by Paul D. Hoffman
The headlines tell the story, and it’s not a pretty one. Climate realists, like me, are losing the climate change debate. Not because we are wrong. Factually, we win every time! But, we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions.
The climate alarmists don’t care about the facts. They beat us down with children, like Greta Thunberg, and lecture us about self-interest and our cowardice in the face of a “mass extinction event.” They play to our natural emotions and worst fears by linking climate change to those uncontrollable things we are most afraid to face—hurricanes (lions), wildfires (tigers), and tornadoes (and bears, oh my!).
Despite these facts:
- Climate change models have failed to accurately predict the future global average temperature change.
- There is no ideal average temperature for a world where on any given day the temperature could be -50 degrees F in one place and 120 F above zero somewhere else. (Remember, if you live by averages, you would be comfortable standing with one foot on a block of ice and the other in a fire.)
- Global average temperatures have fluctuated much more and have changed much faster in the geologic past and well before humans started burning carbon-based fuels in significant quantities.
- Weather patterns are much more attributable to cyclical changes in ocean currents than to climate change.
- The use of oil, gas, and coal creates a significantly higher quality of life for billions of people, reduces poverty, provides abundant food supplies, and means cleaner air and water.
- There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is neither caused primarily by humans nor an existential threat to mankind or any other species.
Despite all this and more, we are gradually losing the battle for the minds of the people when it comes to the climate change debate. And we are not just losing the debate at the political level. We are losing in the board rooms, and not just the woke corporations like Amazon, Nike, Apple, or Google, but in the corporate board rooms of the utility companies, the oil & gas industry, and the manufacturers.
Why?
We tend to make our case using wonky science that even scientists don’t fully understand. People can’t get their heads around our rational explanations, but they darn sure understand fear of events that may affect them directly and personally.
We tend to argue about the adverse macro-economic effects of climate change policy—the loss of millions of jobs, green energy costing trillions of dollars, and the failed goals of wealth redistribution. These effects are real and catastrophic.
However, have you ever wondered why the voters do not support Social Security or Medicare reforms, despite the overwhelming macro-economic evidence that both systems will likely be bankrupt within the next decade? The answer is fairly simple. People make decisions based on micro-economics, not macro-economics. People will choose to protect their personal benefits over the solvency of the system—every time.
Consider these examples of the micro-economic impacts of climate-change policies. Here in Virginia, Dominion Energy is closing coal-fired power plants in favor of solar and wind farms, and this move toward renewable energy sources will lead to a $1,000 per person per year increase in electric bills by 2030.
Ask anybody if they are willing to pay a thousand dollars a year when it is not likely to change the average global temperature at all? This question brings the issue home, and the answer will much more often be a resounding “No!” Ask the same person if they think climate change is a threat and whether we should do something about it, and you will get many more affirmative responses.
The Transportation & Climate Initiative, a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states plus DC, is proposing a 20-25% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions for the region. Their policy of choice is a “carbon [dioxide] tax.” Recently, Virginia enacted a carbon dioxide tax on utility generation, and the General Assembly will be considering one on transportation fuels that may include a 28 cent per gallon gasoline tax and a 26 cent per gallon diesel tax. Based on current mileage rates and miles driven per capita, these tax increases could cost each driver more than $1,000 per year! Once again, I can fairly easily predict the response from most people to the question of whether they are willing to pay another $1,000 per year for no material effect on the climate.
People expect their lights and their computer to work when they flip the power switch. Talk about the potential for rolling brown-outs, or planned black-outs, so that someone else can charge their electric vehicle at the charging station built with tax dollars (ever seen a government-built gas station?), and I think you will get a predictable negative response.
I am certain that we can come up with many more examples, but my point is this: let’s take the case against climate change down to the personal, micro-economic level. Remember the charge against George H. W. Bush: “It’s the economy stupid!” It wasn’t that Bush didn’t understand that there was a recession; it was that he failed to recognize how that recession affected people at the personal level.
To put it another way, everything in life is political, except politics, that’s personal. When you explain how a policy threatens someone’s pocket book, you’ll get their attention.
Paul D. Hoffman has been involved in environmental policy making and communications throughout his career. He has served as State Director for then-Congressman Dick Cheney, Executive Director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce just outside Yellowstone National Park, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the US Department of the Interior. He is currently the publicist for Hope Springs Media and a consultant for Resource Management Strategies. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics and Biology from the University of California at San Diego, Revelle College. He wrote this article for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
We no longer think for ourselves. We turn on the TV and form our opinions, likes and dislikes, based on what CNN tells us. We have escaped reason and are flying without wings. The practice doesn’t portend a good outcome, but that is what we do. ~ How do we get Reason back? A classical education not excluding God; experience; disaster. The last two take longer; the last one may take centuries as it has in the past.
