how the Republican candidates will position themselves regarding the climate change debate. So far, the declared Republican candidates (Cruz) are NOT winning the ‘stupid party’ contest on the issue of climate science.”

The recent debates by the Democratic Presidential contenders and their media interpreters offers an opportunity to revisit the election process of politicalization of climate science issues that Dr. Curry had criticized in her article. The CNN debate moderator consistently used the climate alarmist political propaganda term “climate crisis” instead of climate change regarding climate issue related questions – not a good start for what should have been an objective discussion.

The Detroit debate which took place on August 1 briefly and very clumsily, haphazardly and disjointedly addressed some climate related elements including topics where differing views were expressed regarding the viability of the Green New Deal and rejoining the Paris Agreement. Other topics included the need for zero carbon emissions and moving people to higher ground because of global sea level rise (holy cow!).

Another article after the Detroit debate featured the reporter injecting her own views into the discussion in an attempt to fabricate a more cohesive assessment of the disorganized utterances of the candidates at the Detroit debate with the following summary: 

“Yes, some of the moderates don’t like the Green New Deal. And the left-leaning politicians were more vociferous in their denunciation of the fossil fuel industry, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont accusing the corporations of “criminal activity that cannot be allowed to continue,” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts vowing to take on a Washington that “works great for the oil companies, just not for the people worried about climate change.”

But those differences belie the candidates’ fundamental agreement that transformative policy is needed to address climate change, including that:

emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil energy have to be brought to zero no later than 2050;

an expansive and rapid economic transformation with special attention to the needs of workers is key; and

trillions of dollars of federal investment will be necessary and worth the money given the scientific evidence that the alternative would be far costlier.”

“I think it’s pretty clear from everyone on that stage that you can’t be serious about running for president if you are not committed to acting on the climate crisis,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, vice president for government relations for the League of Conservation Voters, who watched the sessions live from the Fox Theatre audience in Detroit.”

“Atmospheric scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton, who has been one of the lead authors of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the candidates’ universal acknowledgement of the climate crisis was “certainly interesting and, up to a point, encouraging.”

“While it’s nice that most were on board with the concept of an aggressive stance against climate change, by and large we are still waiting for the ‘how to get there’ part,” Oppenheimer said.”

The Washington Post has a rack-up of the candidates and their positions on about a half dozen various issues that the paper itemized in a recent article.  

The Post characterized the majority of Democratic candidates as supporting the Green New Deal, rejoining the Paris Agreement, creating a carbon tax, ending fossil fuel government subsidies and banning extraction of fossil fuels on federal lands. 

Based on these articles and news reports it appears that the great majority of Democrat candidates have climate issue related viewpoints built upon climate alarmist propaganda.

A recent article addressed this Democrat alarmism issue as noted below.


The author provided specific points regarding the Democrats flawed views about the “climate crisis”.

“As the Republican-called witness at a recent hearing, I was denounced by the Democrats for denying a fossil-fueled “climate crisis” that, as their witnesses testified, results in violence against women, asthma and obesity in children, and deadly storms. But few actually questioned me. After all, “the debate is over.”

“At the hearing, I presented data from the United Nations contradicting the accepted wisdom that extreme weather is destroying the planet and is traceable directly to a man-made climate crisis. There are no such trends in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, or droughts. One Democrat who stuck around to actually question me simply asserted that our coalition is funded by energy companies. I wish! Another wanted to know, “Do you believe in climate change or not?” When I asked him to define it, he cut me off with: “That answers it all…That gives us a hint where you’re coming from.”

“It turned out that computer models were indeed the basis for the U.N. claims about recent “detection” of a change in temperature, and “attribution” of the cause being CO2 emissions. But they weren’t testable statistical models; they were mathematical exercises in curve-fitting — essentially, finding a model that fits your data. The modelers themselves called them projections rather than predictions.

These Global Climate Models randomly use thousands of input guesses until their output roughly tracks the chart of average temperatures. Then those final guesses are used to run the model forward to estimate how much warming industrial CO2 will cause in 100 years. But one of the input guesses is the warming effect of CO2, so the modelers control the final answer from the start!

The “proof” cited by the U.N. study was that the fit improved when CO2 emissions are included in the model along with a few well-known natural events, such as solar changes and volcanoes. I laughed out loud when I saw that. I could create a great fit with temperature for any series, from batting averages to the stock market, if I too could fiddle with thousands of parameters. The father of these models was Cold War military theorist John von Neumann, who wanted to see if we could cause drought in the Soviet Union. He failed, thank goodness. Von Neumann joked, “with four parameters I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, a member of our coalition who was a U.S.-appointed representative on the U.N. panel but left when it became a propaganda tool, has called the U.N. logic “proof by lassitude.” By this he means that just because you can’t identify the combination of interactions and feedback that drives temperature doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Lindzen has pointed out that the modelers themselves build in feedback when it suits them. A full two-thirds of the modeled warming comes from a hypothesized response by the atmosphere to an initial warming from CO2.

The claim of a thousand-year high came from a temperature chart called “the hockey stick,” generated by a backward-looking model that took a “new statistical approach” to the records of the widths of the rings of old trees. This one was pretty much all art and no science. The data conveniently wiped out a previous consensus that there had been a natural “medieval warming period” that exceeded today’s temperature. The resulting graph was flat until the carbon dioxide era and then shot up by grafting on different data (though not the raw tree ring proxies, which actually went down).

“On its face it was silly, and on careful reading it became even sillier. But what the U.N. and my student hadn’t recognized was that even if true, the chart was irrelevant to whether our recent warming is mostly human or natural. Every 100,000 years, oscillations in the earth’s orbit drive temperatures up and then down far more than the recent fluctuation. The processes and feedback are poorly understood. A brief stable period within this massive, complex system that ends in correlation with a change in a single variable, carbon dioxide, is no more proof of causation that a strongly oscillating period ending with the same correlation.”

“When I asked my coalition’s physicists, agronomists, geologists, and meteorologists to write about the hour they first didn’t believe, it turned out they didn’t have one. They always knew that CO2 was a minor warming gas, and never found the models’ focus on it compelling. The last 30 years have not been kind to the models. The exaggerated media claims about their projections of warming and its catastrophic effects keep getting extended rather than realized. Someday the climate science narrative will return to a place of reason. When it does, I’ll be waiting there for my Democratic Party.”

