We must fight climate extremists before they upend society

Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting extremists dictate what you’re allowed to think or say.

Guest opinion by Ross Mckitrick

Last year was the year the climate issue took a sharp turn towards extremism. Let’s hope 2020 is the year sanity makes a comeback.

There have long been three groups occupying the climate issue. To avoid pejoratives, I will call them A, B and C.

The A group are the doubters. They don’t believe greenhouse gases (GHGs) do much harm and they don’t support expensive climate-policy interventions. If we must choose between climate policy and the continued use of inexpensive fossil energy, they readily choose the latter.

The C group think the opposite; they fear a climate catastrophe, they foresee a crisis and they want urgent action, regardless of cost, to stop it.

The B group are in the middle. They believe, or say they believe, that GHG emissions are a problem and must be reduced. They are vague on the question of how much and when, but in general they try to balance environmental goals with the provision of inexpensive energy and robust economic growth.

The leaders in business, government and the bureaucracy tend to be in this group. They have spent the last 20 years verbally acknowledging the concerns of group C and even borrowing their slogans, while quietly letting the A agenda mostly win out, which the underlying economics pretty much necessitates.

This uneasy compromise fell apart last year.

Despite A being a more natural ally for B, the B group long ago marginalized the A crowd and instead tried to ingratiate themselves with the Cs. They funded them, welcomed the more congenial elements into their circles and adopted their rhetoric about sustainability, the low-carbon transition and the imperative for climate leadership.

To the B crowd, these were just nice-sounding sentiments – a bit of green window-dressing to help sell the growth agenda. But their new friends in the C crowd meant every word.

Thanks to 20 years of patronage and endorsement from the B crowd, group C is now in control and has dropped any pretense of commonality with B. They raised a generation convinced the apocalypse is nigh and they proved over the past year they can dictate terms of surrender to politicians everywhere.

To take one example, the decision by the European Investment Bank to phase out all investments in fossil fuel projects – even natural gas – by 2022 and redirect a trillion euros into “climate action and environmental sustainability” is a clear signal that the Cs are not only at the table, they run the show.

Likewise, the worldwide declarations of a “climate emergency” and the embrace of net-zero targets means the B group is officially sidelined, at least in the West.

The exception among developed countries is the United States, where the Bs long ago recognized the true aspirations of the Cs and aligned themselves with the A crowd. They realized in the process that it’s a surprisingly large and energetic constituency, thus creating a coalition capable of keeping the U.S. energy sector alive and the economy growing.

Other exceptions include the developing powerhouses of China, Russia (who both must relish the prospect of their democratic Western rivals abandoning world economic and energy leadership for climate’s sake) and India.

To those in the B group who are bewildered by the turn of events, I say this: you must win this fight and right now you are losing badly. At stake are the livelihoods of millions of ordinary people whose jobs and living standards will be destroyed if C prevails, not to mention the hopes of billions of people who want to rise out of poverty.

The old compromise is dead. Stop using C jargon in your speeches. Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting the C crowd dictate what you’re allowed to think or say. Figure out a new way of talking about the climate issue based on what you actually believe. Learn to make the case for Canada’s economy to survive and grow.

You, and by extension everyone who depends on your leadership, face an existential threat. It was 20 years in the making, so dig in for a 20-year battle to turn it around. Stop demonizing potential allies in the A camp; you need all the help you can get.

Climate and energy policy has fallen into the hands of a worldwide movement that openly declares its extremism. The would-be moderates on this issue have pretended for 20 years they could keep the status quo without having to fight for it. Those days are over.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

209 thoughts on “We must fight climate extremists before they upend society

    • So get those puppet progressives out of the education system and stop watching CNN&Co if not the Climate Jugend will only get more powerful.. We really want the great leap forward?

      • Unfortunately for Society as a whole, the C crowd is more like the KC crowd.
        Kaczynski Clones
        They’re all espousing the goals expressed in his manifesto

    • A great ‘observation piece’ by Ross Mckitrick.

      In Australia, as in Canada we have watched the C’s walk all over the Bs. It may now be too late.

      However, we can’t give up.

      It may well be that the Cs can be hoist on their own petard – on ‘ ….the science’. Apparently many people are science deniers and so the science is so central to the Cs worldview that to deny it will soon be a criminal offence.

      We currently have a live e-petition in Australia to back Alan Kohler’s call for a Royal Commission to review evidence on Climate and Energy Policies.

      The ‘science’ is so central and important to the Bs and Cs that no one among the public, the parliamentarians, the policy-making ministers, the bureaucrats, the corporate and management class, the public intellectuals, or indeed our journalists, has ever seen or understood the empirical evidence in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

      Why do the climate scientists believe in CAGW? Is there any empirical evidence or is it just models? Can we see this evidence? What due diligence has been done so far?

      Who amongst the lawmakers in parliament can answer these questions? On my reckoning only one will speak out.

      The public only ever hear or see people, including scientists and politicians, giving their opinions on climate change.

      But opinions are not evidence and ‘climate change’ is not defined.

      Alan Kohler called for a royal commission to ‘review the evidence’ on Climate and Energy Policies to conduct:

      “… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.”

      UNDER OATH

      Alan is an honourable high profile journalist, investment guru and businessman who believes the evidence of the 97% of scientists.

      Alan and I may differ on what we believe will be revealed in such a Royal Commission review but we do agree that we all need to see the evidence, the impact and the timing, so we can have a better idea of what we all need to do, first for the people of Australia, and for the people of the world.

      This is possibly the first time the As and Bs and even some Cs seem to be on the same page in having a Royal Commission, where each wants the evidence tabled to convince all of the need for action.

      Please bring this Media Release below to your and friends’ and family’s and social media’s attention and if they happen to be Australian – urge them to sign this e-petition.

      It could be that an unlikely alliance of As and Bs and Cs, like ducks on the winds have lined up in the same direction, with a common purpose – to have a Royal Commission “… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth …”, to the surprise of everybody – may we all live in hope.

      Media Release:

      https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-15647903/documents/05f0da9903a340e1bf44b582d08a7ee9/FINAL MEDIA RELEASE for Cool Futures Funds Management_20200211.pdf

      Sign House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231

      https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

      Chris Dawson

      • A great ‘observation piece’ by Ross Mckitrick.

        In Australia, as in Canada we have watched the C’s walk all over the Bs. It may now be too late.

        However, we can’t give up.

        It may well be that the Cs can be hoist on their own petard – on ‘ ….the science’. Apparently many people are science deniers and so the science is so central to the Cs worldview that to deny it will soon be a criminal offence.

        We currently have a live e-petition in Australia to back Alan Kohler’s call for a Royal Commission to review evidence on Climate and Energy Policies.

        The ‘science’ is so central and important to the Bs and Cs that no one among the public, the parliamentarians, the policy-making ministers, the bureaucrats, the corporate and management class, the public intellectuals, or indeed our journalists, has ever seen or understood the empirical evidence in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

        Why do the climate scientists believe in CAGW? Is there any empirical evidence or is it just models? Can we see this evidence? What due diligence has been done so far?

        Who amongst the lawmakers in parliament can answer these questions? On my reckoning only one will speak out.

        The public only ever hear or see people, including scientists and politicians, giving their opinions on climate change.

        But opinions are not evidence and ‘climate change’ is not defined.

        Alan Kohler called for a royal commission to ‘review the evidence’ on Climate and Energy Policies to conduct:

        “… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.”

        UNDER OATH

        Alan is an honourable high profile journalist, investment guru and businessman who believes the evidence of the 97% of scientists.

        Alan and I may differ on what we believe will be revealed in such a Royal Commission review but we do agree that we all need to see the evidence, the impact and the timing, so we can have a better idea of what we all need to do, first for the people of Australia, and for the people of the world.

        This is possibly the first time the As and Bs and even some Cs seem to be on the same page in having a Royal Commission, where each wants the evidence tabled to convince all of the need for action.

        Please bring this Media Release below to your and friends’ and family’s and social media’s attention and if they happen to be Australian – urge them to sign this e-petition.

        It could be that an unlikely alliance of As and Bs and Cs, like ducks on the winds have lined up in the same direction, with a common purpose – to have a Royal Commission “… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth …”, to the surprise of everybody – may we all live in hope.

        Media Release:

        https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-15647903/documents/05f0da9903a340e1bf44b582d08a7ee9/FINAL MEDIA RELEASE for Cool Futures Funds Management_20200211.pdf

        Sign House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231 = https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

      • sounds good..
        however the terms of a royal comission can be so worded that theyre basically useless or so limited to a set framework that its hogtied to expose truth
        which is what the enquiry into BoM came up against. terms of reference.

        going to be hard to get the prowarming “scientologists” to admit any errors at all let alone doubt about their work

        but I will go read probably sign and share it round.

  1. A reasonable call to action. But how do we do it?

    I have started in a small way, by trying to ask my elected representatives what, exactly, is the threat we will be avoiding by collapsing our energy generation.

    So far, all I have received is hand-waving and references to activist news items….

    Some strategy for fighting back would be useful…..

    • How? Debunk published nonsense by using the “comments” section of the articles is probably the best way. You will likely get an extremist response. Reply “ really….” and debunk that. You will get an ad hominem response. Respond to that with “So name calling is your settled science”.

      • I handle that type of idiot by posting a comment or two well beyond their ability to reply, and when they fly off of the handle I never respond. Let others who may read through the comment section see what a flaming fool many of the agw believers are.

        • That doesn’t work in the Guardian and many other papers. They will just delete your comment. They refuse to help propagate wrongthink.

      • DMacKenzie February 10, 2020 at 6:34 am
        How? Debunk published nonsense by using the “comments” section…

        Use the News Search of Google, not Duck Duck or some other, Google is one that will turn up the most egregious stories. Comments sections are getting rarer, but i’ts still a good strategy.

        Comments on You Tubes are good too.

        • George Soros is allying with Zuck and others to get ‘climate sceptical’ content removed from YouTube. This was all over Facebook today and yesterday, with links to press items.

      • That assumes they allow contrary comments. Many sites either disable comments altogether, or have gatekeepers that delete any fact based contrary comments and ban the heretics that made them.

        • Another tactic of theirs which can be seen on The Hill in recent years, and other sites is that they bomb a thread to hide contrary opinions/opinions they do not like. I have commented on a post where there was maybe one or two hundred comments, and in a matter of minutes a torrent of comments start flowing in. I have seen this way too many times. They bury all other contrary comments in doing so. Naturally most of those comments are aimed at Trump regardless of the topic.

          • Try keeping it simple. It took ages to find a similar graphic to this, and it was only in a Washington Post article, where they attempted to refute it by saying, ‘how ridiculous; what would happen if we zoomed out all graphs x50 like this ‘?’ Cunningly not mentioning that 99% of all the temperature graphs we are shown, pretty much zoom IN x50 from normal human scale temperatures. This graph is showing us what they claim is the end of the world. In this case the picture is definitely worth a thousand words. Numbers and counter numbers are constantly thrown up, and it goes no where. This graph is pretty stark, and hard to refute. It might be handy to have a NAASDAC(?) zoomed in X50 to show how useful that would be.
            https://www.flickr.com/photos/149157242@N05/49522969057/in/dateposted-public/

      • Here in Australia I have now been ‘blacklisted’ on the topic by Fairfax, a climate cheerleader’ which run the big papers, The Age in Melbourne, Canberra Times and Sydney Morning Herald, despite holding a valid account. I never ever personally attack the journalist/writer, I only ever respond to them with data and facts, which I usually provide the source for where relevant. My comments are no longer published at all. The latest bushfire saga here seemed to be the final straw for them. I was regularly providing data and observational analysis in response to hysterical quasi-religious doomsday opinion pieces to totally destroy their argument. I am no longer published – yet they will still allow mindless comments (on both sides) from ‘stone throwers’. I haven’t been blacklisted from commenting about things like sport, entertainment, infrastructure or crime though – so this proves there is significant selective review of comments occurring.

        And do you know what their slogan is?: “Independent. Always”.

      • It’s rather difficult to do when they deny the very basics of climate, i.e., that climate isn’t determined by CO2 – that climate is determined by location on the planet relative to the sun. Things like latitude, altitude, nearby large bodies of water. The denial of some that we have opposing seasons in the Northern and Southern hemisphere and hence both poles cannot melt at the same time.

    • How can it be a reasonable call for action when it totally excludes those who believe that the warming being caused by CO2 is entirely beneficial, as well as the benefits of greening?

      • Prove CO2 causes any measurable warming. Tumbleweed. I’m in the A* group as I have been all my life.

        • It’s a greenhouse gas, so it has an impact. It’s just that the climate is so noisy that it can’t be measured directly.

          • I dunno it looks pretty measurable ….
            chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

          • You are assuming that all of the warming is being caused by CO2.
            Since we are still colder than the average temperature for the last 10,000 years, that is not a good assumption.

          • Make it up Mark again.
            “Since we are still colder than the average temperature for the last 10,000 years, that is not a good assumption.”
            Let’s see your reference for us being colder than the average for the last 10k years.