Yes, the basic problem is the control of the media.
As we have just witnessed with the fraudulent US election, they can hide gross corruption of a candidate from public view. They can censor any allegations of voter and ballot fraud from entering public debate and examination or simply dishonestly dismiss claims as “baseless” after hiding all the evidence.
This has been the problem with trying to present logical science based facts about the climate. Everyone still thinks polar bears are on the verge of extinction despite having not the slightest idea how many there actually are and being blissfully unaware of the striking recovery in their population over the last 30-40 years.
Paul Hoffman:
If you are out to “win hearts and minds” , do not start out with a smug “I am right” claim before you say anything else.
You may think you are a realist because you agree with yourself. Everyone thinks they are a “realist”. If you start an interaction with someone else by saying your opinions reflect reality ( and by inference theirs are not and they are wrong and ill-informed ) you are not going to even get your foot in the door.
In any case since we are not longer living in a representative democracy, there seems little point in trying to convince anyone one of anything in the political sphere since public opinion is now irrelevant.
Start working out how you resist the NWO. After all you are a realist, right?
Social media has reduced politics to a socially distanced screaming match.
The divide and conquer operations seems to be complete. They are moving in to end the republic.
They are moving in to end Euro-whites.
But of course they forget who pays the bills.
Before the Media became the problem: it started out as a “march through the institutions”. Practically any university teaching journalism was first infiltrated with left wing mentality. This left shift is now becoming more and more dominant at universities and in most fields worldwide. Now they’re even digging deeper: their influence in high school education is quite dominant and the next already ongoing step is bringing socialism down to elementary schools and kindergardens. The only way out would be to kick these people out of our education systems, but I fear that it’s already too late. Maybe in a few decades when they’ve screwed everything up (which they undoubtedly will), there will be an upheaval… but with modern weapons and computer surveillance even this may not be possible…
This is actually why the move to charter schools, private schools, and home schooling is growing so fast. School choice is a small but growing demand all across the nation. Parents are beginning to wake up to the failings of the public education system.
The failings of the public education system is one reason why “free college” should be avoided like the plague. It’s the next step by the left to further their grasp of the the education hierarchy. Once the government is paying for everyone’s education they can control that education, and by education I mean brainwashing.
Once the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union fell apart, the West lost its on-going opportunity of pointing out all the examples of communistic brutality and failures. Consequently Western left-leaners think that they can implement a better instance of communism — despite the other current examples of Venezuela, Cuba, China, California, etc.
Greg Fundamentally we lost control of a lot more than the medial. We lost control of the message because we lost control of the Education systems followed by the culture, in America. There are many reasons not the least of which is that, at the K-12 level, we allowed government workers to unionize and then the unions took control of the system. Unions, as history has illustrated are the most highly corruptible institutions in a society. Communism at its base level is a Union. Once it has control it rules by tyrannical means. The only way back to a Representative Republic will be through revolution. Whether is will be violent depends on the silent majorities ability to get control of the message. That means busting Hollywood, NE Elite Communication Corporations, University Systems, Public Schools across the nation and particularly in large Urban Enclaves.
Create a crisis, profit! Its the model for manipulation of population. The media, and especially the weather guys, need a crisis to get eyeballs – war, weather disaster, titillating personal details etc. The politicians need a crisis to gather power, a perceived need requires resources and management to fix. Scientists need extremes to justify funding, cause excitement, get stock options…
On the side of freedom, we just want to be left alone. That doesn’t help the clowns and ringmasters pay their bar bills.
How is it going?
Isn’t it interesting how many young people are so easily convinced to join the struggle?
I believe this is largely because we all know intuitively how carrying a weight or burden.
“Essentially taking responsibility” imparts meaning to our life. The Biblical idea of making a sacrifice.
The problem is that as a young person you largely do not have the power, self-confidence or the competence to take responsibility nor do you always see the reason you should.
Why take on a burden if you can avoid it?
The burden or responsibility is largely given and it is likely not viewed as a gift at the time.
But you are given encouragement (or should be) forself-confidence and examples to follow for competence. We look back and see it was a gift.
But what happens when in a wealthy family no responsibility is given?
What happens in a home where there is no authority that requires a young person to bear a burden?
In the Biblical story of Caine and Able. Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and his countenance fell.
That means he became enraged felt his life had no meaning and if that was the case then neither did anyone else’s.