The climate CMIP5 computer models (over 100 of them) have been compared by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer to extensive global temperature satellite measurements of the earth’s lower troposphere with the results showing exaggerated and flawed model outcomes compared to actual measured global temperatures that demonstrate how the flawed computer models compute at least twice the level of global temperature increase as satellite measurements show is actually occurring.



Yet these “hopelessly wrong” computer models which grossly overstate and exaggerate the impact of CO2 atmospheric levels on global temperatures are employed by climate alarmists to manufacture unrealistic outcomes that are falsely used to try and justify government policy climate actions that impose upon society massive burdens that are enormously expensive, ineffective, bureaucratically onerous and unnecessary as noted in a recent evaluation by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“All projections in the National Climate Assessment “are based on global model results and associated downscaled products from CMIP5 for a lower scenario (RCP4.5) and a higher scenario (RCP8.5).” CMIP5 is the acronym for the ensemble of 32 models used in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment report. NCA projections are based on the “multi-model mean” of the CMIP5 models (p. 110).

So here we encounter the first systemic problem in the Fourth National Climate Assessment on which the subcommittee’s majority relies. Since 1979, the CMIP5 model mean has projected roughly twice as much global warming as has actually occurred in the global lower atmosphere and nearly three times as much warming as observed in the tropical bulk atmosphere, where greenhouse theory expects the most rapid warming to occur.”

Making matters even more exaggerated climate alarmist utilized these flawed computer models with economic models that employed deliberately and unrealistically skewed assumptions with higher future emissions levels, adverse energy fuel use choices, higher population growth, lower economic growth, etc. to fabricate flawed worst case economic outcomes that are disguised as “base cases” which grossly overstate and misrepresent climate cost impacts in an attempt to fallaciously justify climate alarmist Draconian proposals.   

“Although the U.S. Global Change Research Program used all four RCPs to model potential climate change impacts, the NCA report “focuses on RCP8.5 as a ‘higher’ scenario, associated with more warming, and RCP4.5 as a ‘lower’ scenario with less warming” (p. 6). Predictably, the majority staff briefing memo fixates on warming levels and impacts associated with RCP8.5.

Although the National Climate Assessment does not call RCP8.5 a “baseline” emission scenario, readers are left with the overwhelming impression that RCP8.5 represents business-as-usual—the global emission levels that will result absent “significant global mitigation action.” However, as this blog post and several other commentators have pointed out, RCP8.5 is not a realistic emissions baseline. It projects higher emission levels in 2100 than about 90 percent of baseline scenarios in the literature. RCP8.5 belongs in the category of worst-case scenarios.”

But these distorted and deceptive tactics of employing flawed climate and economic computer models by climate alarmists to exaggerate and misrepresent climate behavior and related economic consequences are completely overwhelmed and made to be of secondary importance by the fact that the world’s developing nations have emerged during the last decade as preeminent in controlling both existing and future global energy use and emissions outcomes.

These results that climate alarmist and Democrats ignore and conceal establish that energy and emissions policy actions by the developed nations including the U.S. and EU are irrelevant to both existing and future energy use and emissions growth with the world committed to an ever increasingly upward path in both these measures that is unstoppable by the developed nations.

This critically important outcome is highlighted by the information presented below from a recent energy and emissions assessment with data provided through year 2018.



The article references the following results summary:

“The results for the last decade show that global energy use grew by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that energy growth accounted for by the developing nations.

The developing nations represented about 51% of global energy use in 2008 and ended the decade accounting for over 59% of global energy use.

Energy use growth by the developing nations during the last decade occurred at a rate 5.5 times greater than the flat growth rate that occurred in the developed nations.

The developing nations energy use growth during the last decade was met by significantly increased use of fossil fuels that supplied over 78% of this latest decades energy growth.

The developed nations reduced use of fossil energy by about 3.2% during the decade with the largest reduction being in the use of coal fuel that was largely offset by increases in use of natural gas.

Despite this small developed nation fossil energy reduction during the last decade world fossil energy increased by over 14.5%. Global energy consumption during this period saw coal use climbing by 8%, oil use climbing by over 12% and natural gas use climbing by over 28%.”

“Despite reductions in coal use by the developed nations coal fuel remained by far and away the primary fuel for the world’s electricity generation.”

“Global renewable energy increased significantly during the last decade as measured from its very small starting contribution but represented only about 4% of total global energy in 2018 compared to fossil fuels that accounted for about 85% of total world energy use.”

“Renewable energy is more extensively used in the developed nations than in the developing nations where in 2018 it accounted for less than 3% of the developing nations total energy. In contrast fossil fuels provided 87.5% of the developing nations total 2018 energy. The developed nations used fossil energy for meeting over 80% of 2018 energy needs.”

“Global energy use drives global CO2 emissions outcomes.

During the last decade of flat energy growth by the developed nations costly government driven unreliable renewable energy use mandate schemes were undertaken which partially resulted in CO2 emissions declining by about 1 billion metrics tons between 2008 and 2018 for these nations.

Of this developed nation total CO2 reduction the U.S. contributed about 530 million metric tons in reductions. This was achieved primarily by substituting cost effective, reliable and more efficient natural gas in place of coal. This cost effective and successful outcome is concealed from the public by climate alarmist propagandist media.

During the last decade significantly increased need for growing energy use and the preferred reliance on reliable and affordable fossil fuels resulted in the developing nations increasing CO2 emissions by over 4.5 billion metric tons. This emissions increase resulted in global CO2 emissions climbing by over 3.5 billion metric tons during that decade.

The developing nations increased energy use and resulting emissions completely overwhelmed the lower emissions by the developed nations conclusively demonstrating that the developing nations now totally dominate global energy use and emissions.

Global CO2 emissions will continue to climb driven by the developing nations need for increasing energy use as reflected in EIA data which projects increased global CO2 emissions by 2050 of over an additional 7 billion metric tons.”

The bottom line regarding the role of the developing nations as dominating both global energy use and emissions is unequivocal.  

“The developing nations are now accountable and solely responsible for about 64% of global CO2 emissions compared to only about 36% of global emissions being accounted for by the developed nations – nearly a 2 to

ratio. (graphically illustrated in the diagram below)


The developing nations now dominate global energy use and emissions by being accountable for 59% of global energy use and 64% of global CO2 emissions with these figures projected to climb ever higher in the coming decade.”