      • The rise in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere always lag warm periods, by a considerable margin. Graphs clearly demonstrating this have been posted here on WUWT many times in the past. They alone surely prove that CO2 cannot therefore be the CAUSE of the regular periods of warming.

    • A reasonable call to action. But how do we do it?…

      start calling them out for blaming us…USA…when it’s China and the developing world doing it
      ..force their hand….tell them if it’s not a $c@m….why are they not blaming the people doing it
      because they know they can’t getting any satisfaction from China

      …if they start blaming China….party is over….China will tell them all to pound sand

    • “A reasonable call to action. But how do we do it?”
      —————–

      Here’s an educational strategy I propose:
      —-

      What They Tell You and What They Leave Out (WHATTLO )

      Here is how to move millions into the climate contrarian camp.

      1: Playlists of dozens of brief YouTube videos, each with supporting text.

      Create hundreds of brief (1–3 minute) YouTube videos, each dealing with only a single topic or subtopic. The narrator’s voice should be sped up by 25% so the presentation doesn’t drag. (This can be done without distortion: YouTube already allows viewers to click on its “gear-wheel” and select a faster speaking speed.)

      Group these videos into one or more YouTube Playlists, in which each video automatically plays after the prior one, unless the viewer intervenes. I hope there’d be 50 videos in the initial batch, to make a big and newsworthy first impression. Subsequent (new) videos should be issued in batches of 25 or so, in order to be substantial enough to tempt previous viewers to view them, and to avoid overly fragmenting the ultimate collection.

      Below each video, under “Read More,” there should be a transcript of the video, plus supporting text commentary. YouTube allows. I guess, at least 2000 bytes there. (I assume that these texts can be updated and improved after their initial posting.) From there, additional, off-site essays and links can be linked to, ideally at a WUWT-operated central site.

      The initial Playlist needn’t be organized by topic—e.g., not by Attribution, Impact, and Response. It could be unsorted. Additional, topic-specialized Playlists (employing the same base material) can be added later, when there are enough videos to beef them up.

      Content for these videos needn’t be original, primarily because there’s a need for speedy development to counter Mike Bloomberg’s $500 million climate action offensive. Content should be licensed wherever possible from other videos or texts. Ideally, lots of understandable and entertaining graphics should be employed. Dennis Prager’s site has some good techniques.

      2: A counterpoint format employing the pair of phrases, “This Is What They Tell You:” / “And This Is What They Leave Out:” Example:

      This Is What They Tell You:
      “Arctic sea ice has been declining for nearly five decades.”

      And This Is What They Leave Out:
      1) The current decline stopped a decade ago.
      2) For the previous five decades sea ice was increasing, so the current decline may be partly cyclic.

      Note that the contrarian correction doesn’t attempt to entirely refute the alarmist assertion, merely to temper it by putting it in a new context or frame. (Doing this repeatedly will induce in the viewer a cautious attitude about accepting other alarmist claims.) It is important not to overstate the thoroughness of our refutations, which would set us up for a counterpunch. In situations where our side has one interpretation of the data and warmists have another, we shouldn’t claim victory, only that “the science here is unsettled.”

      Understatement, or at least a moderate tone, should be employed when “summing up” too, for the same reason. For example, our signature line might be, “You were told a half-truth—now you know the rest of the story.” By pounding on the “half-truth” message, and by explicitly saying elsewhere that this tactic is warmists’ stock-in-trade, alarmism will be 50% discredited—which is all we need to win, because time is on our side. I.e., warming and sea level rises will not accelerate.

      If one looks at warmist material closely, it can be seen to contain all sorts of questionable data, inferences, citations, exaggerations, etc., and that most of them could be be fitted into a “What They Tell You” skeleton, positioned to be skewered by our counterpoints. Nearly all alarmist claims can be effectively countered briefly, in the set-up-and-knock-down fashion I’ve proposed. The rest can be dealt with elsewhere, in a new, WUWT-sponsored rebuttal site.

      As the number of videos became large (say, 200), it would become a go-to resource for journalists, researchers, and students. It would in time rival or surpass Wikipedia in influence, once the supporting text gets built up sufficiently. (That text could draw on and reprint (or link to) the entire corpus of contrarian material.)

      3: A different collection of Playlists would employ the format, “This Is What They Predicted:” / “And This Is What Happened:”. Here’s an example.

      This Is What They Predicted:
      “Texas (and California) has entered a perma-drought state.”

      And This Is What Actually Happened:
      The rains came.

      This Is What They Tell You:
      “Polar bears are at risk in a warmer future, when summer sea ice declines to *** extent.”

      And This Is What They Leave Out:
      Due to a quirk in the weather, that level of decline unexpectedly occurred in 201***, but polar bears thrived anyway.

      Viewers would enjoy:
      * The Playlist arrangement, which requires no viewer-intervention and can be exited and re-entered whenever convenient.
      * “Closure” after viewing each of several short, snappy videos.
      * The counterpoint skeleton, which sets up an elite claim and “takes it down a peg.”
      * The recurring, taunting SIG line about alarmist half-truths.
      * Entertaining and humorous graphics and narration.
      * Their adoption of a dubious or incredulous attitude toward nagging alarmist propaganda.

      WHATTLO (WHAT They Leave Out) episodes would be entertaining, undemanding, addictive, and popular. They could attract an audience of millions.

      If they did, they could be force major alarmists to engage in formal debates under the auspices of some semi-official Science Court, perhaps live or perhaps using the format and software of the Dutch “Climate Dialogue” series. They could force the mainstream media to include skeptical interviewees and to be more cautious about trumpeting warmest alarums.

      4. A forum for crowdsourced counterpoint construction

      A. The development of these nifty nuggets should be “crowdsourced.” Each “nugget” would have its own thread. (Threads would be grouped under topic headings.) A long string of comments beneath each would contain suggested improvements in and additions to the script for the video, the supporting text, and the linked-to text. It might take four months to get the first batch completed and perfected.

      B. Skeptical sites should be urged to “pin” a link to this article, which would be regularly updated to have links to every new “nugget” thread in its heading, along with some promotional text asking their denizens to visit and contribute to the WHATTLO project.

      C. Certified scientists should be personally urged to contribute, via an email campaign, to enhance the Project’s credibility.

      D. Crowdsourcing would provide faster development, greater quantity, and greater quantity, especially if hundreds—or conceivably thousands—of volunteers participate, and especially if they include high-quality persons like Willis Eschenbach, R.G. Brown, Rud Istvan, etc. Therefore, I hope that follow-on videos can be released semimonthly in batches of 25, instead of dribbling out at a slower rate. New large batches at regular intervals would attract big “repeat” audiences.

      E. The involvement of many persons in the WHATTLO development process would create a cadre of controversialists who would likely monitor and quickly combat critical comments below the videos.

      • Soros has just partnered with Zuck in a bid to remove all sceptical climate content from YouTube. They are that determined to control the narrative. It won’t be long if things continue like this until we are not allowed to post WUWT links on FB.

    • McKitrick did great work battling the hockey stick nonsense.

      But this proposal is not great work.

      The belief in a coming climate crisis was NOT created by real science, so that belief will not be changed with real science.

      The debate will always be steered by leftists to exactly how much warming CO2 will cause, and how much money governments should spend, in a vain attempt to stop warming.

      Climate alarmists stifle debate involving real climate science with character attacks.

      They have their PhDs, and their computer games.

      That’s all they need !

      There’s also little common sense – we are living in the best climate for humans and plants in 800 to 1,000 years, since before the Little Ice Age centuries, and no one notices.

      Alarmists don’t care about the present, or past, climate — they have their beliefs about the future climate, and the future is always bad news in their minds.

      They are getting more hysterical about their beliefs every year.

      Let’s take advantage of their hysteria, by pushing them to be even more hysterical !

      Our advantage, as skeptics, is that we know most people will say they believe in man made global warming, but they are NOT willing to spend much of their own money on the alleged problem.

      You’d think people would be “very generous” when answering polls and surveys about climate change, yet they are consistently cheapskates.

      We skeptics have to encourage the climate alarmists to propose even more radical ideas that will hit people’s wallets, and lifestyles — thereby turning off the general public.

      For one example, we could encourage climate alarmists to push for a $1 a gallon tax on gasoline to fund solar and wind “farms” .

      That would add up to about $50 per month for the average driver “to save the planet”.

      I bet most people would go berserk to prevent that $50 per month price hike.

      Here in Michigan we elected a new Democrat governor who promised to “fix the dam n roads”.

      She won the election, and then proposed a 50 cent a gallon gasoline tax hike to fund the road repairs.

      People in Michigan went berserk, and that idea was soon withdrawn.

      • You’ve revealed the tactic that will ultimately defeat the eco-fascists (that is what they are): “Our advantage, as skeptics, is that we know most people will say they believe in man made global warming, but they are NOT willing to spend much of their own money on the alleged problem.”

        People don’t really care if the loons are banning plastic straws or adding tuppence to the price of plastic bag. But serious affect their wallets, lifestyle, cars, meat-eating and fuel bills and the start getting the rope and lamposts ready. That’s why every measure/election which as seriously tried to change something to help alleviate “climate change” has failed miserably. Witness Macron’s “carbon tax” and the Aussie elections. The recent episode with ER standing on the roofs of metro trains in London and the reaction of we nasty plebs against the activists involved is a perfect microcosm of what will happen if the eco-fascists push too far.

        You are absolutely right, then, to say that the best strategy is to let the crazies do their worst and show ordinary folks what they are really like.

    • “A reasonable call to action. But how do we do it?”

      I think we have a very powerful weapon:scientific data.
      By chance I was able to deploy that weapon a few days ago. Over the years I have discussed climate change with an elderly friend across the road from where I live. For some time I had been thinking of printing some of the key data graphs and showing it to some of my friends. When she invited me to tea I took the opportunity. I showed her the printouts one by one, about twenty in all.

      It started with the OECD human wellfare graph (1820 to 2000) and another similar historical index. Needless to say, they showed human wellfare steadily increasing and accelerating through the 20th century. If this is a “climate crisis” then it does seem to be very beneficial!

      I showed her a peer-reviewed study that showed sea level falling during the Little Ice Age and then rising at a remarkably constant rate since the end of the LIA around 1850. Same for glaciers: growing during the LIA and then receding at a constant rate since 1850. I showed her the comparison between the climate models and the actual measurements, which show the models are little better than tossing a coin. I showed the graphs of Australian and global wildfires. And so on.

      I was careful to emphasise that this was not “my” data. It is data from the big global organisations such as NASA and NOAA. All of these organisations push climate change for all its worth. What an irony that their very own data completely contradicts their wild claims of doom.

      My friend was very receptive. She was fascinated. She also said she was surprised by some of the graphs. I replied to say that I was not surprised that she was surprised!

      That experience was very encouraging. The data shows that all the doom-mongering is just that: doom-mongering. They’ve been doing it for the last fifty years or more and they are always wrong. The lesson of history is very clear: mankind always prospers during the warm periods. It’s the cold periods when mankind suffers from disease and starvation.

      Of course, the problem is how to show the data to the politicians and the population at large. With few exceptions the media are hopelessly one-sided and biased. Of course, selling domesday is good for business. It’s also good for climate scientists.
      I’m convinced that the truth will eventually triumph. But I’m not holding my breath. As Ross mentioned, it could take decades.
      Still, I always knew that Britain would eventually leave the corrupt European Union, but I didn’t think it would be in my lifetime (I’m well into my seventies). So, who knows….
      Chris

    • Organize, Dodgy.

      Skeptics and Libertarians (the A group) need to organize.

      Noisy groups need to go out and demonstrate with big banners that say things like,

      ‘Climate Alarmists – Stupid or Liars!’ or
      ‘Green = Socialism = Slavery,’ or
      ‘Green New Death,’ or
      ‘Hey Climate Alarmists! Science Says Shut-up!’

      Turn their own rhetoric against them
      Greens = Slave masters
      Carbon Tax = Cretinism
      Our Oil! Our Choice!
      Inclusion = use fossil fuels
      Diversity = coal, oil, and gas.
      Energetic Lives Matter!
      Green Supremacy = Racism (green economics keeps who poor, again?)

      Loudly picket the COPs. Hotly accuse the attendees of conspiring to mass murder (of which they are guilty).

      March on university campuses, especially Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA.

      How about this, ‘Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Green New Deal has got to go!’ ‘No Oil, No Peace!’
      (merely the truth as poor people fight over resources), ‘What do we want? Current! When? Now!

      Or this (it’ll really frost the green nutcases), ‘End Green Privilege!’

      And always have a cadre of heavies standing by – committed to peace, ready for war.

  2. You can talk until you’re blue in the face. Sooner or later you have to let the kid touch the hot stove.

  3. Most of us know the details of the science. The Cs don’t know and couldn’t care less. They don’t care about the climate or the environment, that’s all a smokescreen. They only care about power and controlling the means of production. I’m not as pessimistic as Ross, because politicians are craven and venal, but they aren’t as a group completely insane. They don’t want to destroy the economy, to the extent that they understand the ramifications of the Green Agenda. They only want power.