By providing, but failing to place a burden, society has implicitly rejected the sacrifice even before it could be offered.
To fill that void the progressives offer to place a burden on you and give your life meaning.
They know you are angry at the old hierarchy that rejected you and they fan the flames of that anger to help them acquire power.
They could explain what happened and help you heal and move forward by forgiving.
However they do not care about you at all.
They are only interested in using your strength for their purposes.
IMHO that’s how it went.
imo a brilliant analysis- –should be read through several times- –
You must be a dumbass if you watch CNN.
I’m not so sure that the climate alarmists have captured the hearts and minds of the majority of the people yet. The media constantly tell us that everybody is onboard, but this is a classic propaganda technique. Do people believe what the media tells them? Apparently not the majority or else they would not have needed to resort to fraud to win elections. How many people really believe the election was fair and honest as the media have been telling us? Be honest with yourself. Of course not. Do the majority believe there is a climate crisis, and if so can we really do anything about it? Apparently not or else they would not need to resort to coercion and market manipulation to bring about the policies they want. Now they are poised to do want they want against the voice of the people.
People are programmed by 10,000 years of evolution to believe in magic and supernatural “stuff.”
For 100 years Communism has been attacking organized religons that provide a moral basis for societal existence. The attack is to replace it with their god-less communism and now climate communism.
The Climate scam is now nothing but a supernatural religion on its own. Or as Dr. Richard Lindzen said, “akin to believing in magic.”
Just watch the bullshit coming out of the mouths of supposedly intelligent people claiming, many saying, “We need to fix climate change.” or “we must solve climate change.” What they are really saying is the Free world of capitalism that built democracy and the Western civilization of the last 400 years must submit to socialism and the Nanny State because the “elites” know best of what is okay for everyone. Everyone except themselves of course.
They’ll believe that all the way until they are kneeling at the guillotine as seeing the basket where their head is about to be … when the people have had enough of their elitist b/s and climate communism..
My favorite quote from Dr. Lindzen:
The Church of Warming is a denomination of the main faith of Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government. The other main sects are the Church of Feminism, Racism & Sexual Orientation. Once an individual’s spirituality is enforced and they become “woke again” , the ability to question the dogma of their faith is like trying to argue the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical. Government climate “scientists” are little different than the educated clergy of the monarchies who provided the “science” behind the king’s right to rule by divine providence. The only science they provide is “political”, but any disagreement with them only elicits cries of heretic… denier, racist, misogynist, homophobe. In this fashion the “scientists” get to share in the plunder of the peasants and the rulers can take away their liberty and property without the messy use of the sword.
That is why they invented intersectionality.
Very easy to get disparate groups to fight for “change”; the difficulty is getting agreement on specific solutions with real impacts each constituency.
Right on Brother!
now we just have to get someone to believe us.
Ask the establishment about the Ch Co Pa and the relation to the De Pa and you will have your Climate Change answer.
The fact that you are advocating a public debate rather than a scientific one is an indication of the sorry place we are in this world.
Companies are paying “lip Service” to the climate cabal; it is called “pandering,” and is designed to protect their shareholders from the Government’s ability to put them out of business.
Every energy company saw what the Obama administration did to coal and don’t want to see it happen to them. So they subscribe to “Green policy initiatives” and behave like Pastor Niemöller, whose closing line was: “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
President Obama didn’t do anything to coal. Fracking killed it. Which is why more coal power stations closed under Trump than Obama. And good riddence, it is hard to find a more polluting and deadly source of fuel than coal. Give me natural gas anyday.
Wrong, as usual. Obama promised to do away with coal, and then proceded to wage war against it under the banner of “climate change”. Fracking merely gave NG somewhat of an advantage, and on a level playing field, coal would have certainly declined somewhat, but not to the extent that it did. The combination of the two – Zero’s War on Coal, and fracking were a double-punch to the gut of coal, which did not just magically disappear when Trump became president. As for “polluting and deadly”, that is simply astro-turf Greenspeak. The hatred of coal is all down to CO2, which you Warmunists love to call “carbon”, which is a deliberate and common propaganda trick.
+10 well said
Fracking has a big impact, but the Obama policies, continued and expanded by most Blue States, is the main reason the shut downs occurred. No climate agnostic CEO shuts down a functioning coal plant immediately to switch to NG based on financial analysis, the payback and IRR wouldn’t justify it. Long term replacement and overhaul decisions would have been impacted, but that would have been a much slower shut down time frame.
“In January 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama said coal-fired power plants would go “bankrupt” and “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his plan to tax greenhouse gas emissions….”
As much as you like natural gas, it has a big CO2 bullseye on it now since the “war on coal” has been won.