This global energy and emissions dominance by the world’s developing nations will continue to grow in the future.

The failure of the developed nations climate alarmists to mandate the use of costly and unreliable renewable energy upon the developing nations is clearly reflected in a recent article from the Financial Times where fossil fuels are forecast to provide 85% of the world’s energy in year 2040.


Additionally the EIA IEO 2017 report projects that by 2050 the developing nations will be accountable for nearly 70% of total global energy use and emissions.

The Democrats inane push for the Green New Deal is ludicrous since even if such a useless and massively costly program is enacted by the U.S. it has no impact on the worlds continuing increased use of fossil fuels by the developing nations that have no commitments whatsoever to do anything under the politically contrived and phony Paris Agreement.

The Green New Deal is a catastrophically costly and useless program as discussed in a recent AEI paper presented a recent international climate conference.    

“Economist Benjamin Zycher did the math—the real math, not “climate math”—on the GND’s costs. He shared the results at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, in Washington, July 25. Take a deep breath.

Just to meet the GND’s renewable electricity mandate would cost, at a very conservative estimate, $491 Billion a year—or $3,845 per household.

And then there are the indirect costs. What are those? The costs of building the political coalition necessary to turn the GND (which AOC introduced as a resolution) into law:

• $3.2 Trillion for a single-payer health care system;

• $680 Billion to guarantee everyone employment;

• $107 Billion for “free” college and family-and-medical leave;

• $200 Billion for high-speed rail (because planes won’t fly on batteries!);

• $4.5 Trillion for the marginal excess burden of the expanded tax system. (It costs a lot to collect all those taxes!)

That totals $9 Trillion a year. A paltry sum. Just slightly over two-fifths of our economy.”

Furthermore the basic premise of the Green New Deal mandating a zero emissions electricity future using renewable energy is technically and fatally flawed as noted in a recent WUWT article.

“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a “100 percent renewable system” and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas–fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas–fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.

Without fossil-fired backup generation, the national and regional electricity systems would be characterized by a significant decline in service reliability — that is, a large increase in the frequency and duration of blackouts. Battery backup technology cannot solve this problem. It is unlikely that a power system characterized by regular, widespread service interruptions would be acceptable to a large majority of Americans. Accordingly, the emissions effects of backup generation as just described in fact would be observed, which is to say that to a significant degree the GND is self-defeating in its asserted climate goals. That is another reason to conclude that the true goals are an expansion of wealth transfers to favored interests and the power of government to command and allocate resources. Moreover, the reduction in individual and aggregate incomes attendant upon the GND policies would yield a reduction in the collective political willingness to invest in environmental protection over time.”

“Moreover, notwithstanding the assertions from GND proponents that it is an essential policy to confront purportedly adverse climate phenomena, the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173°C by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter (equilibrium climate sensitivity) about the effects of reduced GHG emissions. Under an assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083°C by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures. This conclusion is not controversial and suggests strongly that the GND’s real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally”.

Also unaddressed in the GND proposal is the indisputable fact that any reductions in GHG emissions by the U.S., which already leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions, is completely irrelevant to the future growth both cumulatively and incrementally of global emissions which are totally controlled by the world’s developing nations.”

Yet another significant deception by the Democrats is their failure to note the action recently taken by the EU to dump any commitment to “carbon neutrality” by 2050 as noted in another article at GWPF.


Democratic Party alarmist candidates make claims that sea level rise is accelerating. These claims are unsupported by globally measured tide gauge data as addressed in a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research which concluded that based on actual measurements there was “no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years.”


Sea levels have been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age as noted in the diagram below that shows sea level rising at low rates for about the last 8,000 years.


Climate alarmists continue to make false coastal sea level rise acceleration claims based on, again, speculation and conjecture from computer models. An example of sea level rise computer model exaggeration and dopey idiocy is noted in the diagram below from a recent alarmist “study” done here in California.


Climate alarmist claims of global warming driven extreme weather are unsupported by results from the UN IPCC climate assessment reports.


The article notes the following in its conclusions:

“Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heat waves.”

An additional analysis specifically debunked recent flawed claims of increased Atlantic hurricane activity.


The analysis specifically addressed data on category 3, 4 and 5 landfall hurricanes as noted below.


Climate alarmism propagandists and their media manipulators repeat regular seasonal cycles of scientifically unsupported alarmist hype. Two of these involve the U.S. regularly occurring tornado season and summer Greenland ice melt.

Each year during the typical tornado season peak occurrences in April, May and June the climate alarmists and media hype how this increased activity is “unusual” and driven by man made climate change as illustrated in a typical propaganda article addressing this year’s activity.


As the typical tornado season moves into the less active months NOAA data tracking tornado behavior over the last 15 year long historical cycles shows that indeed the typical behavior pattern that is expected has occurred and the propaganda alarmist hype abates only to be pointlessly repeated again the next season.


Another regular seasonally driven event that is always hyped by climate alarmists and media is the summer Greenland ice melt of tens of billion of tons of ice that varies each year but is almost always wrongly characterized as being due to man made climate change that is threatening huge global sea level rise impacts that would occur if all Greenland ice were to melt.

This year saw increased summer Greenland ice melt versus prior years so the alarmist hype was even more absurd. The graphs below show how this regular and complex ice melt cycle varies over time and more importantly how infinitesimally small these changes are relative to the total ice mess of Greenland – a critically importantly piece of scientific information that is never addressed in alarmist propaganda.


The Democratic Party and its media propaganda interpreters are dishonestly concealing critically important energy, emissions and climate information from the American public including:

Failure to acknowledge that climate models grossly exaggerate and overstate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures thus demonstrating that these models are hopelessly flawed.

Failure to utilize realistic assumptions regarding future economic impacts of climate change and instead utilizing worst case outlier presumptions that are built upon nothing but alarmist driven speculation and conjecture in an effort to drive up supposedly related climate change costs to unrealistic levels.

Failure to acknowledge and deliberately concealing the fact that the world’s developing nations have assumed complete control of existing and future global energy use and emissions outcomes.