    • If you think politicians aren’t insane then I guess you haven’t been following the US Democrats’ Presidential primary.

      • …or follow their attempts to impeach the president’s constitutional authority!

        President Trump really isn’t the target–he just holds the office! What they want to do is destroy the constitution and replace it with a one-party system with open-border policies that will keep them in power forever!

        Their key is legislation called the New Way Forward!

        A few years ago, Gallup ran an international poll that asked how many would immediately move to the US if border restrictions were removed. The results indicated an estimated 750,000,000 people would drop what they were doing and come!

        Currenty, the US has around 325,000,000 people! The influx would push it past a BILLION people and would collapse all our systems!

        By design! Democrats forever!!

        One might deduce that the argument over climate change is just a diversion!

    • A substantial fraction of the C’s never cared about the science in the first place. They view the global warming movement as a convenient vehicle to force their desired world onto everyone else.

    • “The Cs don’t know and couldn’t care less.”

      Thank you for using the phrase correctly!! I want to have your children!

    • “I’m not as pessimistic as Ross, because politicians are craven and venal, but they aren’t as a group completely insane. They don’t want to destroy the economy, to the extent that they understand the ramifications of the Green Agenda. They only want power.”

      You’re right, most politicians are highly rational. The problem is: many of the people they need to appeal to (ie, voters) are not, or are clustered in groups with conflicting interests; and thus the politician needs to bend their persona & policies into knots to gain power. And because politicians have been pandering to Greens for decades, increasing numbers of voters now believe there’s a climate “crisis”. If a politician defies them, other politicians are obliged to attack them because otherwise they’ll look like hypocrites.

      And though politicians tend to be rational, they are rarely moral. They’re quite happy to lead their constituents off a cliff if they themselves benefit from it; you can see this anywhere Leftists have been in power for long (Chicago, Balmore, Detroit… you name it).

      As Milton put it: “Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven”.

  4. A good article, thank you Ross.

    The global warming/climate change scam was never about the climate – it’s always been a false front for the political objectives of leftist extremists, who seek totalitarian control of the last democracies – the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand… Europe is already gone – perhaps Britain can save itself – France and Germany are done.

    THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
    [excerpt]
    “There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.”

    The Trudeau Marxist-Liberals have used the climate sc@m as a false front to push their extremist political objectives, such as their recent failed attempt to destroy free speech in Canada by proposing to licence media. This is their true plan:

    THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
    [excerpt]
    “The clear intent is to use the global warming smokescreen to restrict economic and political freedoms by transforming Western countries into tightly controlled totalitarian states.”

    Regarding climate science:
    The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. Note that every scary global warming and climate change prediction made by the climate alarmists has failed to materialize. Nobody should believe them – about anything.

    MacRae’s Maxim:
    “VIRTUALLY EVERY SCARY PREDICTION BY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS IS FALSE.”

    • Allan, a couple of things to think about:

      1. Britain may be saving itself. The disintegration of Labour in last year’s election continues a process which has seen Britain move against the Global Warmers and the EU starting with Brexit. The recent British election in particular has seen a seismic shift in British politics with the collapse of Labour in many of its old untouchable electoral strongholds. It remains to be seen as to whether or not this trend has any longevity to it. But for the time being, the parties of the far left appear to be in full retreat. The collapse of Labour was the only thing which permitted the Scottish National Party to reemerge.

      2. The backlash against the Green Commissariat has been growing for some time. The violent suppression of les jilets-jaunes in France is not going particularly well for the French government. It has now escalated to clashes between police and firemen.

        • “Boris is fully on board with the climate insanity”. That is true but only because his current squeeze in Downing St, is a green advocate. Boris probably has to go some way along the appeasement road, for obvious reasons.
          There is a simple Christine Keeler solution to his insane promotion of the fake climate crisis. I am sure he will be offered a more realistic squeeze in due course.
          Boris is famous for being passionate about something until the conditions change and then he changes. His current environment minister is an EU apparatchik, no doubt Lord Duncan will be thrown overboard when the time comes.

          • Boris removed his environmental minister ,m Gove, and gave him the job of the dutchie of Lancaster or some such thing, the damage was already done when Gove was in his ministerial job,this year will see a whole raft of legislation that will cripple farming for farming families, will enshrine the ban of petrol desiel cars by 2035, any garden machinery run on petrol and desiel , the list is huge, boris has shown no sign of back tracking on any of the above,all political parties in the UK sing from the global warming hymn book, to destroy our way of life through the fearmongering of save the planet/ environment.

          • I have to agree with B d Clark here. Although BJ hasn’t agreed to the Greens’ more lunatic deadlines, he does appear to be implementing policies that will still cripple the British economy within the next decade.

            Every once in a while, a polity loses its sanity and starts shooting itself in the foot, and sane citizens are faced with an unpleasant choice: leave for saner shores, or hunker down and wait out the storm.

            Unfortunately, every developed nation appears to be going mad simultaneously, so there’s nowhere to escape that you’d want to live.

        • Sadly it looks that way, which is why I’ve started writing letters to the PM and other relevant cabinet ministers.
          Letters, posted, not emails.
          I decided that I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t confront the madness head-on.
          I’m going to look into volunteering for a ‘sceptical’ presence for COP26 if there’s going to be something organised by the GWPF or other suitable UK based outfit.

          • Send him a hard copy of my Frontiers article, sonof.

            It shows the IPCC do not know what they’re talking about as regards CO2 and climate.

            Neither does any climate modeler, any green doomster, or Al Gore.

        • Yes, it’s a huge disappointment.
          It’s particularly disappointing because in past years he has expressed mild scepticism. I remember reading a piece by him in the Daily Telegraph in which he called climate alarmists “doomsters”, one of his favourite words.

          Still, there is always hope. Margaret Thatcher used climate change fears in her fight with the minors. In speeches she spouted the usuall clap-trap about “our children and our children’s children”. Of course, in her later years, when she was wiser, she realised what nonsense it all was. She called global warming fear “hot air”.

          Hopefully Boris will also come to realise what poisonous nonsense it is – and, unlike Mrs Thatcher, while he’s still PM.

          I would have been a lifelong Conservative voter, but I stopped voting for them years ago because of ther barking-mad climate and energy policies. I made an exception in the recent election because of Brexit and – though, sadly, not so much now – I was a Boris fan.
          But it will almost certainly be the last time. I will never again vote Conservative until they have promised at absolute minimum to scrap the Climate Change Bill. It will achieve nothing but human misery. But I’m not holding my breath….
          Chris
          Chris

      • Britain is not saving itself. About to make bold gestures their energy infrastructure can’t meet and shouldn’t at COP 26. They may also use to raise more stealth taxes on energy use.

        The overt Tory plan is to increase the cost of all direct energy use by whatever means to reduce our energy use and reduce economic activity. The Malthusian imposition of poverty on the mass of people by elites to profit themselves to no benefit the the people . The latest policies are to ban IC cars (including hybrids) and force everyone to heat with expensively and inefficiently pure electrical energy refined from gas at 60% efficiency, instead of allowing gas to heat our homes directly at 1/5 the price of electricity/KWh through the existing grid, with lower CO2 emissions as a result of its 90% efficiency. THis is al going to be achieved by 2035, in 15 years. The only missing detail is how.

        This will also double the current 330TWh demand on the electricity grid and raise the demand on local low voltage underground distribution by a factor of 5, not sure how that is planned be done? Meanwhile the capable exiistng gas grid must be effectively abandoned. Not very joined up thinking. The additional energy must come from CCGT or nuclear. Renewables aren’t replace the existing 330TWh and no plans for nuclear of significance. Only gas CCGT can be built that fast.

        Obs The current electricity grid can’t cope with that demand. We have a clean gas grid that does. But plan to force people to use energy that cost five times as much and cannot be delivered.

        This is only half their declared energy supply wrecking intent. the similar increment that would be required by 20 Million electric cars “half charging” at 50KWh pd will add another 100% to the grid, another 5 times local demand versus now increment. Ten times the delivery capability locally and three times the electrical energy fon the grid to do both. In 15 years?

        NO sums done, no energy engineering understood. CO2 increased, unless the new energy is nuclear, at £5B CAPEX per GWish for nuclear. 160 is perhaps 100 nuclear power stations in 15 years, @1.6GW each for a double reactor set up. Roughly. Reality is not remotely close

        Renewables don’t scale to demand, they are limited by their uncontrollable natural energy sources and intermittency. To match the current 80GW grid generation capacity (not the grid transmission capacity which is less) would cost £400B from nuclear. Plans for that in 15 years are what? All is delusional posturing and cynical energy taxing to no actual gain for the payee or the cliamte, which really isn’t bothered by CO2, of course.. But the rich get richer at he expense of the poor, by law.

        To be clear, both polices impose the use of electricity to displace the best available enregy sources for their application, with an existing distribution infra structure, at 5 times the cost per unit of gas, while raising CO2 emissions versus direct use of gas as a primary fuel. Renewables cannot scale to deliver the additional 330TWh per annum for each use of heat and transport, as they are already near the safe maximum percentage and also running out of affordable and safe locations for a zero inertia intermittent supply to deliver anywhere near 1TWh pd now. 2TWh pd incremental generation is not remotely doable in any sane mix or deployment.

        Thats enough reality for this post. The UK is an about to see the progress rolled back in terms of the health, wealth and safety its society achieved in the protracted struggle with elites for its share of the surpluses produced by greater energy use, starting with the industrial revolution and needing two world wars to deliver the technology and social change. By its economic denial to them on a false premise by law. Time the people were told the truth in the schools and media?

        This has to be a concerted effort. Too many people are over concerned with their own small interest or argument in this field to even listen to anyone else.. This is a generational and has to be addressed collaboratively. Those who understand must coalesce around the inconvenient truths of energy and climate change. It’s a UN scam on the fact, a non cure for a natural effect. But can we find a worthy spokes people with altruistic motives, unlike the enemy. The anti Gore, anti Thunberg, anti Strong, anti the self advancing evil -whose only goal is to manipulate and control and hence better exploit the mass of powerless people, for their own benefit and/or beliefs?

        • Brilliant….

          Going to use this elsewhere

          I posted a while back on the energy requirement for UK cars (only) and the energy produced by wind. Turns out we need c.50,000 turbines to produce the energy required (ignoring transmission etc) . We currently have about 2,000.

          From an energy production and usage pov, the whole thing is a nonsense. And therein lies a crumb of comfort – wishful thinking will hit physics pretty soon…..

        • Brian R Catt

          Just one small point you need to know. Rolls Royce is planning to roll out 17(?) SMR’s over the coming years – time scale indeterminate as far as I can gather. The thumbnail details are on it’s web site and I have seen some publicity for it, but it’s still all a bit vague.

    • Gee Alan, you mean the US left. Trump has not only inspired other governments in Europe to resist but he is going to win the next election and the old guard Democrats will be finished. The Republicans have had a major adjustment under Trump and new sane blood will take over the Democrats after their 2020 collapse.

      • Gary wrote: “Gee Alan, you mean the US left…”

        Actually, I mean ALL the leftists in the western democracies – the global warming/climate change false crisis is a global scam that is embraced by the extreme left in all countries of the western world and it is intended to destroy our democracies and our freedoms.

        From one country to another, the strategies and tactics are similar in both scope and timing – that is the conclusive evidence of the global scope of this climate scam – it is the greatest scientific/political fraud in the history of humanity.

        Further, there is NO credible scientific evidence to support the CAGW scam – it has been disproved numerous times with highly credible evidence, and nobody could be this stupid for this long – there have been decades of delusion. The proponents of the climate scam know they are lying to the public – and the gullible imbeciles of our society believe them.

        • Allan,

          I agree what you are saying here but for two points. The exceptions are
          1.
          Promotion of and opposition to the climate scare both come from every part of the political spectrum except in the US where the promotion is from the left and the opposition is from the right. Unfortunately, as Ross McKitrick says in his article, the proponents seem to be having most success almost everywhere.
          2.
          Eugenics (not the climate scare) was “the greatest scientific/political fraud in the history of humanity”, and to date the climate scare has failed to do as much harm.

          Richard

          • “Promotion of and opposition to the climate scare both come from every part of the political spectrum except in the US where the promotion is from the left and the opposition is from the right.”

            Some people seem willfully ignorant of this. Anyone who categorizes global warming as a scam by baby-killing “extreme-left totalitarian” is dealing themselves out of the debate because they are rightly seen as nutters who can’t see beyond their own political prejudice.

          • “ALL the leftists in the western democracies – the global warming/climate change false crisis is a global scam that is embraced by the extreme left in all countries of the western world and it is intended to destroy our democracies and our freedoms.”

            Richard S Courtney
            “Promotion of and opposition to the climate scare both come from every part of the political spectrum except in the US where the promotion is from the left and the opposition is from the right.”

            Any reponse Allen?