And whacos like Berkeley are banning gas hookups in new construction. Fortunately there is almost no new construction in Berkley.
LOL
– Coal powers countless power stations that have to back up unreliable solar & wind energy.
– Wind & solar energy would not exist without subsidies / taxpayer money.
– BTW, China is building multitudes of coal power plants as we speak with many more planned.
– “Renewables”: Not Feasible: https://principia-scientific.com/renewables-not-feasible-for-100-percent-energy-too-costly/
– The False Promise Of Green Energy: https://principia-scientific.com/the-false-promise-of-affordable-green-energy/
– Distinguishing Truth From Green Propaganda
https://principia-scientific.com/distinguishing-truth-from-green-propaganda/
Don’t forget that there is a growing segment of the investment community (think University endowments and State run pension plans) that will only invest in high social scoring businesses, that not only embrace Green Thought, but also extending Affirmative Action to non-white-heterosexual males to board rooms and the upper floor.
There is also an interesting book, “Barbarians to Bureaucrats – Corporate Life Cycle Strategies” that attempts to show that mature companies have moved far away from their roots when they were innovative, whereas the successful firms are often led by people who consider themselves masters of the universe and convert their company into hedge funds because leadership truly believes that every thought in their head is Divine.
The Global Warming Industry has won simply by declaring victory and moving on. They don’t care if there are still trying to prove they’re wrong.
Look at Euro emissions standards (that nearly all car manufacturers need to meet) – they make no sense and they are based on the assumption that cars emitting CO2 will kill us all, but there is exactly zero pushback against the idea we need them. Same with UK banning internal combustion engines from 2030 – all the talk is about *how*, not *why*. Governments are extending solar and wind subsidy schemes at taxpayer and consumer expense, but again it’s about how and not why.
No-one even mentions the complete failure of the models anymore (even as I sit here shivering in a jacket in the middle of summer) – it’s just assumed we HAVE to do this.
“Factually, we win every time! But, we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions.”
Hearts and minds are somewhat fickle when you ask them to dip into their wallets for the cause and sooner or later the rolling blackouts will kick them up the bum. We’ll see how they like the cheap renewables they were promised then when all they’ve had to date is rising ones.
We will soon be living like China under Chairman Mao. And China will be living like the US (when it was great). How stupid are our voters? They deserve what they will get.
“The use of oil, gas, and coal creates a significantly higher quality of life for billions of people, reduces poverty, provides abundant food supplies, and means cleaner air and water.”
————————————————————————————-
Paul,
I think it’s confusing to claim that the use of oil, gas and coal ‘means cleaner air and water’. It’s true in the sense that cheap and abundant energy allows for the greater use of air-conditioners which can filter out unhealthy particulate matter which is usually caused by the burning of coal, or bush fires, and it’s also true that cheap and abundant energy makes it more economical to filter, process and/or recycle water.
However, a major argument against the use of fossil fuels is the general pollution and environmental damage that results, especially in less developed countries such as India. Such damage in general includes oil spills, contamination of underground water due to fracking, destruction of the environment due to open-cut mining of coal, lung diseases suffered by the coal miners, and countless cases of people in cities suffering health problems from the polluted atmosphere which is exacerbated by emissions from ICE vehicles.
Cheap abundant energy means pumped and filtered tap water, not muddy parasite ridden water hand drawn from a hole in the ground.
It also means grid connected electricity and oil or gas domestic heating instead of an open fire in the middle your mud hut.
The problem is that enviro communists systematically confound REAL pollution with emissions of non toxic, odourless, colourless CO2.
The way it was presented in the article is totally misleading in that it does not say what it means and will thus instantly be polemic. So much for the great idea of reaching hearts and minds.
Nice example of what this article is talking about, but as used by the other side. For example, the following statement completely ignores the great progress in the last 50 years in this category:
“countless cases of people in cities suffering health problems from the polluted atmosphere”
The progress in reducing the ‘real’ polluting emissions from fossil fuels has mostly taken place in developed countries. Developing nations, such as China, more so in the past, and India at present, have largely ignored employing expensive emission controls, so they can reduce the cost of energy, make their products cheaper and more competitive, and raise their prosperity.
Without the fear of the consequences of CO2 emissions, which is the largest component of emissions from fossil fuels, and therefore very expensive to capture and sequester, the ‘real’ pollutants from fossil fuels would continue to escalate in developing countries.
Vincent do you think to move towards a developed nation there will be short term pollution problems?
China is already gasifying their coal they use to reduce pollution. They know solar and wind are useless.