Failure to acknowledge and deliberately concealing the fact that the U.S. and EU cannot change the course of future global energy use and emissions growth – the world’s developing nations exclusively determine that future global energy use and emissions will continue to rise.

Failure to acknowledge that the Paris Agreement has already demonstrated its complete inability to serve any meaningful purpose in addressing future global energy use or emissions – the Agreement contains no emission reduction commitments from the developing nations.

Failure to acknowledge that the EU abandoned its once proudly and loudly hyped politically driven goal of being committed to carbon neutrality by 2050.

Failure to acknowledge that the Green New Deal is a massively costly and useless politically contrived proposal which has been rendered irrelevant because the world’s energy and emissions dominant developing nations have committed to future fossil energy use and emissions growth.

Failure to acknowledge that the Green New Deal requirement of 100% renewable energy electricity leading to zero emissions is technically and fatally flawed because it fails to address the need for backup fossil generation required due to the unreliability inherent in renewable operation.

Failure to utilize global data which clearly establishes that coastal sea level rise is not accelerating and that 30 year old alarmist claims regarding such acceleration are flawed

Failure to utilize UN IPCC data, conclusions and findings that extreme weather is not driven by global warming CO2 emissions.

As Dr. Judith noted in her 2015 article:

“Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned fellow Republicans they “must stop being the stupid party”.

Jindal’s comments didn’t seem directly targeted at science, but the phrase stuck in my head.  And it seems very apropos to the current political debates in the U.S. about climate change, particularly in context of the emerging candidates for U.S. President.”

It’s up to WUWT readers to evaluate the conduct and climate policy utterances of the Democratic Party Presidential candidates and media manipulators and make their own determination as to which political party should be awarded the title of “The stupid party.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Q Public
August 10, 2019 10:07 am

Galileo against Flat Earthers? Ted was off a bit there…

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Q Public
August 10, 2019 11:50 am

Of course Galileo supposedly got in trouble for casting doubt on scripture by his heliocentric view, not for claiming that the earth is a sphere. But isn’t this the same sort of rhetorical laxness that many routinely condone in our President by saying that we must take his statements seriously but not literally? The intent was clear that true science was and is being denied by dogmatists. I’d be inclined to believe that it was at least as likely that Ted knew he was playing fast and loose but wanted his talking point to be understood by the less educated. Senator Cruz is no dummy.

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 11, 2019 6:19 am

in every forum I have been in, live or digital, the story of Galileo is now rhetorical shorthand for “one man who tells the truth while the establishment of his day strives to crush it.”

That’s the sense Cruz used it in, that’s how everyone uses it. Now if you did into the actual story, of course that is not a literally “fair” description of what happened, but so what? that has nothing to do with the example it’s being used to illustrate. I could go on and get real boring about the concept of “memes” in the digital age, but you either get that already or there’s no point explaining.

Rich Davis
Reply to  wws
August 11, 2019 9:54 am

Exactly right, he was invoking a meme, not giving a history lesson.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Q Public
August 10, 2019 11:52 am

WAY OT but I wanted all here to know…
I just got a call from someone with a rather thick accent wanting to talk to me about a problem with my Direct TV account (SCAMMER). When I said I don’t have Direct TV they promptly disconnected. New scam out of Mumbai

Reply to  Bryan A
August 10, 2019 12:35 pm

Call them a Paki and see whether they get triggered or not.

Tell them you don’t want to deal with them because they sound like a Paki and you don’t trust Pakis.

They will probably fall over themselves trying to assure you that they are Indian, not Pakistani. Ask them to prove where they are from. You can then tell them you know they are a scammer but where just trying to establish their location to make an official complaint to the local police force.

Much more fun than just getting them to hang up.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
August 10, 2019 1:10 pm

I like that one…
Burned into memory…

Reply to  Greg
August 10, 2019 1:20 pm

Sorry Sir (s) but I think you have a problem.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Greg
August 10, 2019 9:10 pm


Pak means “peace”. Pakistan “place of peaceful people”. Why would anyone object to being called a peaceful person?

Bryan A
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 11, 2019 12:27 am

Indians and Pakistanis are mortal enemies

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 11, 2019 6:24 am

yes, and Libya translates as “Land of Impeccable Personal Hygiene”

re: land of peace. “Peace” is easy, after you kill all of your enemies. And also all of those relatives that annoy the crap out of you.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bryan A
August 10, 2019 2:52 pm

Come on. Was it REALLY necessary to post this here? Any other of the thousands of scams you’d like to warn us about? Sheesh.

Reply to  John Q Public
August 11, 2019 1:38 pm

“The so-called “debates” of the Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls have allowed these individuals to display their extraordinary lack of knowledge and colossal ignorance of the world’s energy, emissions and climate realities.”

Hear Hear!

I watched every debate and al of the above is absolutely true!



Mark Broderick
August 10, 2019 10:23 am

The “Big Oil Fossil Fuels” companies are not responsible for any of the extra CO2 pushed into the atmosphere, but, all the people that USE “Big Oil Fossil Fuels” are responsible. Just because it is available, does NOT force you to use it ! Necessity requires you to use it to survive, unless you want to live in a cave… IMHO

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 10, 2019 2:10 pm

Yes and those who think that the burning of fossil fuels is bad, should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. In my neighborhood most would die if they tried to do that because all the food and materials in my neighborhood were transported here by fossil fuel burning trucks.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 10, 2019 6:04 pm

Yeah, when are the Democrats going to start boycotting the fossil fuel indstry by stopping their personal use of fossil fuel products?

They boycott what they don’t like in a heartbeat, but they haven’t boycotted fossil fuels yet.

The Democrats need to put their money where their mouth is. They need to show the rest of us just how serious they are about this.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 11, 2019 12:31 am

Not just boycott, boycotts tend to be temporary, total and permanent personal divestment of all fossil fuel derived energy and Oil derived products and services.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Bryan A
August 11, 2019 2:54 pm

That means everything purchased in stores that were transported by truck including store bought food and clothes as well as all buildings and surfaces built with materials that were moved by truck. Accordingly such people should be running naked in a nature preserve or wilderness area.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 11, 2019 1:14 am

Never mind the average Democrat. I want to see the celebrity alarmists like Leonardo Di Caprio plus Big Al Gore give up their private jets and luxury yachts to cut their “carbon footprint” (with no lame carbon offsets allowed)

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Analitik
August 11, 2019 3:07 pm

The name of the game with these people is, “I’ve got mine; you peons can suck it.“ I tweeted Harrison Ford the other day when I found out (here) about the godawful video he made for extinction rebellion, reminding him that some of us out here are actually paying attention, and told him that I’d be happy to downsize my already very modest lifestyle as soon as he does.