          • Most every AGW climate zealot who thinks Capitalism (Best form of economy evah) and carbon energy (what the plants of the world drive their own energy from) should be eliminated and that believe people who believe otherwise need to be shut down, shut up and eliminated, should themselves by placed into housing with Ted Kaczynski.

          • Bryan A,

            As I pointed out in reply to Allan MacRae, a main reason for success of the climate scare is that it is a bandwagon which people of all political opinions (not only from the left) can – and do – use in support of their political opinions.

            You have demonstrated my point by using the climate scare as justification for your opposition to those who oppose “Capitalism”.

            Richard

          • Hello Richard my friend,

            In response to your comments:

            1. My observation is that the USA is the only country to my knowledge that has anything resembling a right-wing party. In Canada and the UK, and probably in Germany and France, the Conservative (or similar-named) Parties are left-of center in their core policies of ever-increasing government intrusion into private human lives and the use of government policies to shape and mis-shape social norms.
            One of my close friends, a retired specialist physician, has permanently left Canada because, in his words, “There are too many rules!” I agree with him. The weight of governments is increasingly oppressive.

            2. Regarding “the greatest scientific/political fraud in the history of humanity”, I suggest that the climate change scam is the greatest fraud in dollar terms, and eugenics, if one includes the lives lost in the Hitler holocaust and other “race wars”, is the greatest in terms of human suffering – to date.
            However I suggest that the total lives lost due “non-racial” killings caused by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and minions (Pol Pot etc.) in the 20th Century greatly exceed the lives lost due to eugenics.
            And I suggest that the lives lost due to the 30-year banning of DDT, green opposition to golden rice, and the gross misallocation of scarce global resources to “fight climate change” now approach the totals of the great killers of the 20th Century – circa 200 million.
            I am no expert in eugenics, but I understand that in Canada, the so-called “Famous Five” women who fought for women’s suffrage were reportedly avid eugenicists and racists, but this history has been suppressed. I do not know what harm was done in the English-speaking world due to eugenics – perhaps it was substantial. I am also not sure how to separate the harm done by eugenics versus that done by racism.

            Best personal regards, Allan

          • Richard, as unpleasant as eugenic ideas were (and evil, depending on what policies governments enacted to implement them), it’s mistaken to believe that they were what primarily motivated the Nazis. Their aim was conquest and power, and like all conquerors before them, were willing to cull anyone they saw as hindrances to their goals. If they’d been International Collectivists like Lenin or Stalin (as opposed to being Nationalist Collectivists), they’d likely have killed just as many, if not more.

            And if it’s not Nazi Germany’s eugenics you’re referring to, where else did it lead to the deaths of many people?

          • Anyone who categorizes global warming as a scam by baby-killing “extreme-left totalitarian” is dealing themselves out of the debate because they are rightly seen as nutters who can’t see beyond their own political prejudice.

            I’m sure that the starving millions agree with you, Loudo. Anyone speaking up for them is a complete nutter, if you are a totalitarian leftist.

            These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

            The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

            And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

          • Loydo, to prove the point, all we have to do is quote them.
            Why is it that all of you alarmists are so against using actual data?

    • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/22/trump-at-davos-on-the-environment-and-energy/#comment-2900424

      “To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the Apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers, and they want to see us do badly but we won’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.”
      — US President Donald Trump, World Economic Forum, Davos, 21 January 2020

      I believe this quote will define the Trump Presidency, in much the same way that Franklin Roosevelt trumpeted “A day of infamy” and Winston Churchill extolled “Our finest hour”.

      Because we are at war, as surely as Britain was in 1939 and the USA was in 1941. And this war is for our democracies and our freedoms. It is abundantly clear that the global warming/climate change scam was never about the climate – it was always a smokescreen, a false front for a Marxist takeover of our democracies – the end of freedom.

  5. It’s taken a sharp turn to extremism because they know they are losing the argument, people are starting to laugh at them in public. It’s textbook cult behaviour.

    • Some of them must know time is almost up before natural cycles turn down, possibly more than one at a time. That certainly creates a rush effort and avoids a messy, chaotic messaging effort. So time is of the essence but not for the environment.

  6. Yes, C is becoming more extreme. And the U.S. media majority is there. On a daily basis, we are subjected to one or two ‘scientific” implications of the possibility of a catastrophe of global warming. Faster than even this site can address, although I’ve found Willis’ recent posts very valuable. But their credibility is undermined by their extremes. Change the conversation to focus on their extremes. As more and more time goes by with them out on their limb, they have no choice but to become more extreme.

    Yes, stop arguing from their point of view on their terms. You’ve lost before you started to someone who is dead wrong on the time table and purposely imagining worst case – and only worst case -potentiality.

  7. Bingo !

    It’s the same here in the kingdom of Denmark, part of the EUSSR.

    Although the deplorables have the privilege of changing one set of deeply corrupt MP’s with another set every 4 years, it is not enough, since the government has full control of the mass media, which is overwhelming left leaning.

    Denmark, home of Vestas, the largest producer of windmills in the world.

    Windmills is in every way an environmental and financial disaster.

    Denmark has the world record wrt. energy price for private consumers.

    And the madness continues !

  8. Well expressed Ross.

    For group A I would suggest positive headlines, expressions and phrases. I do believe the is a hunger for exceptional positive news among both group A and B. But to sell positive news to the media, the news has to be as super good and encouraging as the C group’s news are depressingly bad.

    The Earth has become much greener the last 50 years.

    Food supply per world capita has increased greatly the last 50 years.

    Modern technology has made it possible to protect more and more people from bad weather over the last 100 years.

    Weather related deaths has drastically diminished in the industrialized world over the last 50 years, due to high flux energy use.

    I am sure all of you can come up with way better examples. 🙂

  9. Good posting by Prof Ross. It sure looks to me that other commentators above re on the mark, the fanatics of the “C” group lump the doomsday climate scenario into other issues, like evil capitalism, save the whales, Palestine vs Israel, Trump is stupid, fat, cheats at golf, has some specific economic interest in destroying the earth, tried to fry the poor Bidens, etc, and we want equal results (no longer just equal opportunity!). The majority of the mainstream media feed this nonsense to an uninformed audience who begins to believe it. How many of us tried to present a little scientific data and a little logic to a hardcore group “C” fanatic, only to be met with rejection and disgust? Here’s my fear, they actually start an environmental engineering project and mess up the whole world. Might have to intervene in that one.

  10. Problem as I see it ( since 1992 ) that the “B”crowd many of whom dwell on this website and others, with their indefensible theories, global energy balances and feedbacks all of which can never be tested have caused this situation to fester.
    Since 2009 attending many of the International Climate Conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute, I told all who would listen that playing nice in the sandbox would come back to bite the “B” Crowd in their collective arse —this extremism is on you.
    I hate being right.

  11. Yes indeed, “Jobs and living standards will be destroyed if C prevails” – but it will only be in the western world, won’t it? The rest of the world, which is in the majority (thank goodness), will just carry on with plenty of energy available to increase living standards and providing jobs.

    It will be tough on us here in the so-called West (including USA if Trump is not re-elected) – but in the big scheme of things, which really is the one that matters, in a hundred years, this will just become an interesting lesson in world history : the rise and fall of yet another economic empire. Humankind will continue its amazing economic, material and enlightened progress.

    • I wouldn’t bet on non-Western countries continuing to advance human wellbeing, except (perhaps) materially. They appear to have little culture of individual freedom and liberty and limited government.

      I can see the entire East becoming more like China – increasingly wealthy, but ever more totalitarian.

  12. Abandoning scientific process and evidence-based thinking means that one’s beliefs are no longer changed by rational argument. It may be that only paying a very real penalty for bad policies (an inevitable outcome) or, short of that, becoming truly fearful of the negative outcomes those policies will eventually bring, will turn the tide of magical thinking into thoughts of self preservation. At present those championing all of the globalist doctrine (socialism, social justice, climate preservation, animal rights, unelected global governance, anti-growth economics, “green” energy, and the tired old bogeyman of population explosion) have stormed the stage and grabbed the microphone. They have intimidated, coerced or bribed the media and a large segment of the political field into repeating the catechisms of “progressive” (in fact regressive) thought and writing policies that translate into economic and social suicide. I suspect this outcome is, paradoxically, the result of the long march of success in human society that has allowed a couple of generations in wealthy developed nations to grow up never seeing or solving any real problems, thus fostering a belief in the inevitability of success no matter what path one chooses.

    A major flaw in the strategy of many of us still imbedded in scientific process was to pay lip service to the others who are not, to give space for “alternate truths” and to fail at every turn to insist on “showing your work”. We must loudly and with one voice insist that observational facts and valid experimental evidence come before conclusions, and valid conclusions come before policy. It has been backwards for too long. We need to get to a point where no one is taken seriously for proposing a new way forward for society just based on warm fuzzy feelings and their astrological sign.

    • Wow, I concur,especially:
      “I suspect this outcome is, paradoxically, the result of the long march of success in human society that has allowed a couple of generations in wealthy developed nations to grow up never seeing or solving any real problems, thus fostering a belief in the inevitability of success no matter what path one chooses.”

      It is in line with many of the loudest Green voices are from the wealthiest part of our society.

  13. Our plan in the USA is to allow Europe to commit economic suicide and move on with business as usual.

  14. The formula they’ve used was successful. So successful that they still use it for issues they’ve won but repercusions have caused them to take to the stage again . That battle was won in courts first and legislation after. This one is having trouble convincing courts.

    Find some time to watch “The Red Pill” free on Vudu in US. It shows what legal extremism looks like.

  15. As a staunch member of the A crowd, I believe we have already lost. I will continue to fight in my own ways, education, discussion and data but there aren’t many ears receiving new data.

    No detected change in sea level trends for 150 years
    No detected change in hurricanes
    No detected change in droughts, floods or rainfall
    No detected change in polar bears or penguins
    No detected change in Antarctic Ice
    Climate models statistically failed to represent temperature and have statistically failed over even 30 years.
    Temperature trends continue to be below predictions.

    • You forgot to mention the downward trend in severe tornados.

      When US citizens start having to pay 3 times more for electricity and gasoline (as in Europe), the public will be a lot more receptive to the persuasiveness of your “Climate Normalcy” list.

      Trump must win to hold off the Leftists another 5 years…and the sooner the next downturn in GAT’s the better. Meanwhile, we can watch Germany’s economy and people struggle while failing to reach their emissions goals AND while global emissions continue to rise in Asia….and while the Weather Extremes fail to rise.

  16. If you are going to totally exclude those who believe that CO2 is a net benefit, then of what use is your analysis.

  17. I think the “Fox hole” theory applies here. The people listening to you are the people in your fox hole. Your words fall on deaf ears for all others…….unfortunately.

  18. Yesterday the BBC released this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51279607

    It’s no coincidence that today most of Scotland is under blizzards and freezing temperatures,

    A blatant lie by the BBC in its content, and a distraction to what’s really going on,

    You want to fight climate extremists start by compiling the data ,eg the above case, and take the MSM on ,theres enough brains and data on this site ,to take them to court , I’m sure most of us would chip in.

    The reality in Scotland now https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51434439

  19. Unfortunately, there is Group D which has been overlooked in the above article’s analysis. It is the government bureaucracy of any nation. In many nations, Group D is not held accountable to the nation’s populace, and they can force their agenda on Groups A, B and C if they disagree.

    Unfortunately for the USA, Group D has aligned itself largely with Group C, for therein it sees the opportunity to obtain tremendous control over the lives of ordinary citizens and well as a new path to obtain massive additional revenue via taxation, aka “carbon credits”.

    Group B members, which are more and more relinquishing the ability to think for themselves and determine their own life paths, are swayed by the biased pronouncements of Group D and appear to be leaning on the theory that “the ‘scientists’ in the government would never lie to me”.

    This all spells an uphill battle for Group A. Group A’s salvation may be the “bluebird” arrival of another Little Ice Age that will put a knife into the heart of AGW, although who knows when that might occur and the pity is the number of lives (both human and other animals) that will be lost in the balance.

    • Hmm interesting thoughts.
      It is my observation that low level “banded”#government bureaucrats could be group A, B, C or your D.
      But here in Australia to get to higher levels you have to go on contract. Virtually all As will become Bs pretending to be the realists/ brokers to the Cs. This is all to keep renewing their contract. They will often betray their former A colleagues.
      Many of these former As are quite CAGW is bogus.
      I have to convince myself not to waste my time arguing with Cs, BUT I think all is not lost presenting the sceptic case to government Bs

      # here in Australia “banded” government staff earn upto $120k pa before having to go on contract where the majority of your day is politics(no As )

    • I’m the only one in my family with a STEM-type degree, in Geology. I point this out all the time, in a matter-of-fact way. I have a standing offer for anyone to point out their favorite sign of the “climate catastrophe,” and I’ll be glad to show them what it’s not so. I question the value of a global average temperature anomaly, when there aren’t enough weather stations to give a good value, and much of the data is made up. Quote Einstein on “100 can’t prove him right, but one could prove him wrong.”