Derg,
I think there will always be pollution problems as undeveloped countries strive to develop. How serious and how long-term that pollution will be, will likely be affected by the politically motivated ‘scare about CAGW’.
I would prefer that resource were spent on advanced emission controls of the real pollutants, instead of CO2, and on protecting populations from the recurrence of the extreme, natural, weather events that we know have continually occurred in the past, well before industrialization.
But that’s also very expensive, and I can understand that most countries, including developed countries, are reluctant to spend huge resources on building more dams to mitigate flooding, doubling the construction cost of homes and infrastructure to protect them from floods and hurricanes, clearing the litter in forests to reduce fire hazards, and so on.
Imagine if all countries were to focus on that very practical and sensible solution to the effects of climate problems and extreme weather events. The use of the cheapest form of energy would soar and the world would much sooner reach an energy crisis due to a shortage of fossil fuels.
Without the development of ‘alternative energy sources’, we could be in deep trouble, not only due a future scarcity of fossil fuels, but also due to an unrestricted rise in CO2 levels. The current levels of 415 ppm might have a negligible effect on climate, but what about 1,200 PPM?
Vincent we would have a warmer planet…instead of 60” of snow I may get 40”…sign me up.
Why not go with nuclear power?
Vincent,
Nature removes and sequesters about half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere. We’ve increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere about 50% from 280 to 415 ppm after a century of burning oil, coal, and gas – natural removal has kept us from getting to the first concentration doubling. That natural removal, if it continues, and there is no reason to believe that it won’t, will prevent us from getting anywhere near 1200 ppm. Why? There isn’t enough oil and gas left in the ground. We have maybe 100 years of supply left.
There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the ground to get us to 1200ppm. Regardless, the Earth’s atmosphere has been well above 5000 ppm for most of the history of this planet, and the dire consequences you dream about didn’t happen.
As to running out of fossil fuels, that won’t happen for hundreds of years.
Vincent, Mark is correct, we have centuries of fossil fuels left, and we will not get to 1200 ppm CO2.
Also, keep in mind that the beneficial affects of increased CO2 continue in a linear fashion, while the purported and failure to manifest harms, decrease steadily.
However, long before we use those fossil fuel reserves, we will have third and fourth generation nuclear.
Or the statist win and their rule the world Blackbeard policies drive the world to global war, setting humanity and civilization into some sort of Mad Max world.
The answer is *NOT* degrading the developed nations progress through the use of unreliable energy. What do you think people are going to do during a rolling blackout in the winter? The use of wood burning stoves will *increase* causing more pollution, not less.
The answer is to advance the development of less industrialized nations, not to bring everyone down to 3rd world status.
What consequences do you actually think increased CO2 emissions are causing that could be cured by killing off billions of people?
The late Dr. Carl Sagan was firmly convinced that the only way population growth could be controlled was for the entire world to industrialize.
This means accepting the short term risks of generating more pollution while all third world nations are industrializing, while at the same time managing those risks as best we can while human population growth slows.
Using industrialization as a means of population control also demands that per capita use of energy in the industrializing nations must increase substantially, if that population control is to be achieved without resorting to outright murder.
One has to wonder what Dr. Sagan would be saying about the current debate over climate and energy were he still alive today.
First of all, Vincent, why should you care what the people of the various “developing” countries decide to do to meet their own electric needs needs? Are you God?
Second, you are advocating the use of irrational, unprovable fear to motivate other people to do something they would otherwise not, something detrimental to their health and wellbeing. All of the dire “CO2 is killing the earth” is based on UN IPCC climate models that have been proven to run hot and are using CMIP5 RCP8.5, a scenario that is demonstrated to be physically and economically impossible.
Third, your statement that CO2 is “… largest component of [presumably harmful] emissions from fossil fuels …” is not supported in any of the literature on the subject of which I am aware. [Note: I was involved in the construction and operation of coal and gas-fired electrical generation installations.] The removal of truly harmful emissions from FF electric generation involves mature technologies that are applied worldwide, not just in developed countries.
Finally, CO2 capture and sequester is not just “very expensive;” it is currently technologically impossible to accomplish at an industrial scale. Based on empirical studies over the last number of years, the calculated (theoretical) long-term equilibrium temperature increase in degrees C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ECS) is less than 2C. According to econometric models developed by Nobel Laureate William D. Nordhaus, an ECS of 2 or less will have net economic benefits to the world well into the next Century.
“First of all, Vincent, why should you care what the people of the various “developing” countries decide to do to meet their own electric needs needs? Are you God?”
