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.
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,
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.
“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.
There is experimental demonstration done by Anthony and posted on this site showing that an increase in CO2 did not have an increase in temperature.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
Besides Prof Hottel determined that the emissivity of CO2 was almost zero below 33 C. If CO2 emitted in the 13-15 micro range it could be seen on infrared equipment which commonly goes out to 15.
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.
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
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.
The global sea ice extent has reached one SDI from the cherry-picked mean.
Crossing and remaining above the mean carries enormous propaganda value.
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. 🙂
Evolution and Climate change two big whoppers the Globalists use who’s goals are to break down our culture and enslave us all.. No hope and Fear!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=383&v=KiZ01CqMjXo&feature=emb_logo
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/how-did-life-start/
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.
Group D
The simpletons who think spending money on something is bad for the economy.
– In 2018, Americans spent 253 billion on alcohol beverages (over a trillion in global sales).
– For comparison, in 2015, 286 billion was invested in renewable energy….. worldwide.
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+global+revenue+of+alcojal+beverages&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safe=active
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
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.
A lot of hand waving, Mark.
USA:
$253 billion on booze (2018)
$80 billion on tobacco products (2018)
$55.5 billion on renewable energy (2019)
https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/1105/gallery.money_wasters/4.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/even-under-trump-u-s-renewable-investment-hits-a-record
$65 billion on soft drinks.
https://business.time.com/2012/01/23/how-much-you-spend-each-year-on-coffee-gas-christmas-pets-beer-and-more/
BTW, I just how leftwing totalitarians like Snape here, know better than other people, what spending is good for them and what isn’t.
Classic response of someone who knows he has no argument.
Anywho, not a single one of your points even addresses my comment, much less refutes it.
“Anywho, not a single one of your points even addresses my comment, much less refutes it.”
I was expanding on my original post…. not trying to address or refute your comment. Sorry for not making that clear.
Stupid comments only become more stupid when expanded.
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.
Hot air, to put it another way.
Once again Snape demonstrates that even he can’t support the nonsense he’s been spouting.
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?
“Hundreds of studies have been done showing that higher government taxes distorts the economy making it less efficient.”
Back it up, Mark. You haven’t linked to a single study, let alone hundreds.
*****
Maybe we should follow Mexico’s example (that bastion of efficiency), and lower our tax-to-GDP ratio to 16 percent?
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.
” 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.
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.
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.
Re: James Woods. On Twitter.
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.
first remind people..
nature is not good…
nature is.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speak of the devil. Howsabout you poor slobs stumping up for the poles and wires so we can dump on the grid and earn a quid? You do want to save the planet dontcha?
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/sas-renewable-energy-future-hampered-by-lack-of-electricity-infrastructure/ar-BBZRwaJ
Ross Garnaut? I would not pay too much attention to him.
Just part of the green industrious handout complex.
He has made his money out of mining gold and coal in PNG. The rest of us can go poke it!
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.
The EU submission to Greta is complete… THIS is scary.
https://www.rt.com/news/480527-eu-grovels-climate-greta-syndrome/