      Above all, avoid getting angry. Stay away from accusations of fraud or conspiracy. If enough little points are made, a person will start to at least question, and that’s the road you want them on.

      • In my experience, after a making a few good skeptical points, their fingers go in their ears and they recite the 97% of scientists canard.

        • Yes, it’s hard work. In my experience, only those trained in science or engineering will engage in a data-based discussion, and even most of them would rather not deviate from “normality”. Too many of them have friends, co-workers and family that are fully persuaded there’s a climate ‘crisis’. Whenever this term is trotted out, I wander over to the nearest window, point outside, and ask: “does that look like a crisis to you?” which at least gets them to start discussing details.

  20. If you read Tony Heller’s video postings, you will get extensive information and data analysis describing real climate history, analysis of historic newspaper climate and weather reports, and documentation of the “adjustments” to temperature data made to create the warming in the U.S. Historic Climate Network datasets. In the latter instance the raw data show that the U.S. is actually cooling.

  21. Ross, great points but – you left out the third rail (the POWER rail) of all stances and actions, particularly of the C group – MONEY! Maybe you did because it is obvious the trillions of dollars that flow to and thru the C group every year from various sources INCLUDING the B group as you acknowledged in the following: ”…the B group …. ingratiate themselves with the Cs. They funded them, welcomed the more congenial elements into their circles and adopted their rhetoric about sustainability, the low-carbon transition and the imperative for climate leadership.” And why? Well, “marketing” to the general public for one and second (in many cases) to placate the activist stockholders. BUT the BIG reason the B group do this is because THEY MAKE “TONS” OF MONEY from this scam! There isn’t a successful member of the business section of the B group that doesn’t know that if some new GREEN thing that you are “FORCED” to add to your product/service costs a $1, you charge a $1.22 for it. And who partially “funds” not only the C group but also the other sections of the B group? Right. “Follow the money.” Always. MONEY (for the most part) CONTROLS THE WORLD. And where is the money MADE? Therefore, it seams to me the ONLY way for the A group to “win” this war is to make the business section of the B group to cut-off the money to the C group and the other 2 section of the B group. Now, how do we do that?

  22. This is why I spend a lot of time on Twitter debunking hysterical climate nonsense. I’ve gained 2,500 followers over the past year, and I would say that skeptics are gaining the upper hand, at least on Twitter. It’s a completely different landscape than say 8 or 10 years ago, when I started posting skeptical comments on Facebook, and was a voice in the wilderness and routinely vilified.

    • Med Bennett

      I have recently begun doing the same on Twitter, but I don’t have your credentials, however, plugging away.

      Just looked you up, you have another follower. 🙂

    • I’m glad James Woods is back. 200K followers in less than a week. I like what he says, and I hope he follows WUWT. As far as I can see, his followers are mostly anti -CAGW. He doesn’t like Democrats, much either.

    • I’m not on Twitter, but I spend a lot of time on FB, where I post a great deal of group A links. I’ve lost three or four (very good) friends because I keep pushing the sceptical arguments – but I’ve convinced quite a large number of FB friends that alarmism is politically motivated nonsense with no basis in scientific fact.

      The number of people on my page who are AGW sceptics has greatly increased over the last couple of years – but this may be due to the Brexit factor. I also have a large Jewish contingent. All these friends are educated, intelligent, articulate people who do their research. Very few are on the far left – it’s impossible to reason with that lot.

      So there is hope… But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
      I keep posting links and esp graphs. So must we all.

  23. Theres another group,the parasites, who really get off on seeing rural businesses destroyed with there global warming/environmental lies, who sit in the wings waiting for handouts to leave the land fallow, that mummy and daddy bought them, no good to any one so mummy and daddy by them a few acres as far as away as possible,they hang out in places like the BBCs forum telling every one we are destroying the planet, when they do go out they drive 1980s black smog desiels(because they dont service them) with a banner in the back window, SAVE THE PLANET,

  24. You don’t need to know the science in detail, although that helps. What we all need to do is keep repeating the failed predictions of the climate alarmists.

    Any time someone uses the term “denier” ask them what the opposite of “denier” is. It is a “believer”. Then ask them ” What does “belief” has to do with science?”. Nothing.

    Any time someone throws out the 97% of scientists agree line ask them what consensus has to do with science? Nothing.

    Then point out that belief and consensus are not in the scientific method. Only predictions, predictions and more predictions. After that ask them what predictions have come true that makes them hold the position they do. Tell them that the 2020-2040 years have predictions going in opposite directions (CO2 camp says 0.5-1.0C warming and natural cycles camp say 0.25-1 C cooling).

    If they use the “precautionary principle” as an excuse to “act now” explain that 150 PPM of CO2 is death and we almost hit it during the last glacial period (170-180 was the low). Having a bigger buffer well above 300 PPM would be safer.

    Most importantly remember that this is more than just A-B-C camps. There is a huge component of the powers that be (governments, NGOs, central banks, main stream media) who have actively pushed this “CO2 is evil” nonsense (knowing it was wrong) to advance their own power grab agenda. Do not expect to change anyone’s mind, just plant the seeds of doubt. The brainwashing via the propaganda machine at their disposal has been thorough.

    • TRM

      I have a simpler gambit.

      I tell them that no one in human history has by repeatable, empirical means, demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm. And I explain that, for the avoidance of doubt, empirical means someone standing in the middle of a field somewhere taking measurements. Not a Lab Rat.

      Many have tried, but none succeeded.

      And I’m sorry, I know you all know the facts I’m about to repeat here, but there is method in the madness.

      Even so called scientifically qualified ‘experts’ are stumped by it. They invariably cite Tyndall or Arrhenius (there’s also his rowback on the subject), but of course they were theoretical studies. They weren’t field studies. So I just ask them to get me the scientific papers that demonstrate the phenomenon.

      They invariably come scurrying back with the 2015 Berkeley study which Dave Middleton ripped to shreds. And of course, it’s never referred to by any government saying “Here’s the undeniable truth of CO2”.

      Just to make matters more difficult for them I point out that the ONLY observable, direct manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that NASA tells us the planet has greened by 14% over 35 years of satellite observations. Two continents the size of mainland USA worth of (VIRGIN) greening. The virgin bit is important as the study was conducted examining areas untouched by agriculture or and other intervention.

      They invariably come back with “Extreme weather!!!” and I point out that the IPCC tells us that there only from low, to medium confidence; in other words at best a 50/50 chance, or the toss of a coin, that increased atmospheric CO2 causes changes in weather patterns. Nor is it a DIRECT, observable association. It’s a correlated relationship.

      There are a few other strategies I use, including comparing the Excess Winter Deaths in 2017 England/Wales (50,000 from a population of around 50m – 0.1%) which was an unremarkable winter, and the 2,500 deaths during the ‘unprecedented’ Indian heatwave of 2017 (Indian Population ~1.3bn – 0.0004% (give or take a zero) 70m of whom (more than the entire UK Population) live on less than $1.95 per day, the international measure of poverty.

      No one has yet explained to me why the Northern hemisphere deserves to be condemned to such a record of Excess Winter Deaths when a little extra warmth in the system could save tens of thousands of lives a year, with little perceptible impact on warmer climes. And this is useful to invoke a guilt response as well, as it’s then very personal when you bring it down to a human perspective.

      What there is no point in doing is following them down the rathole of minutia. Stick to your guns and always get the conversation back to these observable (or in the case of CO2 non observable) facts.

      Have them justify their position, not you, yours. And it’s also useful to pose everything you say as questions, rather than your own personal dogma then, when they get aggressive, as they often do, you can simply say “Whoa, I was only asking questions”.

      As a layman that’s probably easier for me to do than someone of authority because I can come at it from being as dumb as a box of rocks, which I genuinely am. But I can argue someone to a standstill, and I NEVER give up. They either end up hurling personal insults, making ad hom attacks on your sources or bug out of the conversation altogether.

      The fact is, however, there will only ever be one winner in this whole mess, and that’ll be the planet. It’ll ultimately decide the winners and losers, as it has done in the past.

      The most unfortunate thing is, that for sceptics to win the argument, the very thing we don’t want to happen, must happen, and that is for the planet to cool. And of course then we’ll be back to square one with the nutters squealing they were right all along, it’s all mans fault because – climate change – and now were heading for Global Cooling….again!

      In the meantime though, If you don’t have a Facebook or Twitter account, get them. They’re not the spawn of the Devil, they are a great way of dropping my aforementioned, or your own sparkling gems into a discussion to goad a reaction.

      There are lots of us out there. Just look up a few names like Patrick Moore, Matt Ridley, Christopher Monckton etc. and of course, our own Anthony Watts, and follow them. You’ll soon be influencing debates with you much superior knowledge of the subject. If you are persuasive then you might pick up some followers yourself, but don’t make that an objective.

      We need to use similar tactics to those employed by the greens over many years; the slow drip of persistence. They have an organised army of adherents, but they are invariably as thick as two short planks, but the occasional well informed one does pop up now and then.

      So if you really do want to make a difference, fire up Facebook and Twitter and get to work.

      • I find most people can understand “predictions” without explanation. Once you have them focused on that they know they can’t use belief and consensus as scientific arguments. Then they get introspective (sometimes) and wonder “What predictions have happened to set my view?”. Once they are there it gets easier.

        I have found that arguing the technical details and citing studies a waste of time. They just ignore them, claim they were funded by big oil or say “you’re not a climate scientist so I’m not talking to you”.

        I think both approaches will get a small percentage to think about it. Asking them about predictions is the easiest way I have found so far.

      • HotScot
        I absolutely agree with you, the problem is that I keep getting told that I have been brainwashed by reading WUWT and that the 97% is correct because all the MSM says so, then either the fingers go in the ears and lalala comes on, or the toys are thrown out of the pram.
        Until we get someone with enough authority to start questioning the CAGW idea, like Kirk Douglas insisting on using a Communist, I think we have an uphill struggle.
        Still, a stout hert tae a stow brae ….. .

        • Oldseadog

          Never refer to any climate sceptic site in your discussions, whether posting them online or discussing in person. It just gives them an excuse to dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist.

          Nor refer to anything about global socialism for the same reason. A good one to stop them in their tracks is using Patrick Moore. “Why would one of the Greenpeace founders leave, and condemn the organisation as extremists”. The answer is, of course, that whilst he’s trying to save a million lives a year by promoting Golden Rice, Greenpeace have campaigned against it for years despite its demonstrated benefits.

          Apart from anything else, you are probably going into too much detail if you mention WUWT.

          Every alarmist has the lala defence. The objective is to make them go away with something to niggle at the back of their mind.

          Sorry, preaching to the converted.

  25. “Start learning the deep details of the science and economics instead of letting extremists dictate what you’re allowed to think or say.”

    This is exactly correct and will have to be waged one step at a time. My own experience after decades of waging this battle is that no-one will continue making extremist arguments when challenged with facts or when challenged to support their claims. doing this does not make friends and causes a certain level of temporary discomfort in a room, but it will quickly end the harangue of a doomster and free others in the room from being guilted into concurrence. It also shows everyone else that there IS dissent of opinion on the matter.

    I have an advantage – I am a respected geologist of state-wide (not national) reputation and people tend not to question whether I am qualified to discuss Earth history or Earth systems. If you are not also so-reputed, I recommend that you not only have facts on your side, but that you be prepared to cite the authority on which you make your counter claims.

    My direct experience is that others in a room (non-extremists) will seek you and later and say that they knew that something was wrong about AGW but that they did not have the knowledge of how to argue about it. Such am ex-post-facto discussion usually ends with a “Thank You” from the B Group person.

    The important point: Don’t think you have to have a platform to begin making a difference. This has to be on all fronts, from grass roots to the mass media.

    • I agree that facts and the consistent failure of predictions can be effective weapons in this battle.

      However, asserting anything as a fact can and will be challenged. Unless it’s unassailable or self-evident, most people and organizations deny factual information.

      I’ve also been fighting this conflict, but have a lack of scientific background, other than what I’ve gleaned here.

      Several days ago, I challenged my local newspaper’s editorial board about its new policy of not presenting any articles, opinions, editorials, etc. that contradict the AGW agenda. A new, front-page editorial promptly appeared, stating that factual information presented will be considered.

      One question I’m unable to answer, and have not received an explanation for, is: what exactly is the mechanism by which CO2 causes global warming? My limited understanding is that beyond a certain saturation, CO2’s warming effect begins to decline. If I could successfully clarify this and other points, perhaps my position could gain credibility.

      • Donna, the following is my understanding of the “mechanism”.

        Carbon dioxide (CO2) does not actually “trap” heat, rather it convects it, (hot air rises, even if that “air” is CO2). Heat flux at the surface is “evaporation and convection”, scientifically described as “latent and sensible”. The surface is also where CO2, a trace gas, plays its vital role; the macroscopic effect of allowing photosynthesis and life on earth.