————————————————————————-
Dave,
What a strange question! One doesn’t need a belief in God in order to have concern and compassion for one’s fellow humans. Countries’ borders are artificial constructs. Nature doesn’t have such borders. Everything is connected in some way and to some degree.
Plastic waste dumped in the ocean at one location can arrive on the beach at another location in another country. Haze and particulate carbon produced in China from the burning of fossil fuels, can be blown over to Japan, causing the Japanese to wear masks to protect their own health.
Particulate carbon from seasonal agricultural burn-off in countries such as Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Indonesia, not only exacerbates the pollution from the numerous ICE vehicles in the cities, but spreads into other countries that otherwise would not have an air-pollution problem.
By the way, I’ve never written that I think CO2 is a pollutant. My point is, because CO2 is such a large component of the total emissions from burning fossil fuels, it’s impractically expensive to capture and sequester it, so demonizing CO2 can be an effective scare tactic.
However, since we know that elevated CO2 levels are good for plant growth, I think it would be very practical and sensible if governments were to regulate that all coal-fired power plants should not only have state-of-the-art emissions controls for the ‘real’ pollutants, but should also be surrounded by numerous. large greenhouses. After the toxic pollutants have been removed, the remaining CO2 could be funneled into the greenhouses to enhance growth.
Vincent, your response is nonsense. Thank you for playing.
Only with wealth can they afford to clean up their environment.
By denying them the use of fossil fuels, you are condemning them to life of poverty leaving in a polluted environment.
>> However, a major argument against the use of fossil fuels is the general pollution and environmental damage that results, especially in less developed countries such as India. <<
yeah, so let’s go back to burning environmentally friendly cow dung as a cooking fuel because oil is so polluting
What makes you think the peasants will be allowed to own cows in the coming green wonderland?
The problems with pollution from coal plants was solved almost 40 years ago.
When will you learn, it has never been about the facts. People like Marano and a handful know that … politics Trump facts every day.
We don’t have a debate. Media just repeats appealing memes. It is image marketing also called propaganda. Second level of thoughts is ignored: How much, when and where is the climate changing? What are the pros and cons of that?
You’ve got to show them the truth about “renewables,” that they are neither green nor renewable. On the contrary, you need to show the ordinary people how going to wind and solar will require mining on an unimaginable scale, massive local pollution and burning of more coal to smelt and refine the materials. Then when you’ve inflicted all this damage on the planet, you dispose of everything you’ve just produced, burying millions of tons of wind turbines and toxic solar panels, and start all over again. Even the most ardent climate changer would have a damascan type conversion if they really understood all this.
I am convinced more than ever that this is the way to tackle the narrative battle, rather than talking about equilibrium temperatures and feedbacks. In other words, use their own tactics against them.
Imagine going to see your favourite comedian,a heckler shouts something out. some of the audience hear him some aren’t close enough and don’t quite get what he says, no matter the comedian immediately puts him down and gets a big laugh. He wins cos he’s got the mike and everyone hears him. Unfortunately we are like the heckler. How we get our point across is not the biggest hurdle it’s getting your hands on the mike. I’ve never seen a comedian give a heckler the mike. I think we’re stuffed. I used to be an optimist!
Far, far left California is waking up to the perils of unreliable energy production. Even Gavin Newsome is unable to hide that from the populace and has been forced to admit the problems that dependence on wind and solar has brought to California. It’s the mainstream media that continues to hide the problems associated with dependence on wind and solar. At some point there *will* be a tipping point. The Luddites, for that *is* what the Green movement consists of, will be hoist on their own petard when winter deaths skyrocket because of a failing electrical grid.
I disagree, Mr. Causey, because your solution depends upon a complex narrative getting out. But the left now controls the narrative, as we saw in the last election.
No, the way forward is to keep showing the actual damage that the current policy direction has been doing to both prices and availability of electricity. Everywhere the green game has been put in place for a decade or so, prices have escalated and availability has diminished.
Just keep showing the same charts, but start showing up at places where decisions are actually made such as legislative hearings, board rooms, and news rooms, with the same charts and graphs. They’re all the same. Wherever a state or country has committed to wind and solar, prices are escalating, despite the claim that they are now cheaper sources of power than fossil fuels. Show the disconnect visually.
Once people see the visuals, then maybe, just maybe, they’ll start to wonder, and ask questions. That’s the time for your strategy, along with an even better answer of why it’s happening.
Thank you Paul. I have been saying this for years.
Being a layman, WUWT was a long, hard, learning process. Absolutely necessary, but tough going, and I was fortunate to have the time to indulge myself.
Most other community involvement sites on climate are much the same, chock full of necessary technical detail, but completely alien to 90% of the world population who are not scientists.