Let’s cut to the chase: these people are scum. We seriously need to come up with a new word for “hypocrisy“ that approaches the stratospheric level of it that these people practice on a daily basis. And of course not just them, but the millions of garden-variety hypocrites who are another famous nor anywhere near their wealth and fame, but still insist on the narrative without lifting their pinky fingers to demonstrate their integrity and commitment.

When I pointed out to a hysteric in a different forum that I don’t drive and am a lifelong public transit user, they then *mocked* me for riding the “loser cruiser.” This is the level of cognitive dissonance we’re talking about; NEVER underestimate how far up their own asses these peoples’ heads are.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Analitik
August 12, 2019 4:07 am

“We seriously need to come up with a new word for “hypocrisy“ that approaches the stratospheric level of it that these people practice on a daily basis.”

Isn’t that the truth! Hypocrisy just isn’t adeqate to describe what’s going on.

August 10, 2019 10:24 am

It is basically a reduction of the climate system down to one variable and presenting it in a graph that is basically flat. That’s some feat!

Reply to  Mike Bromley
August 10, 2019 12:02 pm

what about natural variability?
Nothing to see here
comment image
move along.

Tom Halla
August 10, 2019 10:31 am

The Democratic Party candidates have definitely drunk the green Kool-Aid. Good general review article, though.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 10, 2019 1:53 pm

It is really Red Kool-aid – none of them care about “the environment” nearly as much as the care about accumulating unlimited power over the population.

August 10, 2019 10:55 am

Dr Curry should know you can’t fix stupid…..

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 10, 2019 2:25 pm

I’m pretty sure she knows that alright. But she gets asked questions, what can she do but answer them.

She’s given up acedamia, and trying to convince them from inside. Too much push back and too much abuse, she’s gone private, and no doubt is a lot happier for it.

Dan Cody
August 10, 2019 11:07 am

They should be called the liberal DEMOCRAPS because of all the BS in their nonsensical rhetoric.
*For all the pro-‘man-made’ climate change activists who are living in LA LA land, I highly recommend you reading up on author John Casey of the book,’Dark Winter-How the sun is causing a 30- year cold spell’ copyright 2014.
John Casey is currently the President of the Space and Science research Corporation(SSRC).The SSRC specializes in the science and planning for the next climate change to decades of cold weather,including its predicted concurrent ill-effects of record earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.The SSRC is the primary USA advocate for national and global preparedness for this next cold-climate era.
Recently ,the Sun has began with the Grand solar minimum sunspot cycle resulting in a much less solar output heat energy,a cycle that will last for decades instead of the usual 11 year cycle of sunspots and no sunspots.This is going to lead to much harsher winters ahead and cooler summers and a lowering of average global temps.
You can check out interviews and other info on Casey on You Tube.I saw and listened to one of his interviews and I was impressed by the man’s intelligence,knowledge and articulation.You can also check his books out on Amazon.

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 10, 2019 7:37 pm

Solar activity has been in decline since 1960 , if you want to say that is a major factor in climate, you are inadvertently providing an excuse for why there has only been limited warming “caused by CO2”.

Solar activity did increase in the early part of the 20th c. , so you may be explaining one of the major flaws in AGW hypothesis.

’Dark Winter-How the sun is causing a 30- year cold spell’ ? Well it seems rather foolish to say something IS happening before there is any physical evidence to back up such a claim. Not what you could call a “climate realist” position, is it?

Dan Cody
Reply to  Greg
August 10, 2019 8:39 pm

Greg, I have much more confidence in John Casey than in you because Casey does his homework and his predictions have been accurate in the past.Man Made carbon emissions have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.ZERO! pure and simple.Climate change are natural variations that the earth goes thru in periods of warming and cooling that has gone on for ions,long before man was around.You mention about cooling since 1960 which is an unimportant point to bring up since the coming grand solar minimum in the coming decades is going to dwarf the recent cooling that you mentioned. Mr.Casey said this so called ‘global greenhouse man made warming’ is the biggest hoax in American history.I suggest you read Mr.Casey’s books if you haven’t already and also watch his interviews on you tube to learn more on this subject.

August 10, 2019 11:07 am

Lets not even think about doing a 75 Trillion dollar Green New Deal. Lets not worry if CO2 is bad for the environment. There is another way to deal with the CO2. Turn the CO2 into good paying jobs and money.
The environmentalists are saying CO2 is causing climate change and climate change is causing increased ocean water levels and Dykes (like in Holland) will have to be built to protect our shore lines and coastal cities.
Our CCU System creates calcium carbonate, the same stuff corral reefs are made of. The CO2 that is causing this problem can also be the solution for building sea walls.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sid Abma
August 10, 2019 12:25 pm

Good grief Sid, don’t you ever tire of spamming us with your commercials?

There is no climate crisis related to CO2. Wasting a big percentage of the energy in coal to produce a worthless byproduct is plain stupid. Capturing carbon dioxide to use in enhanced oil extraction might make some sense, but surely not because we need to stop fertilizing plant life. Just because it would be an effective way to get more cost-effective energy to raise the world’s poor out of poverty.

The only climate crisis potentially looming is the next cold period or God forbid, the next glaciation. Then CO2 will be a real problem. When the cooling oceans draw down our life gas and plant life is less able to provide us with food, that will be a CO2 crisis.

Reply to  Rich Davis
August 10, 2019 8:12 pm

The only people who are going to get rich from these schemes are Sid and the early investors.

Reply to  Sid Abma
August 10, 2019 8:11 pm

Or we could get government to create good paying jobs digging holes and filling them back in.
At least it wouldn’t have the side effect of making electricity much more expensive.

Just how many different scams are you running here?

Reply to  MarkW
August 10, 2019 10:26 pm

Paying people to look out of windows would be better for the environment than having them dig holes and filling them back in. Limiting their access to the internet would save energy too. I think AOC may even support this concept.