        The much talked about CO2 “greenhouse effect” although not actually a “greenhouse effect” is well understood and not in question. CO2 is a radiatively active molecule, its absorption spectra is measured, it is resonant in the far infrared (IR) of the electromagnetic scale, centered on an amplitude of 15 microns, for which the corresponding temperature (minus 50-70°C.) is found 5 to 6 kilometers above the surface, above the cloud deck where there is no water vapor yet still within the troposphere. Heat flux at this level is primarily radiative, it is scientifically described (by Lindzen) as the Average Emission Level where incoming solar shortwave IR is balanced with outgoing terrestrial longwave IR (energy in = energy out; thermodynamics 1st law). The man-made CO2 raises the level to a colder altitude thus delaying the radiative cooling process ergo temperatures below the ERL (including the surface) must increase to re-establish equilibrium. (Entropy never decreases, maximum entropy is equilibrium; thermo 2nd law.)

        So, the entire AGW premise is that there is an imbalance in the amount of radiant energy delivered to Earth by the Sun and the amount of radiant energy lost by the Earth due to thermal radiation. The difference shows up as an increase in atmospheric temperature, and thus we have the concept of “global warming.” How much it warms is the debate. The IPCC places estimates of mean temperature increase from 1.5 to 4°C per atmospheric doubling from ice-core calculated pre-industrial CO2 levels (270ppm). Observational (satellite) studies lead to estimates around 1°C with no cause for alarm. There actually is no experimental support.

      • Rises in CO2 can be shown in the longterm historical record to lag periods of warming, by a considerable number of years.

        There was a lot of discussion of that fact – with relevant graphs – on WUWT soon after I joined, back in its early days. It must be possible to bring up those articles and discussion by judicious use of the search box.

        It was primarily this simple truth which placed me firmly in the AGW-sceptic camp: if CO2 levels lag warming periods, how can they be the cause of them?

      • Donna, the way CO2 works is that it absorbs infra-red light coming up from the sun-warmed surface. It then transmits the absorbed energy to O2 and N2 molecules in the atmosphere.

        The net result is to increase the kinetic energy (the quantity of heat) of the atmospheric gases.

        The real question is: how does the climate respond to that bit of heat energy CO2 injects into the atmosphere?

        All the climate modelers, and even the American Physical Society (to its shame) assume that the heat appears as “sensible heat,” which is the kind of heat that causes thermometers to rise and your skin to feel warmth.

        But there are other ways the climate can respond. The heat can show up as “latent heat,” which means more evaporation. In this case, the temperature would not rise because the heat is “hidden” as a more humid atmosphere.

        Other responses include more rapid convection of warm air to heights, where the new bit of heat is radiated off into space. If this process dominates, there’d be no change in air temperature, and not even a noticeable increase in humidity.

        The climate has lots of ways of disposing of the extra heat, with little or no change in air temperature. But no one has a detailed enough physical theory of the climate to explain how, or whether, these process dominate.

        The deep climatological history says that CO2 has almost no influence on air temperature.

        See the CO2 – temperature graph here:
        http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
        There’s zero correlation between temperature and CO2 across 4 billion years.

        But that inconvenient fact is willfully ignored by the alarmist industry; including by the consensus so-called climatologists.

    • Thomas D Gillespie

      I should really have read further down the thread before posting my lengthy reply to another, directly above yours. 🙂

      I think you expressed what I was trying to say far more succinctly.

  26. This is one of the best articles to have appeared on WUWT, because it recognizes what is very obviously happening; thank you Ross McKitrick. The Cs have the momentum now, and it will take several Donald Trumps around the world to blunt this momentum. Take the global political landscape as an analogy, although of course the climate and political landscapes are interconnected: there has been a steady march toward socialism worldwide and especially in the West in the past century, and it has accelerated during the past 30 years. (No wonder the rise of the Cs has been able to take place.) With the election of Trump and Brexit, there has now been a reaction from the As. But, is it enough? The Cs have been escalating and doubling down, and, when Trump leaves office in 2020 or (hopefully) 2024, and a Socialist becomes president of the U.S., the Cs will accelerate their pace to make up for lost time. The Soviets knew, and the socialists know now, that they had and have time on their side, and with socialist educational systems and socialist media (brainwashers) having taken root in the baby boomer era and solidifying in the Gen X and Millennial generations, there are simply less As and more Cs. The Bs are aligning with the Cs, and have been during the past decade. Past conservative business people, CEOs, and financial gatekeepers have given way to a new generation of more liberal businesspeople, and they have been aligning with the Cs for a decade now. This climate battle is being won by the Cs, and absent a global cataclysmic financial or natural disaster event, or both, the Cs will rule for probably several generations at least. If temperatures globally begin to cool, they will simply take credit for it from their imposed policies. Never mind that electricity become intermittent, quality of life reverses as taxes soar and energy prices rise several-fold, life expectancy tumbles, and freedoms disappear; the Cs will have saved the world, and we should just say “thank you, may I have another” and continue to vote for them. Meanwhile, the Obamas and LaGardes of the world will continue to enjoy their jets, parties, oceanfront mansions, and swelled coffers.

    There is only one way to change this: activism. Fight fire with fire. Not with violence, but with activism. Protest marches, letters, media blitzes, counter-protests. This is how THEY fight, and the Cs have had a lot of success. So must we fight if we are to have success. I’m ready to fight. I have a yellow vest. I’m ready to travel anywhere, anytime. Who will lead? What organizations exist to band together and undertake this initiative? Anthony Watts? He has done way more than his share already. But, we must start now, or doom succeeding generations to a socialist lifestyle which bows down to the false god of climate change and needlessly extract capital which could otherwise enrich their lives. Can the Heartland Institute combine with other like-minded organizations / individuals to develop and deliver materials which can be shown to the public? Maybe Fox in the U.S. could be an outlet. Without a significant counterweight, the Cs will continue to drive their narrative, and drive the world needlessly to less successful outcomes and lives for the world’s peoples for many decades, possibly even centuries.

    • 4caster

      I would agree with your concept of fighting with fire, but the nature of the beast is that climate alarmist is an inherently left wing political position, and the left is uniquely revolutionary and always do the marching and demonstrating etc.

      We on the Conservative side of the political spectrum are the silent majority. We usually make our voiced heard through the ballot box after careful consideration. And in two vital cases recently, Brexit and Trump, we have made our voices heard.

      Indeed, in the UK, we had to repeat our ballot box expectation 3 times before Democracy was eventually dispensed.

      Trump will, I’m sure, barring an intervening disaster, be on his way to a resounding victory in the November elections and I’m hopeful he’ll spend some time slapping our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, around the head to bring him to his senses on the subject of climate change.

      We’ve got Brexit done, which was the primary objective, but Boris has taken a lurch to the green side and brought forward plans to ban the sales of ICE cars altogether, even hybrids, by 2035, as well as entertaining extinction rebellion with a Citizens Assembly on climate, and quite unbelievably, having every gas boiler (furnace to Americans I think) ripped out of every house in the UK and replaced with electric heating and retro fitted insulation.

      How dumb is all this? Well, the national campaign some years ago to have houses insulated with cavity wall insulation and loft insulation eventually fizzled out as the plan was plagued with cowboy firms selling snake oil solutions that often did more harm than good.

      The current ‘smart meter’ campaign is way behind schedule and numbers because people don’t like being snooped on and there was at least 2 different models, neither of which were compatible with each other. Change your energy supplier and you have to change the smart meter. A simple and obvious flaw, but despite the government promoting ‘switching’ as a route to forestall rising energy prices, curiously, they didn’t see this as a problem.

      They have taken decades, and still not yet finalised a second runway at Heathrow Airport. Then there’s the High Speed rail link between the north and south of England (note, Scotland isn’t included) which from the initial costing of £50bn, which was considered a ridiculous cost, is now double that.

      So, quite how anyone can imagine we’ll covert from liquid fuelled cars to EV’s in just 15 years is entirely beyond me. We don’t even have the available spare electrical capacity in the system to charge all these cars, far less run everyone’s domestic heating as well.

      Sorry, I’ve rather veered off the original point, which is that the silent majority have not yet had the opportunity to vote on government policy uncontaminated by Brexit in the last 4 or 5 years.

      Continue on the climate course being charted by our government and it will become very rapidly apparent to our incumbent PM that he’ll have little chance of winning the next General Election.

      We Conservative just need a good deal more prodding to act that our kneejerk, revolutionary cousins.

      • I’m quite sure the insanity of the timetable will kick in soon. Either it will get pushed back and pushed back, until everyone forgets about it, or millions will starve to death as the economy collapse.
        I’m quite sure the “B” group will quite happily turn on the Cs and Ds at that point

  27. Let’s name the C group what they are: data deniers or simply “denialists.”

    And start referencing measurements in our talking points instead of climate model projections. The endless hyper-detailed analysis of climate models by so-called skeptics drives me crazy. The models are wrong, end of story. Anyone who takes a few minutes to review sea level rise and temperature data and compares them to the RCP scenarios generated from the climate models can see that.

    Let’s educate people with data from the observations that matter, sea level rise (and to a much lesser extent) temperature, and dismiss as fantasy the climate model projections (well, RCP8.5, 6.0, 4.5, anyway) and the even crazier claims of 2 or more meters of sea level rise by 2100. If any reference has to be made to the climate models, point out that RCP2.6 is closest to what measurements of sea level rise and temperature show even as governments around the world do essentially nothing to mitigate CO2 emissions.

  28. The global sea ice extent has reached one SDI from the cherry-picked mean.

    Crossing and remaining above the mean carries enormous propaganda value.

  29. Governments made themselves complicit in the scam when they saw the opportunity to either shift sources of tax revenue, or make more tax revenue under the guise of saving the planet.

    Clearly, for governments to change their stance on CC it would require revenues to be either diminished (unthinkable) or have their scope extended to substitute areas.

    Politically CC has become an Albatross from which there is no escape. The best we can hope for is that governments take action to control the likes of Greta and XR thereby ensuring that the proverbial Frog is not tempted the jump out of the pot.

    The best scenario would be one in which Capitalism which was effectively put into stasis in 08, could make a comeback, thereby giving the ‘Kidz’ the opportunity to climb life’s ladder. But even that would require pain to be inflicted on the borrowing classes (essentially everybody) which in its turn would serve to make the socialistic tendencies inherent in the planetary emergency lobby appear to be even more attractive.

    Assuming The Donald wins in November, his second term could bring a start to putting things on the right track. One can already imagine the outrage amongst the ‘Kidz’ if that comes to pass, but the polarisation may be just what’s required to start what may be a lengthy journey back to something resembling sanity. 🙂

  30. Fact is groups A and C are the minorities and B the moderates. Since group C controls the narrative they get the most exposure but that doesn’t mean they are “winning” (for lack of a better term). Look at what made Trump president. Moderates always decide the big votes. In America group B is now enjoying the fruit grown by group A and we are witnessing what happens when they realize someone is trying to take it away. People are smarter than we think. Stop believing the manufactured/phony narrative and remain vigilant.

    • Tend to agree with you markl.
      It is called the silent majority – group B.
      For sanity political groups the CC is given low priority, and the weight is laid on immigration, trade agreements, tax reduction, healthcare, deregulation, etc. and when elected and gotten foothold, the government can begin to tackle the Climate Change Mafia.
      I do believe it is what Donal Trump is doing and what the Swedish Democrats (a party for freedom which may be the largest party at next election) is going for.

      One of many ways forward is to become a member of a political party or group, and educate your fellow members.

    • Government taxation is bad for the economy. Government spending does not compensate for the damage government taxing causes.

      The spending on alcohol provided people with a product they wanted and enjoyed.
      Spending on renewables doesn’t. Worse, it always results in much more expensive electricity which is another drain on the economy.

    • Key difference: Alcoholic beverages are a product that is demanded and enjoyed by many, and its production, distribution and sale result in positive economic activity. Businesses are sustained by this commerce.

      “Renewable energy,” on the other hand, is something far less useful and way more expensive than the better existing alternatives, and has been crammed down the throat of the taxpayer who wouldn’t “invest” a nickel in it if not for government mandates and subsidies. It increases the cost of providing electricity and reduces the productivity of that necessary sector of the economy, thereby constituting an economic drain for NO benefit and, ironically, significant environmental detriment, including the killing of raptors (many “endangered”) and bats, deforestation, and human health detriments for those unfortunate enough to live near “wind farms.”

      • Argument by assertion:

        “It is also well known as rhetoric, because an assertion itself isn’t really a proof of anything, or even a real argument – assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it. An inability to provide anything other than an argument by assertion may be the result of brainwashing, basing ones belief on blind faith or ignorance as to what forms a proper argument. Those who argue by assertion often do think that they’re making a real argument. They might simply not realise where they haven’t provided a full argument. The point of constructive debate or discourse is to draw attention to this sort of thing, and for people to further develop and evolve their arguments in response. A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.”

        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

        • Stating a well known fact is argument by assertion?
          Looks like Snape is merely another leftist who has been educated why beyond his intelligence.