Laymen need simple, straightforward, memorable arguments to empower them to argue with their mates. If they can form a convincing argument using practical examples rather than science they don’t understand, they can impress when dining with their friends.
Of a global population of 7Bn(?) 90% of those are not scientists, but each person (in civilised Democratic nations) has a single vote each, no matter how well educated they are.
Stop talking to scientists, they are well able to make up their own minds (although some I have spoken to couldn’t make up their own breakfast) talk to the layman. He carries far more influence than scientists do.
Potential outcomes are getting uglier by the day. The abscess grows and ointments are no longer an option.
At this point every reasonable adult knows what comes next. A generalized infection or actively assisted somehow painful drainage.
“Athenian democracy came about around 550 BCE… Only free men who had completed their military service were allowed to vote on any legislation. This meant that only about 20%…The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed…Plato believed there was a far more sinister nature to democracy…a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others…the people will … use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution…the people will rally behind one or a few men… will lift him to great heights… to bring liberty… Plato warns that the trouble only intensifies from here…Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty, become obsessed and willing to sacrifice social order and structure to attain it…These new democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind… will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people… will create laws to bolster their position… will impose heavy taxes to ensure the people are unable or unwilling to fight back… any who oppose will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy…these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result…the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition…this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen…He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster.” https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/socrates-plato/plato-and-the-disaster-of-democracy/
Moreover, the majority are not interested in learning or doing the work necessary to run the government.
NO ONE reads them all or even the majority of the 16,377 bills introduced – not possible – not even their staff can do it. (16,377 times 1 hour = 2047 days at 8 hours per day, or 5 years of doing nothing else). The lobbyists/corporations/special interest groups write the legislation, not the members. The members are instructed how to vote by the leadership – non-compliance loses support by the party, cause opposition by the party leaders. Democracy is a joke! “Mad(ison Ave) Men” and their psychologists and spin doctors manipulate the people, distract the people with their hot buttons.
116th Congress Enacted Laws: 214 Passed Resolutions: 699 Got A Vote: 836 Failed Legislation: 24 Vetoed Bills (w/o Override) 8 Other Legislation: 14,596 TOTAL: 16,377
“Athenian democracy came about around 550 BCE… Only free men who had completed their military service were allowed to vote on any legislation. This meant that only about 20%…The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed…Plato believed there was a far more sinister nature to democracy…a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others…the people will … use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution…the people will rally behind one or a few men… will lift him to great heights… to bring liberty… Plato warns that the trouble only intensifies from here…Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty, become obsessed and willing to sacrifice social order and structure to attain it…These new democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind… will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people… will create laws to bolster their position… will impose heavy taxes to ensure the people are unable or unwilling to fight back… any who oppose will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy…these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result…the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition…this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen…He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster.” https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/socrates-plato/plato-and-the-disaster-of-democracy/
“Athenian democracy came about around 550 BCE… Only free men who had completed their military service were allowed to vote on any legislation. This meant that only about 20%…The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed…Plato believed there was a far more sinister nature to democracy…a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others…the people will … use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution…the people will rally behind one or a few men… will lift him to great heights… to bring liberty… Plato warns that the trouble only intensifies from here…Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty, become obsessed and willing to sacrifice social order and structure to attain it…These new democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind… will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people… will create laws to bolster their position… will impose heavy taxes to ensure the people are unable or unwilling to fight back… any who oppose will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy…these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result…the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition…this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen…He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster.” classicalwisdom[dot]com/philosophy/socrates-plato/plato-and-the-disaster-of-democracy/
The majority are not interested in learning or doing the work necessary to run the government.
NO ONE reads them all or even the majority of the 16,377 bills introduced – not possible – not even their staff can do it. (16,377 times 1 hour = 2047 days at 8 hours per day, or 5 years of doing nothing else). The lobbyists/corporations/special interest groups write the legislation, not the members. The members are instructed how to vote by the leadership – non-compliance loses support by the party, cause opposition by the party leaders. Democracy is a joke! “Mad(ison Ave) Men” and their psychologists and spin doctors manipulate the people, distract the people with their hot buttons.
116th Congress Enacted Laws: 214 Passed Resolutions: 699 Got A Vote: 836 Failed Legislation: 24 Vetoed Bills (w/o Override) 8 Other Legislation: 14,596 TOTAL: 16,377
We spent decades fighting the climate science wars and neglected the moral high ground that Michael Moore and associates located – not that they are on our side – the devastating impact of RE on the environment.