Gary Pearse
August 10, 2019 11:38 am

GND: don’t forget that making steel, aluminum cement and glass for renubles requires uninterupted reliable energy. A frozen glass batch would be fun and games.

August 10, 2019 12:05 pm

The “no warming in 17 years” is an overstatement. It is based on including a century-class El Nino spike in the satellite-measured lower troposphere, where El Nino spikes are quite pronounced.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 10, 2019 12:06 pm

I meant including such a huge spike shortly after the beginning of the period being considered.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 10, 2019 5:07 pm

“I meant including such a huge spike shortly after the beginning of the period being considered.”

Warmists often claimed that had been done during the period we were calling the Pause, but our side refuted them. Only a few comparisons included the 1998 spike. (Please back me up with cites, readers who have access to them.)

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 10, 2019 7:05 pm

Sorry, Donald. That ‘Huge Spike’ in global temperature was deemed too inconvenient to the Climate Cause, and was memory holed. The new and improved fully adjusted Global Temperature Record no longer shows 1998 being any warmer then the rest of the 17 or whatever following years.

Now, the 2016 Super El Niño Spike that makes the world The Warmist Ever, that will be around for years to come… or at lest until it too becomes inconvenient.


Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 10, 2019 8:13 pm

Not even slightly true, but what the heck, who needs reality when we have a scam to protect.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 11, 2019 2:36 am

If you account for the ENSO cycle there’s no evidence of any change for the last 20ish years. That means that it hasn’t warmed, it also means it hasn’t cooled.

The next thing which can give us an idea if it has warmed is … paradoxically … a strong La Nina cooling. Since we’ve not really had much La Nina cooling since before 2016, we could be in for a substantial La Nina Cooling in the next few years. Otherwise we could have to wait another decade for another strong El Nino.

Richard M
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 11, 2019 4:44 pm

Let’s say Bob decided he needed to lose some weight. Assume he weighs in at 200 lbs. He then proceeds to lose a little weight but then gets distracted and gains most of it back. So, he gets dedicated once again and loses even more weight. Alas, the dedication doesn’t last and poor Bob puts on all the weight he lost. However, it gets even worse. Bob starts gaining weight and keeps gaining weight. He starts eating even more and hits many record high weights. Finally though, Bob gets tired of looking like a beached whale and goes on a near starvation diet with plenty of exercise to quickly get back down to …. 200 lbs.

If you computed a trend of Bob’s weight it would be upward. Losing weight early on and then going overweight towards the end of the period would create a strongly positive upward trend. What does that trend tell you? Is Bob still gaining weight as the trend seems to indicate?

What the trend tells you is trends can be completely misleading. Bob weighs exactly the same as when he started the diet. There is no hidden weight hiding in his shoes. It turns out picking two points at the start and the end is far more representative than a trend.

So, let’s try that with the temperature and see if we can find two comparable times and see what that tells us:

Year Mo Globe
1996 Sept 0.15 C
2018 Sept 0.13 C

In reality, there is no evidence of any warming for over 22 years.

August 10, 2019 12:08 pm


1. The amount of warming man can do will be net beneficial. This is debatable, but likely true.
2. The great social progress made by cheap energy from fossil fuels.
3. The tremendous greening from AnthroCO2, possibly now feeding an extra billion bellies, and more cumulatively.

then the social cost of carbon is negative. AnthroCO2 is a benefit and not a cost.

This whole mess is exactly backwards. Reparations are due the US and other developed countries for benefiting human society by the use of fossil fuels.

Change my mind!

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  kim
August 10, 2019 7:47 pm

Kim, Impossible. I’ve been saying for at least 10 years that in a sane world energy companies would be paid a bonus for the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for everyone to enjoy, that ethanol production should be illegal, and wind and solar are worth less than nothing. NG now for a few decades and then a gradual transition to nuclear.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 11, 2019 12:09 pm

Heh, Dennis, your scenario is likely to happen, thanks to the ‘market’.

August 10, 2019 12:41 pm

The New Deal was an attempt to deal with the Great Depression. Things were bad, especially in the dust bowl.

There is no comparison between the conditions now and those in the 1930s. There is an adage everyone knows: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” AOC undoubtedly can repeat it.

We have the wisdom of the ages. Everyone knows it and can cite it. Somehow folks find ways to ignore it.

Hey AOC, ever heard of hubris? The ancient Greeks knew about that problem. It’s built into the human condition. Stupid people ignore that kind of thing.

Who’s the stupid party? How about the party that ignores the blindingly obvious.

Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2019 1:35 pm

The New Deal and the Green New Deal have two things in common; 1) the New Deal was a failure and the Green New Deal would also be a failure if enacted, and 2) it would run up an enormous amount of debt.

[Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury said about the New Deal “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”]

Reply to  RicDre
August 10, 2019 2:36 pm

As far as I can tell, nobody thinks the New Deal worked.

We have the theory that the Great Depression was ended by WW2. We have the theory that the Great Depression was ended at the end of WW2 when taxes and spending were reduced. As far as I can tell economists can reach any conclusion they want given the history.

The economy is like the climate. Nobody fully understands what’s going on but there’s infinite bloviation anyway.

The New Deal should be an sobering example for future generations of politicians.

A couple of thousand years ago, Lao Tse nailed it:

Governing a great country is like frying a small fish.

There is also the Yiddish proverb:

Men plan, God laughs.

In spite of the wisdom of the ages, politicians will always have great plans. It seems that hubris trumps everything.

Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2019 3:20 pm

“As far as I can tell, nobody thinks the New Deal worked.”

I am pretty confident that every Democrat presidential candidate thinks the New Deal was a roaring success or they would not have hung “Green” onto New Deal for their latest proposal. At least the New Deal was trying to fix a real problem.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RicDre
August 11, 2019 5:58 am

“I am pretty confident that every Democrat presidential candidate thinks the New Deal was a roaring success or they would not have hung “Green” onto New Deal for their latest proposal.”

Definitely. They are using the New Deal as a selling point.

Reply to  RicDre
August 11, 2019 8:28 am

I think you are correct on this. The politics are such that the current candidates think the depression was ended by “Governmental Action” and not by WWII which actually started in 1939. The current action by government with trade war with China will probably suffer the same fate as the 1930 which was the Smoot-Holly act passed by congress. Any act imposed by the government to help “others” is a tax. Beware!!!!

Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2019 10:39 pm

The other science that is a messed up as climate science is nutritional science.

Roger Knights
Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2019 5:11 pm

“Who’s the stupid party? How about the party that ignores the blindingly obvious.”

The Dems are the Silly Party.
(Mencken: “Liberals have 100 tails and they chase them all.”)

Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2019 8:16 pm

The New Deal took a run of the mill recession and turned it into the Great Depression.
It finally ended when WWII forced government to scrap most of their regulations so that industry could get back to work.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2019 12:51 am

Seriously? Between 1929 and 1933 the GDP of the USA decreased by 1/3 and the unemployment rate went from 4% to greater than 20%. By what measure was that a “run of the mill recession”?
The new deal did not start until FRD became president in 1933 and so cannot be blamed for the
great depression.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 11, 2019 6:36 am

It’s a bit more complicated than either of you acknowledge. Izaak is correct that things were much worse than a “run of the mill recession” by the time FDR was inaugurated in March of 1933. It was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that turned a market-correction recession into a calamity by precipitating trade wars and currency devaluations that collapsed global trade. The New Deal policies of the Progressive Democrat Roosevelt prolonged the disaster that the Progressive Republican Hoover had wrought, until as Mark pointed out, WW2 put an end to it.

August 10, 2019 12:42 pm

The party of gender confusion.

CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2019 1:23 pm

Trump continues to squander his opportunity to do something about this ongoing phony “crisis.” There is still plenty of science out there (and time) with which to go on offense against it.

I fear that that Republicans and all other skeptics out there may live to see the day when they regret Trump’s failure to do so. This scare will probably not go away before the alarmists and the allies in the mainstream media and the Democratic Party are handed an opportunity to use it wage ware on the economy, the energy industry in particular and the American people.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 11, 2019 6:31 am

Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord, and the EPA is being reset a little bit more every day. He’s done more for our side than every other President before him put together, so he’s earned a bit of slack from our side. Is there more that should be done? Of course there is! But I stick with someone who helps me at least a part of the time, rather than those who actively hate me all the time.

besides, as big as this problem is, there are bigger ones today. The deep state just reached out and demonstrated they can murder one of most prominent and visible witnesses in the entire country, while he’s under 24 hour guard in a maximum security prison. And they’re laughing at us about it.

Rich Davis
Reply to  wws
August 11, 2019 1:11 pm
August 10, 2019 1:43 pm

@ Larry Hamlin,
Ya don’t want to fire all your ammunition in the first three paragraphs, ya gotta draw them into your web 🙂

Wiliam Haas
August 10, 2019 2:01 pm

Excellent article but let me add some things.

The AGW conjecture seems quite plausible at first but looking at in more detail one realizes that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. For example in Al Gore’s first movie he shows a chart of how CO2 has correlated with temperature over the past 600K years. His claim was that the chart shows that more CO2 causes warming. But looking at the data in more detail that temperature leads CO2 so that a warmer climate causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere. The CO2 comes from the oceans. When the oceans warm up they cannot hold as much CO2 so they release it to the atmosphere. When the temperature of the oceans decreases they take up CO2. According to Al Gore’s chart, if CO2 were the climate temperature control knob it should really be much warmer than it actually is. The truth is that there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are 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 to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero.

For those who believe in the radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands in the Earth’s atmosphere, the total radiant greenhouse effect is dominated by H2O so much so that changes in CO2 have virtually no effect on the total radiant greenhouse effect. But even if they could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. So there is no payoff. We do not even know what the optimum climate is let alone how to achieve it.

The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of heat trapping greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass, gravity limits cooling by convection. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect, which is a function of gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere, keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount of warming as derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. The convective greenhouse effect has been found to exist on all planets with thick atmospheres. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

There is no climate consensus. It is all speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture, But if they had it would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process.

The climate simulations that the IPCC makes use of are too flawed to have any credibility at all. They basically started with a weather simulation but increased both the spatial and temporal interval so that they could simulate climate in finite time. That increase in spatial and temporal may have made the simulations at least marginally unstable so that results may be much more of a function of the inherent instability rather then true climate physics. Based on only climate physics, the simulations failed to follow the past so parameterization, a form of fudge factors was added so the results may be much more a function of the parameterization then climate physics. No longer based on climate physics the simulations have become not much better than make believe. The simulations have hard coded in that CO2 causes warming hence they beg the question as to whether CO2 causes warming and hence are quite useless. So all climate papers that involve use of these faulty climate simulations are of no value and should be withdrawn.

If CO2 really affected climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. An initial calculation of the climate sensitivity of CO2 came up with 1.2 degrees C which is for a doubling of CO2. not including feedback effects Most feel that 1.2 degrees C is not significant so they like to include H2O positive feedback which caused an amplification of roughly 3. The logic is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is really the primary greenhouse gas. But what the AGW conjecture ignores is the fact that H2O is also a primary cooling agent in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly some form of H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The over all cooling effects of H2O are evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. Hence H2O must provide a cooling effect and hence provides negative feedback which means that H2O tends to retard any CO2 based warming. Based on temperature measurements since 1850, if all the measure temperature change were caused by Mankind’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere, one group of scientists found that the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not be more than 1.2 degrees C including feedbacks which they regarded as not really significant. A researcher from Japan pointed out that the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 failed to include that fact that a doubling of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect and reduces the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 to less than .06 degrees C which is totally insignificant.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 10, 2019 4:29 pm

Love this summation.

Reply to  Macha
August 11, 2019 12:13 pm

Yes. Even uses ‘beg the question’ correctly.

John Robertson
August 10, 2019 4:38 pm

When presented with the opportunity to tax air,through manufacturing evidence,misdirection and deceit, every western government and their bureaus signed up as quickly as possible.
As to evidence,science and definition of terms…these things are not useful to the narrative.
As the CRU Emails documented.
Our political class are running out of other peoples money,if they cannot convince the taxpayers of “The Climate Emergency” they will be exposed as bankrupt.
The days of Big Government are numbered.numbered by the days they can perpetuate the myth of CO2 being a “pollutant”.

Imagine the meme of Calamitous Climate collapses,what tolerance do you feel for career fools and bandits,who are now exposed as willing to go to any lengths to stay at the trough of taxpayer funds..?