          Think for yourself if you are still capable. Why would people buy alcohol, if they didn’t want it?
          Why does government have to mandate renewable power, if the people actually want it?

    • Too put it another way, spending is only beneficial when the people want it and are willing to pay for the actual cost of it.
      When government taxes people to buy votes, the only people who benefit are the politicians and their cronies. The economy as a whole suffers.

      Only simpletons believe that all spending is equal.

          • Mark,
            The onus is on you to support the claims you make, otherwise it’s just a lot of handwaving.

            For example, you wrote, “Government taxation is bad for the economy”. Where’s the evidence that this is true?

          • Come on Snape you dont need evidence to know if a government is over zealous with EG income tax it’s less money spent by comsumers, which fillters through to less tax returns from businesses , VAT another tax penalises the poor,fuel vat,ect ect.

          • Bd

            Government employees….teachers, policeman, firefighters……are also consumers. Their pay doesn’t just disappear. It is recycled right back into the free market economy.

          • The evidence is all about you. Of course leftists benefit when money is taken from others and given to them, which is why leftists love government spending.

            Hundreds of studies have been done showing that higher government taxes distorts the economy making it less efficient.
            Hundreds of studies have been done showing that the bigger the government gets, the slower the economy grows.

          • It’s recycled, but not efficiently.
            Buying services that politicians want, but people don’t, is never a way to improve the lot of anyone other than those selling services to politicians.

          • Another way to put it is that despite your belief to the contrary, all spending is not equal.
            Money spent on products people want, benefits the economy.
            Money spent on things that increase the power of politicians doesn’t.

          • Or yet another way:
            Individuals earn money by providing goods and services that people want.
            Government gets money by taking it from those who provide goods and services.

            Taxes always hurt the economy because they discourage people from working hard.
            Why bust your but, if someone else is going to benefit from your labors?

  31. I disagree with those who feel we are losing.
    Truth will out.
    The signs of collapse are everywhere,the Cult of Calamitous Climate is ever more shrill and hysterical.
    The reelection of President Trump this fall will crush the madness further.
    Group C,nice label for the C.C.C/Climate Change/CAGW/ Shut up and respect my authority Crowd.
    Are losers,at their very best con artists and at their worst malicious parasites.
    What have they built?
    What have they grown?
    And what “good” have they done?
    In their own words,accusations and ignorance they reveal their true nature.
    Power.Power by any means.

    As long as the USA stands back and snickers at The Doom by Climate Meme,it fails.
    No nation or group of nations can compete with the USA while it has a sane energy policy.

    The political proponents of Great Gaia,those Democrats,seem almost to be deliberately destroying the scheme.Promoting social and political madness?
    Are they fake environmentalists out to crush Gang Green?
    Hard to tell the difference some days.
    The words of P.J.O’Rourke,
    ““The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.”
    Sums up group C and large chunks of Group B.
    As any who attempt to argue with adherents of this new State Religion quickly learn.
    “Fact?
    Science?
    We don’t need no stinkin evidence”.

    As so many old wives tales,folk tales and cautionary tales tell,Gullibility is part of the Human Condition.
    Along with fooling ourselves at every opportunity.

    As a final nail in the demise of gang Green as a political force,their wonderful record of being 100% wrong in all their doom casting,combined with Trump derangement Syndrome is forcing even the otherwise occupied citizens in Group B to look again.

  32. ” At stake are the livelihoods of millions of ordinary people whose jobs and living standards will be destroyed if C prevails, not to mention the hopes of billions of people who want to rise out of poverty.”

    “It was 20 years in the making, so dig in for a 20-year battle to turn it around.”

    Can we really afford a 20 year battle to turn this around? This is an ethical crisis.

  33. Too late for sane argument to be heard in Europe – we are on a one way journey with no democratic oversight or intervention possible.

    US will follow unless the concerned members of the electorate make these arguments part of the election campaign. People younger than 50 need to hear experienced and converted young voices giving clear messages.

    Can it be done? Only with media support and everything to date says that isn’t going to happen. Politicians need to specifically raise this topic in every interview and be asking the questions that highlight the shortcomings of the alarmist case.

    • slow to follow

      When Americans see Boris row back on his objective of banning sales of ICE vehicles in 2035 (which he won’t) or rather, quietly shelve it, and do the same with eliminating gas central heating boilers, those that don’t already realise that CC is a lost cause, will very rapidly reach that conclusion.

      And it will only take for Deuche Bank to collapse, with the inevitable global recession (which I believe is overdue) for attention to be diverted to real matters of concern.

      The real change will happen when the silent majority thinks, enough is enough, and takes matters into it’s own hands at the ballot box.

      If Boris continues with his madcap strategies, far from breezing the next General Election, as he should, he’ll suffer a crushing defeat, very possibly to Nigel Farage, as the labour party here is just idiotic about CC.

      • Hot Scot:

        Boris is full steam ahead for the next COP with ex Bank of England governor Mark Carney as chief advisor.

        UK has net zero GHG by 2050 target written in law. Europe EU27 countries will follow shortly. Boris is five years away from the ballot box and in the EU ballot boxes mean nothing.

        It will take the US to openly and directly challenge this as an election issue to get counter arguments heard by the electorate. Then the European electorate might look at them and learn.

        The past 20 years shows, left to their own devices, politicians have passed the laws that have got us where we are now. I have no expectation of them making an about turn without the electorate demanding it.

        • slow to follow

          The big question to ask is, who will be prosecuted if we don’t hit net zero in 2050?

          Laws are only as effective as their punishment is realistic.

          • Hot Scot

            In my opinion, the big questions are what laws will be passed in pursuit of net zero and who will bear the brunt of them? And how much money and resource will be wasted when it could be spent on things of tangible societal benefit?

            Hitting or missing the target is irrelevant.

  34. Professor McKitrick seems to believe that “society” is largely made up of independent thinkers such as himself. Not so. Most of the congregation prefers to be told what to think and what to do. Al Gore preaching fire and brimstone resonates on a primitive level. That’s why those in group B won’t listen to us in group A. This isn’t about rational thought or science. It’s emotional.

  35. I would say there is a more defined set than ABC.

    The Russians, who want to maximise their gas sales and we know they have funded anti-fracking activists (and isn’t it strange that they are most active in the Anglosphere).

    Secondly the Chinese, count on them to be a bottomless pit of funding for propaganda and activism.

    Thirdly, international Communism (from Gramsci to Greta) that invented and perpetuate the Green religion.

    Then you have to also factor in the political left who have control from the Vatican to Hollywood, and everything in between including the judges, education and even the Oxford dictionary (look up denier). The scammers from Al Gore to Lord Deben. Venezuela and Iran active. etc. etc.

    When they have so much control it’s obviously just a matter of time before they turn nasty, don’t underestimate the enemy.

  36. Regarding strategy, I prefer a more direct and aggressive approach.

    Modern greens are dangerous extremists and racists who have killed millions of little African and Asian children in their quest for a socialist dictatorship.

    They are in fact despicable child killers. Call them out.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/08/activist-explains-why-climate-change-movements-whiteness-drove-her-to-stop-saving-the-earth/#comment-2912318

    OK, since Karin Hermes has started the conversation, let’s talk about the sensitive issue of race – as it relates to the radical green movement.

    The title of my April 2019 paper states:
    “RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE”.

    But let’s take it further as Ms Hermes has done, and “play the race card”:
    THE GREATEST VICTIMS OF RADICAL GREENS ARE THE LITTLE CHILDREN OF AFRICA AND SE ASIA, WHO WERE BLINDED AND KILLED IN THEIR MILLIONS TO SERVE DELUDED GREEN VANITIES.”

    Yes, I said it , and I mean it. Greens always profess their virtue, but I reject that false claim. It is clear that greens have long regarded little black kids and little yellow kids as disposable, as long as green delusions are satisfied.

    In 2016-2017 I had a difficult experience as mentioned in this paper, in which I took significant risks to protect the lives of about 300,000 people. This experience has changed me, hopefully for the better. I feel a greater obligation to call out the child abusers and child killers in our midst and to shine a bright light on their heinous acts.

    Have some labelled my statements “hate speech”? Yes, and it has cost me.
    Are my above statements true? Yes, without question.

    No regrets, Allan

    HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
    [excerpts]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2612046

    “…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…”

    “In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/09/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to-poor-farmers-despite-environmentalist-opposition/#comment-2651782

    Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/10/benny-peiser-energy-revolts-the-crisis-of-europes-green-energy-agenda/#comment-2652044

    “The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists – and they are the great killers of our age.”

    Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and Past-President of Greenpeace, provided the answer decades ago. Moore observed that Eco-Extremism is the new “false-front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. This is described in Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” written in 1994 – note especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, at
    http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/

    For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives.

    • While I have no doubt there is truth in what you say, I also have the impression that the whole Right vs Left divide will always turn on one side accusing the other of being the biggest killers. Given that, I’m not sure it helps so much to point out the failures of Stalinism, etc, if such matters are perceived as “foreign country” historical events, etc. Here, supposedly, socialists are nice, principled, religious folks like former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas, bringing us the benefits of single payer Medicare, say.

      What I always tell people is that socialistic advantages like Medicare are sure to fail if the country can’t generate enough real wealth to support such programs. Hit people over and over again with common sense advice about what is happening to the economy, to their wallet. At that point, the prospect of people dying from being unable to afford enough food, heating, medical care, etc., will surely slip into the discussion too. So *do* say that people will die from bad policy, but go the economic route in getting there, that’s my advice.

      • Your comment seems a nonsensical deflection from the point. Tommy Douglas is in no way comparable with totalitarian monsters Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Mao.

        It is clear that Trudeau and his odious cadre seek absolute power, using the false “climate crisis” as their excuse to seize totalitarian control.

        Witness the Liberal’s recent attempt to licence the media.

        GET YOUR LICENSE COMRADE: The Liberals Are Launching A Communist-Style Attack On Free Speech
        https://www.spencerfernando.com/2020/02/02/get-your-license-comrade-the-liberals-are-launching-a-communist-style-attack-on-free-speech/
        [excerpt]

        The Trudeau Liberals are launching an unprecedented, Communist-style authoritarian attack on free speech and the free press in Canada.

        In an incredibly disturbing move, the Trudeau Liberals are set to push media organizations to register for government licenses.

        The announcement was made by Steven Guilbeault, in an interview with Evan Soloman:

        “We would ask that they have a license. Yes.”
        [end of excerpt]

        Here is the evidence, in a video interview with Canadian Cabinet Minister Steven Guilbeault:
        https://twitter.com/i/status/1224044099570819073

        Liberal Cabinet Minister Steven Guilbeault has now hastily retracted – he was not supposed to divulge this secret plan of the Trudeau Libranos.

        But rest assured, it IS THEIR CORE PLAN, and it will be back – like all Marxists, the Libranos want total control.
        ______________________________________

        https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-steven-guilbeaults-awkward-about-face#comments

        The “bought” Canadian press was afraid to print this story – they didn’t want to lose their huge government subsidies. The press is already under government control.

        THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
        by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
        [excerpt]

        A highly credible gentleman wrote me as follows, concerning his recent conversation with an Ottawa insider.

        The insider, he said, had been working on an advisory group to the Trudeau government. The group was not formed to discuss policy for the 5 year horizon that governments are usually interested in but to develop policies for the further future, 20 to 40 years out. The implication was that the group had concluded that the present economic model was flawed and had to be replaced. “Unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and people would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to have more control over people to enforce their austerity and the wealth of developed nations would have to be redistributed to help undeveloped nations.”

        These are not new ideas. For decades, intellectuals and politicians have argued that our consumer society, based on individual market demand, is a flawed system that generates waste, excess and environmental degradation.

        The insider’s assessment also reflects the current underlying motivation behind the rise of climate change as the defining issue of our time. The words reflect the motives of environmentalists and climate activists who are using the climate “emergency” as a front for larger political and ideological ambitions. What they are pursuing as an economic revolution ushered in through the back door. They are yelling fire and then using the resultant fear to impose a new economic and political order.
        [end of excerpt]

      • “Hit people over and over again with common sense advice about what is happening to the economy, to their wallet. At that point, the prospect of people dying from being unable to afford enough food, heating, medical care, etc., will surely slip into the discussion too. So *do* say that people will die from bad policy, but go the economic route in getting there, that’s my advice.”

        Good advice, thank you.

        • Although I’ve suggested economic arguments as better than strictly political ones, I must admit that I, too, am perturbed by the anti-freedom implications of much of what goes on these days. Just think, for instance, of the ‘who do we believe’ slogans of the anti-kavanaugh campaigners a little over a year ago. A lot of what passes for politics these days really is persecutorial, non-rational, Stalinesque, actually.

    • In 2019 I discovered this excellent Financial Post article by Peter Foster, published in 2013:

      https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-the-child-killers
      [excerpts]

      During the decade in which the anti-GM campaigners have held up the adoption of Golden Rice, eight million children have died from vitamin A deficiency.

      Given this catalogue, the support that Greenpeace receives from ordinary citizens seems a mystery, but is part of the larger mystery of support for a global cause that has resulted in literally tens of millions of preventable deaths. An even worse example is the banning of DDT in the wake of Rachel Carson’s hysterical Silent Spring, which last year “celebrated” its 50th anniversary.

      (For a dissection of Carson and the darker roots of radical environmentalism, see Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson, edited by Roger Meiners, Pierre Desrochers and Andrew Morriss).

    • The Eco movement began as a kind of eugenics: it’s primary objective seems to have been a radical cull of humanity.

      http://www.green-agenda.com

      It’s only in more recent years that the movement has been taken over by the Radical Left, as a tool to fight capitalism.

  37. The Cohort Cs have the most compelling story. The world is getting worse is always going to be a more popular story than the world is getting better, but I wouldn’t worry too much that the damage done will be especially great. In Germany, for example, they will soon be forced to admit that the energiewende is a failure. The transition away from fossil fuels depends on the notion that there are affordable, reliable sources of energy to transition to. When it turns out that there aren’t, the whole green energy thing is just going to melt away.

    I love the attempts to sell electric cars. It’s the strutting absurdity of it: People are expected to buy electric cars that are dramatically more expensive than gas cars, but can’t be made to function as well. And the companies that sell them lose money on every sale. How long is that state of affairs going to last? How long, for example, before Tesla saturates its market, and there are no longer enough wealthy people available to buy Teslas when they already own them?

    What I mean is, Economics really do describe natural phenomena quite well. You can only behave uneconomically for so long before the bills can’t be paid. If you don’t have a Lenin or a Trotsky to crush resistance to your diseconomic nonsense, you’re done.

    • Ian wrote:
      “If you don’t have a Lenin or a Trotsky to crush resistance to your dis-economic nonsense, you’re done.”

      Think again – the Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s and Mao’s are already out there – wolves in sheep’s clothing, just waiting to seize power. Then you will see their true brutality.

      Do you think it’s a coincidence that these 20th Century killers all pretended to be human until they seized absolute power and terminated their opposition, real and imagined? Do you think Pol Pot of Cambodia was an anomaly? He is the norm.

      The Canadian Liberals’ and the American Democratic Party’s current policies are straight out the quotes of Vladimir Lenin.
      https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin

      “Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.”

      “We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

      “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

      “Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.”

      “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

      “People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.”

      “It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”

      “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”

      “The goal of socialism is communism.”

      “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

      “Trust is good, but control is better.”

      “As an ultimate objective, “peace” simply means communist world control.”

      “One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie the middle class.”

      “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

      “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

  38. The analysis by Ross McKitrick is absolutely correct, The only saving light is the mess is that every time Group C attempts to implement some of its insane policies, the ventures soon go bankrupt and expire, or the expense caused to Groups A & B becomes so onerous that parts of Group B join Group A which group seems to be slowly growing as a result. China, India and Russia are wise to what is going on and are in Group A already. Group C like the Democrats has a natural tendency to fight amongst itself and destroy itself. The Group C initiatives continue to become more extreme, expensive, ineffective and detached from reality.

  39. This analysis is I think extremely accurate. The only thing working in favour of shifting people from Cs to Bs and eventually As ( where the truth lies is that as the Cs become more extreme and shrill the Bs start to become aware that these people are actually nuts . The biggest problem is that the Cs have infiltrated virtually all major area of influence. Schools, universities, big corporations, media, political parties, public services, scientific bodies, religious hierarchies etc. I’m staggered to see the number of Cs in the ranks of conservative parties whose constituents vote for them because their climate policy is less extreme than the other choices and then when in power promptly start watering down any attempts to deal With the Cs. Both in the UK and Australia the conservative parties are on the verge of disappointing its constituents on climate change and by their actions emboldening the extremist C parties to becoming even more extreme. Only in the US has a prominent political leader tried to stare down the Cs in society and the benefits of doing so are astronomical. The drag on the economy of pandering to the greener elements in society is so obvious that within a relatively short time those countries that give in to these extremists will be quickly heading towards developing world status. Cheap access to affordable and reliable power is key to maintaining a sustainable industry balance, full employment and rising living standards. The problem of reversing some of the issues referred to is that this move to extremism has been well planned. There has been a whole generation of indoctrination which is difficult to reverse and there is no doubt that these extremists use humiliation, punishment and abuse to bully people to toe the line. They control the agenda using fear and whilst I view websites like this as housing the resistance unless we get some more As into position of power the Cs will still be in control. We just have to hope that these courageous individuals will find there way to positions of influence.

  40. China and Russia drove B into C’s lap.
    It is strategically to China’s and Russia’s geopolitcal benefit for western democracies’ group B to destroy themselves at the altar of C’s climate religion.

  41. The womenfolk see it differently with the emotional appeal of the kids and the groomers have been plying their trade with them to press buttons-
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/climate-change-global-warming-six-groups-rebecca-huntley/11893384

    Sea level rise is their obvious weak point science wise but I suspect reason won’t ever convince emotion. What will in time is the household budgets with power prices but that’s a slow burn for the housekeepers and only the blackouts will really ring alarm bells because it will impact their precious munchkins directly.

    There’s a certain inevitability about that as unreliables crowd out thermal with their dumping. Storage to prevent that is economic fantasy and that’s obvious in the price of EVs and even household batteries for most with rooftop solar. I don’t see how the alarmists will be brought to heel until they stuff up the power grid and have to explain it to the womenfolk. Keep plugging away at them but get a backup genny particularly in the vision splendid experiment of South Australia.

  42. It’s not a science/economics battle per se. It’s a PR battle.

    The scientist/economists on the C side are autistic children and revolutionary Marxists. They can’t do real science or economics. However, they can do PR (propaganda, fear mongering, demonizing, slander, libel, threats, etc.)

    The A siders are still locked into real science/economics. Many of us call ourselves “realists”. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a vital foundation, but we mostly suck at PR.

    One thing Trump does well is PR. He is a showman. You have to admit this whether you agree with him or not. His showmanship overshadows his actual policies, which many of his supporters might disagree with in the details. But he puts on a great show.

    PR is a tricky undertaking. There is no simple formula for success. Persuasion requires many avenues. For instance, the bigger lie often wins, unfortunately.

    We all have some experience in the persuasion field in that we have been inundated by advertising since birth. We are not neophytes.

    I suspect that more avenues can be found for effective promulgation of the A side. This is not a knock on existing A side voices like WUWT or Heartland, but a call for diverse methods to work in concert. We have to realize the arena we compete in is Public Relations, and we have to put on more shows.

  43. You know how Bill McKibben et al are always lamenting the political power of Big Oil? Well, Big Oil does have a lot of power and, for us Group A folks, that’s a good thing. The power of Big Oil (and sure, I know that that’s a slur) derives from the fact that BO sells something that everybody needs, even if a lot of people are just too stupid to realize it. It’s not just that the facts are on our side. So is money. Money does more than just talk. It runs really fast, and kisses pretty girls (and they like it.)

    • Big Oil does have a lot of power

      That’s a media-created myth — the power (money) of Big Oil is minuscule compared to goobermints.

  44. “Climate and energy policy has fallen into the hands of a worldwide movement that openly declares its extremism”

    Or maybe the long simmering anti fossil fuel movement has resurfaced with a new science that goes beyond pollution. The climate issue is not a climate issue. It is anti fossil fuel activism. It has been reincarnated with a new weapon.
    Climate Change!

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/

  45. It was never about science, always about control and power grab by Marxists.

    So use Marxist tactic from Saul Alynsky against them: live by a sword, die by a sword.

    Rule 1: ridicule.

    Tell them to jump out of window to use an impact to reduce impact.

    Ask them, what their favorite insect meal is.

    As them to (immediately) take down any cloth part made out of or using carbon fuels – works well for females.

    My favorite: I inform them, I as officially an ex-communist, I am a scammer who is responsible for misusing lies about CO2 to spread our power. But now we (original communists) had mercifully changed our minds and allow some of them to stop being useful idiots anymore. They can accept that gift or… jump out of window.

  46. Quote from the UK Telegraph this morning:

    Michael Gove says COP26 must lead to action rather than just more words

    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that the UN summit due to take place in Glasgow later this year must lead to more than “the recognition of the need to act”.

    Taking questions after his speech to the Green Alliance conference, Mr Gove said that success would require nations to agree on a set of commitments that are “irreversible, accelerating and inclusive”.

    Asked whether he was due to land the COP26 presidency, he declined to answer, stating only that he was “very happy with the job that I have.”

    “There are many many other people who could do the job of COP president better than I ever could,” he added.

    He also confirmed that announcements would be coming in the run up to the summit in areas such as energy generation, construction, house-building and energy intensive industries.

    https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/

    https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/about.php

    Democracy is history – the only question is when will we realise?

  47. The C’s are mostly following the strategy of Adolf Hitler but the time scales are somewhat longer. Hitler was a proponent of the salami tactic and only fought one battle at a time whilst building up the Nazi party. Right from the very early days of his first meeting NSDAP he demanded that he be the leader, when there was only 6 members.. The 1937 plebiscite gave him 97% for dictatorship one party rule and the authority to crush all dissent. Its not generally realised but the original name of the party founded by Drexler was German Workers Party. Hitler was sent in by the army because they feared the spread of Bolshevism. But because of the Russian revolution German capitalism lost its confidence and supported Hitler because he offered stability and eliminated the threat of Bolshevism. In the west at the present time the capitalist class have lost their confidence – some have bought into the green agenda and a lot think that greenwashing will buy them time. In their heart of hearts they are starting to believe that they are evil. Look at the likes of Steyer and Soros. But you seem to have not factored in the peoples response when it matters. The Yellow vest strikes were initially against fuel tax rise commensurate with Frances INR and has now morphed into the biggest general strikes since 1968. https://www.leftvoice.org/france-paralyzed-by-largest-general-strike-in-decades?fbclid=IwAR2VV53_t0TohE-NnLC_CeDp7MCMM3U89GxTkBcCyOlr9QwDBpWIpaTnAfg The differences now is that this strike is being ignored by the media in UK. Why because the are worried about contagion. In Germany AfD has achieved 25% of the vote in the recent election. Mainly in East Germany where previous generations had been exposed to communist propaganda. It has also given rise to some groups raising old NAZI songs, but that is a diversion. The AfD is against the energiewende and all the solar panels, windmills etc. At the same time the parliament votes to reject any speed limits on German Autobahns https://newatlas.com/automotive/autobahn-speed-limit-vote/https://newatlas.com/automotive/autobahn-speed-limit-vote/ And to top that whilst berating the world on climate politics Merkels government is building 39 coal fired power stations one requiring the destruction of a village and 20,000 hectares of forest to mine lignite!!!

    So I am not pessimistic, rather the opposite when they have to bitr the bullet they will do anything to guard off a revolt from below. And then the people will say Green who?

  48. This article left out two other important groups:
    D. Those who want to bring down western society and reorder the world, e.g. the UN, XR. and other extreme leftists.
    E. Those who couldn’t give a sh*t about the environment or who they impoverish or damage, so long as they make lots of money, e.g. Farmers/land owners raking in subsidies for solar and wind installations on their land, ‘green’ entrepreneurs and makers and installers of said wind and solar who are paid even when they have to turn them off.

  49. “There have long been three groups occupying the climate issue. To avoid pejoratives, I will call them A, B and C.”

    The problem you seek to address is far larger than the “climate issue”. And your approach of creating three “groups” A,B, and C really epitomizes the basic problem. It is precisely the determination of reality and how to deal with it by means of battling groups that threatens to doom our civilization.

    When people group themselves behind leaders with an emotive standard, they are no longer reasoning beings, but slaves of dogma. After that, it doesn’t really matter which “group” may have been closer to the truth initially, because no evolution of thought is possible within any of the groups. Those who think differently are driven out as traitors.

    When Donald Trump first questioned the credibility of the US Intelligence community’s information, I couldn’t help thinking back to the “murdered” premies of Kuwait, and wondering how it was possible that that same huge intelligence community failed to note that the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by the Saudi Ambassador to the US with the help of an American PR firm. I don’t recall any heads rolling over this very convenient untruth foisted on the US public.

    Since then I’ve had to wonder why the elections of so many lesser countries than the US have not been “hacked” by the Russians (or the Chinese, Koreans, Iranians, etc.) if these latter countries have the means to hack the elections of the most powerful and technically advanced country in the world.

    Indeed, start looking at what’s NOT discussed in the news and social commentary, you will soon see that our broadcast media and politicians behave as though they have been very discreetly lobotomized so as to simply become blind to certain very important realities right under their noses.

    Take for instance the sometimes (at least in the past) question of why an American president would want to befriend a whole series of dictators generally considered to be cold blooded murderers. The obvious answer is that they could provide very valuable personal services for which he (or she) could never rely on US Government agents.

    And what would they have to gain? – well, asylum when their reign is brutaly ended. Idi Amin, who lived out his remaining years peacefully in Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Comments are closed.