We also put a lot of effort into high quality scientific refutations of the climate caper but not enough into books that people with next to no education in science can understand, like Gregory Wrightstone’s “Inconvenient Facts.”
I have no education in science. But I can understand the technical arguments.
I read Climate Audit avidly when Steve was posting. I may not have understood all the statistical terms, like what an Eigenvalue is, or minutiae like that. But I understood the conclusions. I understood that Mann, and others on The Team, manipulated data and statistics to get the result they wanted, not the correct result.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is a willingness to understand, not an ability to.
Vincent, Mark is correct, we have centuries of fossil fuels left, and we will not get to 1200 ppm CO2.
Also, keep in mind that the beneficial affects of increased CO2 continue in a linear fashion, while the purported and failure to manifest harms, decrease steadily.
However, long before we use those fossil fuel reserves, we will have third and fourth generation nuclear.
Or the statist win and their rule the world Blackbeard policies drive the world to global war, setting humanity and civilization into some sort of Mad Max world.
The death of bulk wind and solar electric generation will come through NIMBY; people don’t want industry in their backyards.
100% true… but 10-15 years too late. Somewhere in the 2000’s the mainstream media worldwide (e.g. BBC, CNN) decided to side with the alarmist camp and stopped asking critical questions about climate change. That was the time realists should have launched a counter offensive using the same emotion-based strategy that got the alarmists in charge.
Now I’m very pessimistic. I think it’s too late to turn the tide with a counter offensive. The media have shut the door for realists permanently. They simply won’t invite you into their programmes… and that’s it! Using the social media on internet isn’t going to work either. Already the big social media companies are censoring anything they deem “fake news”.
In the end, despite whatever spin the media puts on it, the consequences of the disruption of the energy system will become clear for ordinary civilians and the tide will turn. Probably led by those same media then crying outrage on the (predictably) failed energy transition. Hopefully the total cost at that time is not fatal for the economy of the “green” countries.
We’re simply along for the ride…
Kletsmajoor,
I am beginning to be afraid that you are right. Write a letter to a national newspaper and it isn’t published. Complain to the BBC and they say your point is not compatible with their policy. Try to get an article in your local paper and it is rejected, even if you know the Editor, because publishing it would cost them their job. Same when you talk to a school teacher, they just shrug and quote the Director of Education who has swallowed the entire AGW meme because the Leader of The Council has said so.
But “Live on auld horse and ye’ll aye get corn”. We just have to keep plugging away.
Rather than adopting a defeatist attitude, why not put time, money, energy, etc. into developing and promoting competing medias — e.g. as done by Rush and the EIB network, Anthony Watts and this website, and maybe a new TV network by Trump?
It takes centuries to build a civilization. It only takes one woke generation to destroy it.
Dr Rainer Fuellmich (German lawyer) is starting a class-action against the Corona casedemic – details on Lew Rockwell dot com.
I believe that a similar approach to the climate fraud might be the best way forward.
Especially if the two subjects are inextricably-linked, as many of us believe them to be.
There is always a market for bullshit.
It really is a crying shame.
Trump should have done a lot more to smash the hoax, while he had the chance.
“Trump should have done a lot more to smash the hoax, while he had the chance.”
What could he have done that would have changed the minds of those who hate him, just for the sake of hating him?
Nothing. The more he would have pushed back against the CC nonsense, the more they would have hated him.
99% of those who work for government can’t be fired, and most of those will do whatever it takes to grow government so that their jobs will be more secure.
No matter what Trump did, the bureaucracy would fight against him tooth and nail.
Simple
Switch Off The Internet
No matter if The Elites still have it, as they will.
Because is is *Information* Technology and so, if the common plebs and minions are not feeding it, their will be nothing for The Elites to apply their technology to. It will wither.
Even more hopefully, the Elites will use it as Social Media and as we are seeing, destroy themselves will hysteria and trollery
As a nice example – *Maybe* those ‘Poverty Stricken’ people in the 3rd World don’t actually want your electricity, fossil fuel and technology etc etc
They have survived quite happily for 100’s thousands years and lets face, gave life to the critter you see in the mirror.
Yet *you* now have the cheek, impudence, nerve and hubris to tell THEM how to live their lives
Get one first – and you do NOT find life, or *anything* remotely social, inside computers. Quite the opposite I would assert.
Just like Alcohol
Again by example: There is No Such Thing as Social Drinking
If you can only abide the company of others, and they yours, while having most of your body, brain, mind and personality chemically disabled, how is that social? How?
Its exactly the opposite – but Magical Thinking elicited by the booze or the Social Media, tells you contrary
Drink responsibly? Riiiight.