August 10, 2019 5:09 pm

I note in the article that old chestnut of the 97 % gets a mention.

Its a perfect example of “”To tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth. “”

Perhaps we should carry out another survey and show that the figure is way below the so often repeated 97 %.


Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Michael
August 10, 2019 8:09 pm

Concerning the study evaluating abstracts that came up with the 97%. Another group using the same abstracts from all the papers that were considered came up with a consensus of less than 1% . The methods used were nothing more than speculation. To really determine a consensus they need to register all the relevant scientists all over the world and have them vote on the validity of the AGW conjecture. Of course such a consensus would be meaningless because science it not done that way. Science is not a democracy. Theories are not validated by a voting process.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael
August 11, 2019 6:08 am

“I note in the article that old chestnut of the 97 % gets a mention.

Its a perfect example of “”To tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth.”

Yes, it is.

The Left controls society’s Big Megaphones, the News and Entertainment Media so they can repeat a lie over and over and over again until it becomes the truth in the minds of many people.

That is the great advantage the Left has over the Right. It’s actually the only advantage the Left has over the Right. And then along came the internet and Trump and the Big Megaphones are now taking serious damage. Their lies aren’t playing as well as they did in the past. Let’s hope that continues.

August 10, 2019 5:59 pm

Standing at the back dressed stupidly looking stupid party?

Tom Abbott
August 10, 2019 6:19 pm

I think both CNN and MSNBC are going to be hosting forums for the Democrat presidential candidates focused exclusively on Climate Change in the near future.

That ought to be interesting.

Fox News ought to do the same thing and put Mark Marano and Mark Steyn on the panel. Of course, the Democrats won’t show up on Fox News but Fox News can have a nice discussion anyway and do a little counterpoint to the CNN and MSNBC programs.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 11, 2019 6:39 am

If you watch the leftist outlets, they’ve been desperate after their “Russia, Russia, Russia!” storyline fell apart, and now they’ve jumped back onto “The world is ending! the World is ending!!! braawwwwkkk!” and are pushing that again as hard as they can.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  wws
August 11, 2019 4:04 pm

A Democrat Climate Change Forum ought to give us many over-the-top quotes. A debunkers dream! 🙂

Dennis Sandberg
August 10, 2019 8:09 pm

Kim, Impossible. I’ve been saying for at least 10 years that in a sane world energy companies would be paid a bonus for the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for everyone to enjoy, that ethanol production should be illegal, and wind and solar are worth less than nothing. NG now for a few decades and then a gradual transition to nuclear.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 11, 2019 4:21 am

Energy companies are responsible for fossil fuel emissions, to the same degree that restaurant owners are responsible for people wanting dinner and then having to defecate.
Let’s charge the people who supply food for the cost of sewage treatment, which makes as much logical sense as holding energy suppliers responsible for people wanting to buy and use energy.

August 10, 2019 8:26 pm

The Democrats should look at some the actual observed data about extreme weather before they make policy based on Models, or whatever :

Just sayin … JPP

Kristi R Silber
August 11, 2019 6:51 am

Geez, talk about the politicization of climate change!

Does it really help to insult others? Is that going to convince them to moderate their views? Or is this just another form of propaganda and manipulation for political purposes?

Steve O
August 11, 2019 7:14 am

“97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE that climate change is real and man-made, and … blah blah blah…”

I find it interesting that the first (and strongest) argument you usually hear from an alarmist is a well-known logical fallacy. Why can’t we go by the strength of the arguments and the evidence?

And what is the evidence? Computer models. Everything comes down to “how good are those models.” Someone else here said it well saying, “Scientists are at climate models where Leonardo Da Vince was with aeroplanes.”

William Astley
August 11, 2019 12:10 pm

Good summary. When will the democrat supporters wake up.

This is like watching a train wreck about to happen.

The general population/congress has become like ignorant, spoiled children who have no idea how cities work or understand concepts such as bankruptcy, what happens if our parents/countries spend more money than they earn and we lose …

In reply to:

“It is unlikely that a power system characterized by regular, widespread service interruptions would be acceptable to a large majority of Americans.”

Come on.

People have no idea what it is like to live with weekly blackouts.

Imagine all of the traffic lights stop working, elevators stop, underground rail service shuts down, and so on.

Thousands and thousands of people, coming out subway stations, walking trying to get to home. Street traffic slowed down to a crawl. Food spoils in superstores and in homes.

Now imagine this happens a few times a week.

Linda Goodman
August 11, 2019 12:12 pm


Johann Wundersamer
August 11, 2019 4:45 pm

Another wanted to know, “Do you believe in climate change or not?”

The only correct answer to “Do you believe” is

“Non of your business”.

Richard Saumarez
August 12, 2019 4:00 am

A beautiful scientific exposition.

Unfortunately it will not convince the already committed.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Richard Saumarez
August 13, 2019 7:41 am

Richard Saumarez August 12, 2019 at 4:00 am
A beautiful scientific exposition.

Unfortunately it will not convince the already committed:

WILL not convince or DID not convince.

Obviously you’ve never tried, Richard Saumarez – none of my business.

August 12, 2019 7:20 pm

The “stupid ” party fits . Just watch some of the Democrat mouth pieces talk . Watters , Booker , Warren ,
Sanders. Sanders thinks the way to win an argument is to shout louder and wave his arms around .
Everyone is a racist , denier , or should be in jail if they don’t agree with the
complete garbage pumped out by the Democrats that have increasingly turned hard hard left .
Not one of the 20 plus beauty contestants is a prize .
Hence …. Steyer to the rescue floating into town with another big bag of cash to burn .
Really very sad when the rest of the world looks to the USA a beacon of hope and they are are degenerating into a third world mess .

August 12, 2019 7:22 pm

The “stupid ” party fits . Just watch some of the Democrat mouth pieces talk . Watters , Booker , Warren ,
Sanders. Sanders thinks the way to win an argument is to shout louder and wave his arms around .
Everyone is a racist , denier , or should be in jail if they don’t agree with the
complete garbage pumped out by the Democrats that have increasingly turned hard hard left .
Not one of the 20 plus beauty contestants is a prize .
Hence …. Steyer to the rescue floating into town with another big bag of cash to burn .
Really very sad when the rest of the world looks to the USA a beacon of hope and they are are degenerating into a third world mess .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights