Where is the Outrage Over Climate and Energy Policy?

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.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
156 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ge0ld0re
December 12, 2020 10:20 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Ge0ld0re
December 12, 2020 10:56 pm

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:

Climate realists, like me

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?

Greg
Reply to  Greg
December 13, 2020 1:01 am

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.

Wally
Reply to  Greg
December 13, 2020 9:42 pm

They are moving in to end Euro-whites.

But of course they forget who pays the bills.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Greg
December 13, 2020 3:17 am

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…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Eric Vieira
December 13, 2020 5:16 am

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.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 13, 2020 4:26 pm

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.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Greg
December 13, 2020 11:06 am

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.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Ge0ld0re
December 13, 2020 5:28 am

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.

Steven
Reply to  Ge0ld0re
December 13, 2020 6:24 am

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.

Leo
Reply to  Steven
December 14, 2020 4:39 pm

imo a brilliant analysis- –should be read through several times- –

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Ge0ld0re
December 13, 2020 11:58 am

You must be a dumbass if you watch CNN.

KT66
Reply to  Ge0ld0re
December 13, 2020 1:20 pm

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.

Joel O'Bryan
December 12, 2020 10:41 pm

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..

Steve Case
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 13, 2020 3:38 am

Joel O’Bryan December 12, 2020 at 10:41 pm
The Climate scam is now nothing but a supernatural religion on its own. Or as Dr. Richard Lindzen said, “akin to believing in magic.”

My favorite quote from Dr. Lindzen:

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Richard Lindzen
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

Billyjack
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 13, 2020 6:05 am

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  Billyjack
December 13, 2020 7:26 am

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.

Steven
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 13, 2020 6:38 am

Right on Brother!
now we just have to get someone to believe us.

Terry Bixler
December 12, 2020 10:45 pm

Ask the establishment about the Ch Co Pa and the relation to the De Pa and you will have your Climate Change answer.

Newt2u
December 12, 2020 10:46 pm

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.

December 12, 2020 11:13 pm

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.”

Izaak Walton
Reply to  tomwys
December 13, 2020 12:04 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 13, 2020 6:15 am

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.

John Adams
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 6:56 pm

+10 well said

Old Retired Guy
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 13, 2020 7:10 am

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 13, 2020 7:30 am

“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….”

oeman 50
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 13, 2020 8:29 am

As much as you like natural gas, it has a big CO2 bullseye on it now since the “war on coal” has been won.

John Adams
Reply to  oeman 50
December 13, 2020 6:58 pm

And whacos like Berkeley are banning gas hookups in new construction. Fortunately there is almost no new construction in Berkley.

Wally
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 13, 2020 9:57 pm

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/

AWG
Reply to  tomwys
December 13, 2020 5:37 am

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.

Russell Chapman
December 12, 2020 11:24 pm

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.

observa
December 12, 2020 11:25 pm

“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.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
December 12, 2020 11:34 pm

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.

Vincent
December 12, 2020 11:35 pm

“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.

Greg
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 12:24 am

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.

Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 12:38 am

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”

Vincent
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
December 13, 2020 2:15 am

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.

Derg
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 3:30 am

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.

Vincent
Reply to  Derg
December 13, 2020 5:24 am

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?

Derg
Reply to  Derg
December 13, 2020 8:50 am

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?

Meab
Reply to  Derg
December 13, 2020 8:56 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
December 13, 2020 3:22 pm

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.

David A
Reply to  Derg
December 14, 2020 3:21 am

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.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 5:25 am

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?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 13, 2020 10:16 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 10:57 am

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.

Vincent
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 13, 2020 8:14 pm

“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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vincent
December 14, 2020 11:52 am

Vincent, your response is nonsense. Thank you for playing.

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 3:18 pm

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.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 11:45 am

>> 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

MarkW
Reply to  Komerade Cube
December 13, 2020 3:24 pm

What makes you think the peasants will be allowed to own cows in the coming green wonderland?

MarkW
Reply to  Vincent
December 13, 2020 3:16 pm

The problems with pollution from coal plants was solved almost 40 years ago.

Streetcred
December 13, 2020 12:01 am

When will you learn, it has never been about the facts. People like Marano and a handful know that … politics Trump facts every day.

Global Cooling
December 13, 2020 12:30 am

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?

Vincent Causey
December 13, 2020 12:36 am

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.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Vincent Causey
December 13, 2020 3:12 am

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!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Vincent Causey
December 13, 2020 5:32 am

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.

Rod
Reply to  Vincent Causey
December 13, 2020 7:12 am

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.

Hotscot
December 13, 2020 1:27 am

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.

Flight Level
December 13, 2020 1:35 am

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.

James Walter
December 13, 2020 1:38 am

“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

James Walter
December 13, 2020 1:40 am

“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/

James Walter
December 13, 2020 1:41 am

“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/

James Walter
December 13, 2020 1:44 am

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

Rafe Champion
December 13, 2020 1:48 am

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.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Rafe Champion
December 13, 2020 11:08 am

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.

David A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 14, 2020 3:31 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rafe Champion
December 13, 2020 11:12 am

The death of bulk wind and solar electric generation will come through NIMBY; people don’t want industry in their backyards.

kletsmajoor
December 13, 2020 1:57 am

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…

Oldseadog
Reply to  kletsmajoor
December 13, 2020 4:52 am

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.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Oldseadog
December 13, 2020 5:09 pm

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?

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 13, 2020 2:20 am

It takes centuries to build a civilization. It only takes one woke generation to destroy it.

Nick Graves
December 13, 2020 2:28 am

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.

John
December 13, 2020 2:42 am

There is always a market for bullshit.

Dreadnought
December 13, 2020 2:46 am

It really is a crying shame.

Trump should have done a lot more to smash the hoax, while he had the chance.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dreadnought
December 13, 2020 11:11 am

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  Dreadnought
December 13, 2020 3:32 pm

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.

Peta of Newark
December 13, 2020 3:11 am

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

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 13, 2020 11:13 am

Drink responsibly? Riiiight.

Ian Coleman
December 13, 2020 3:14 am

Most of us here seem to think that the problem with the climate change guys is pessimism (The world is about to end), but actually it is optimism. It is wildly optimistic to believe, for example, that wind and solar could supply scalable electric power. The climate changers use doom and gloom to start the conversation, but it quickly becomes a lovely fantasy of a pollution free future. Few human follies are more dangerous than unfounded optimism. It is the optimists who start all the wars. The bedrock of communism was always optimism.

What we need to do is just say, look, this won’t work. Explain that wind turbines are a fraud. How hard could that be?

I really don’t know what to do about the pessimists, who are having too much fun imagining catastrophe. Check out the Extinction Rebellion folks, and they tend to people who are have failed at life, and want everybody else to be miserable too. Greta Thunberg actually admits to being a depressive misanthrope. These people will not relinquish the pleasure they take in their pessimism.

AWG
Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 13, 2020 5:48 am

In this case, isn’t optimism essentially the promise of Something for Nothing?

“Just accept at face value what we tell you and your guilt (which you didn’t have until we told you that you were guilty) will end.”

In any of the sales pitches for “renewables” has anyone truthfully addressed costs?

I’ve seen many articles here where the Unicorns & Fairy Dust peddlers always seem to leave off huge slices of the cost of renewables. (e.g. R&D, degradation, disposal, learning to live with blackouts, etc.) and lying about the alleged increase of costs of the semi-delivered product.

Its always the residents here that seem to recall that there are actual costs both now and in the future.

Tim Spence
December 13, 2020 3:28 am

You can’t win. If you think you can win then you haven’t fully appreciated the adversary or the problem.

The only recourse is to laugh at them and make fun of them, while you still can.

Tom
December 13, 2020 3:34 am

It has been clear to me for a while that the establishment position is aligned with the climate alarmists; the political establishment and increasingly, the business establishment, is singing from the same hymn book as the environmentalists. Yet, the alarmists do not claim any victory because they still need to claim that the needed climate change policies are being thwarted by the “deniers.” The reality is that the reason their climate change policy goals are unfulfilled is that the means to fulfill them does not even exist. The technological and economic realities are what’s really leaving us continuing to use fossil fuels. Another reason the alarmists continue claim the “deniers” are standing in the way of needed progress is that some of their policy goals are not just about managing climate change; they are about shuttering the fossil fuel industry first and foremost because they hate it more than they love protecting the environment, and they are about creating social and economic justice. It’s about political control and a new world order.

There is a parallel between the campaign for enlightened climate change policies, and the Black Lives Matter movement. It is also about social and economic justice, but more evidently so. The premise for this fight is that ill social and economic ills of black people everywhere are due to oppression by whites. This is despite the obvious fact that all institutional forms of racism have been eliminated and outlawed. The door of opportunity is wide open for black people to walk through it and has been for some time, yet we still see that they are not closing the gap with whites anywhere one cares to look, at least in the United States. Despite all the success at eliminating discrimination, the racism alarmists continue to claim that insidious racism in the form of white privilege, implicit bias, white fragility, and other subtle forms of racism are preventing progress by blacks. The occasional instance of police violence against a black person serves as a flash point for illuminating the hatred for the prevailing social and economic order. So, as with climate change policies, even though the establishment is totally committed to ending racism, the problem persists, as it must, since without it, the raison d’etre of all alarmists everywhere would be extinguished, which they cannot allow. They need an undefeatable cause in order to continue their fight for social and economic justice. They make impossible demands such as abolishing the police, which is a little like demanding all renewable energy, as both are impossible. Making impossible demands allows their fight to go on. As with climate deniers, the racism alarmists argue that racism continues to exist because many, many white people (racism deniers) have not got their minds right, and getting people’s minds right is part of establishing a new world order- political control.

We see that both in the case of climate change alarmism and racism alarmism, the establishment has caved in; the establish fears for its life. They don’t know how to resists and they think that giving lip service to the alarmists will mollify them; it won’t. We see this in the absurdities of profession sports teams promoting social justice messaging, which is similar to an oil company like BP touting it efforts to remove itself from the fossil fuel business. I could go on, but I think you get the point by now.

MattSt
Reply to  Tom
December 13, 2020 9:12 am

Excellent comment Tom!

Tom
Reply to  MattSt
December 13, 2020 1:03 pm

Thanks MattSt. Having just now reread it, I can see I should have spent a little more time editing.

Ian Coleman
Reply to  Tom
December 13, 2020 11:38 am

I admire your innocence on the subject of race, Tom. My views on race are so bleak that I won’t try to post them here, except in a censored form, as the site moderator might be compelled to deny their publication.

I’ll give you the short and tactful version, which is that mitigations of institutional racism are well-meaning and in fact morally noble, but limited in their capacity to bring social and economic equality to Black people, because personal racism is pervasive and inevitable. (Scream here.)

There really is a standard deviation-size gap in mean IQ scores between Black and whites. It doesn’t matter why it is so-whether it exists because of genetic or environmental causes, because no one knows how to eradicate it. Even intelligent and accomplished Black people shun people with low IQ scores. Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi do not live among people with IQs of 85 or lower and avoid them whenever possible.

Having a low IQ is a terrible handicap, although probably all of the well-educated posters on this website are so insulated from people with low IQs that they don’t even consider the great mass of people with low IQs as a problem. Most of us on this site can barely tolerate people with IQs of 115, which is well above the mean. Poverty and social incompetence are irreducibly bound to IQ score, and the gap between Black and white test scores may be immutable.

Consider the case of O.J. Simpson. Simpson was handsome, rich, supremely gifted and widely admired. Unfortunately he had a low IQ. (He wrote a letter to his trial judge which was written at about the level of a child in the third grade. The University of Southern California had to fake his academic record to get him on the football team.) Well, O.J. Simpson killed two people (although this was never proved in criminal court), and then thought that he could get away with it. And then he did, because his defense team salted his jury panel with people with low IQs. (Read the book, “Madam Foreman,” which is written by three of O.J.’s jurors, in which they explain their reasoning for acquitting Simpson. ) The Simpson acquittal is one of the few examples of a pubic event where the intractability of the IQ problem is obvious.

Well, you get my point. I just want to (possibly) mitigate its harshness by saying that we should treat all citizens, regardless of IQ score, as kindly and justly as possible.

Tom
Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 13, 2020 1:01 pm

Ian, I agree and understand. I’m not sure we’ll ever become sufficiently enlightened to just recognize things for what they are and let it be. One thing I am sure of; blaming the problems on racism is not helping anyone, except politicians who make their livelihood from it.

Doug Huffman
December 13, 2020 4:01 am

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. There are more conspirators than there are of US and they are younger. It is good to be old. Soon it will be a good day to die.

Merry Christmas. Share the Kiss of Peace

twobob
December 13, 2020 4:14 am

I ask anthropological climate believers,
if they believe in Magic?
They almost all ways say NO!
I then remark, that for us to control the climate must be Magic.
That if Magic does exist, then this is the only power that can.

Tom in Florida
December 13, 2020 4:46 am

Need I say this for the 4,000,000th time? Sales 101. You don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. Most people make decisions on emotion. This article simply says it in a more detailed way. The alarmists have been selling the emotional side for years.
If we are to win the battle it has to be not that they are wrong but on the emotion that warmer is better.

AWG
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 13, 2020 5:40 am

But some emotions are more stimulating to action than others.

Fear and Hate are major motivators, as much so as Hunger.

I can’t see myself trying to manipulate a population by piling on more Fear and Hate, because I do have morals. Those who we compete with are amoral and are not constrained by any fear in who the oppress.

You may have noticed events in the recent decade where politicians have awaken to the fact that there are no consequences at all if you belong to the right Party.

Reply to  AWG
December 13, 2020 8:44 am

No need to resort to “Fear and Hate” when you can clobber AGW true believers with one irrefutable fact that will elicit an emotional response from them concerning where their sincerely-given donations to the AGW cause end up: in the pockets of their dear AGW leaders who are enriching themselves while actually contributing next to nothing stop AGW.

One of the emotional responses might arise when AGW true believers ask themselves why a particularly influential Greenpeace Director (who might have had a barely six-figure income at the time) left his job with no explanation when he could have continued to do the work they love, and is now revealed to be running a tiny LLC company which nobody knows what it does, while literally millions of dollars have been flowing into that company from dark money sources. Yet this year, for some strange reason, the company seemingly needed a Coronavirus loan …. and still NOBODY knows what the company does.

“Joke: ‘Why did the Greenpeace USA Executive Director cross the Road?’ ” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=9687
“Has the ‘Our Next Economy LLC’ company fallen on hard times?” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=11211

MarkW
Reply to  AWG
December 13, 2020 3:45 pm

Having to choose between heat and food, as many poor people in Britain are already having to do is quite fearful.
Should we not tell the people what lies ahead for them if the climate alarmists win?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 13, 2020 5:53 am

And that’s why I and millions of others have and are moving to Florida and other southern states — because we like global warming. It sure beats global cooling — which surely will someday come.

Gerry, England
December 13, 2020 4:47 am

The vast majority of the population are ignorant and a very large number of them are happy to be ignorant and it is all but impossible to increase their knowledge. They would rather spend 30 minutes watching some reality TV drivel than read a site such as this where they could become better informed. Politicians are like ordinary people only even more ignorant. The only way that lessons can be taught is by experience these days. We will have to progress down the road of destroying lives and jobs in order to save the planet from a non-existent threat before the reality will sink in.

Steve Case
December 13, 2020 5:10 am

Where is the Outrage Over Climate and Energy Policy?

Most polls show that “Climate and Energy Policy” is dead last or close to it on a list of concerns if they address it at all. This link
https://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
covers 137 polls and just 8 of them mention Climate change or environment showing that only 1% to 8% of people regard Climate change as their top issue.

Contrast that with Democrat politicians that say Climate Change is their #1 issue.

Global Warming – Climate Change – The Climate Crisis: They (who’s they?) have changed the name of the issue over the years because it doesn’t resonate with people. You’d think that at least in the Texas Panhandle there would be some outrage over the miles and miles and miles of wind mills. There are thousands of them and at a $Million plus per unit, that’s $Billions of wasted money. I guess people really don’t believe Joe Biden when he says Climate Change is his #1 issue, and he does say that.

Climate believer
Reply to  Steve Case
December 13, 2020 5:52 am

Totally agree, there’s a massive disconnect between what our rulers think we think, and what the majority do actually think.

This disconnect is amplified by the media, who are always rocked to the core when “the prols” don’t react as prescribed, Brexit and Trump being recent examples but there are many.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
December 13, 2020 12:36 pm

Its fun being a politician; there are no tradeoffs in decision making. If you are a Fed, just print more money. At the State level, just force private companies to do what you want. Easy peasy.

Coach Springer
December 13, 2020 5:32 am

So, you’re saying the PLM is the controlling factor. (Reference to Michael Crichton-politico-legal-media complex.) One can certainly see that now.

Nik
December 13, 2020 5:34 am

Similarly, where’s the outrage when a US presidential election is brazenly, colossally, and grotesquely corrupted to allow an obviously mentally diminished, truth-challenged extortionist to become president (and his similarly truth-challenged, I’m-a-racial-discrimination-victim running mate to be in position to succeed), despite videos of ballot fraud (as it occurs), hundreds of affidavits from eye witnesses and participants (from multiple States), statistical analysis, other forensic evidence of ballot fraud and tampering, and of software and hardware tampering of the voting system used by most of the States, yet the agencies (the courts) that are supposed to adjudicate the claims of plaintiffs (including ~ 20 States), refuse to even hear the complaints?

We’re not talking Venezuela-level consequences of this corruption. Given that we’re talking about the US (and the putative-next president’s politics regarding climate, China, and Iran), the consequences of this corruption are very likely to have major global consequences.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nik
December 13, 2020 1:03 pm

Our Republic will survive this latest assault on reason, as it has survived past assaults: The War of 1812 and other external wars, the War Between the States, Woodrow Wilson, Prohibition, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, forced busing, 9/11, Obama and etc. And, always remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that our 2nd Amendment of the Constitution (one of the original 10 Amendments that keeps government out of our individual, pre-Constitutional rights) protects our natural right to self defense and the individual ownership of all types of arms currently in common use by citizens, independent of any State militia. Chew on that, would-be authoritarians.

John piccirilli
December 13, 2020 5:47 am

this isn’t about what the average person thinks. No one gives a crap about climate change. It’s about politicians who are driving this because of one thing..money. check out the donations made to democrats vs Republicans by the called green Movement. Almost 100 % to democrats. Follow the money.

Tim Gorman
December 13, 2020 5:48 am

It doesn’t matter how ignorant the people are. They *will* get slapped in the face when the rolling blackouts affect their lifestyles. Just like Californians are finding out today including such far-left politicians as Gavin Newsome. East coast liberals like AOC haven’t yet had to answer poor constituents freezing to death in 30degF weather. But that will happen if the course of action people like AOC and Biden are advocating for happens.

I am one of the lucky ones. I live in rural America with a 40 acre wooded lot that I can use for truly renewable energy. When the electricity goes out I can fire up the wood stove. My main issue will be protecting against poachers!

The urban poor? They will be clamoring for global warming I guess!

Bro. Steve
December 13, 2020 5:51 am

America and Europe are immersed Challenger Deep in far left propaganda — wall to wall, front to back, floor to ceiling. It runs 24/7/365 on every major media network. Social media barons silence dissent. Politicians yak about it. Government hands over billions to anybody who has an angle on climate change. Corporations, even more than government, are leg-breakers for enforcing the climate scam. And all of it is clothed in sayings of inexorable, creeping doom.

We’re not going to overcome all that simply by being right.

beng135
Reply to  Bro. Steve
December 13, 2020 8:20 am

Getting closer to the time to take up arms, like has unfortunately been required many times in the past.

December 13, 2020 6:22 am

In California, the state with the least reliable electrical power system in the nation, between 2008 and 2017, the Golden State experienced far more individual outages with almost 4,297 individual outages in the ten-year period, more than 2.5 times as many as its closest rival, Texas. The state continues shuttering most of the in-state natural gas and nuclear power plants that have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity, in favor of intermittent electricity from wind and solar while adding EV charging loads onto the grid. Power outages are now commonplace in California with more to follow for the Golden state.

Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 6:29 am

Funny how the irrational Belief in “manmade climate change” so closely mirrors the Belief in “election fraud”. It all comes down to emotion, really. Even though I voted for TraitorTrump (formerly just Trump), I am an Election Realist. TraitorTrump lost, despite all the tantrums and cries of TraitorTrump and his Faithful Followers to the contrary. His post-election antics threaten our democracy and the country itself. This is a fact, no matter what people think of Biden, because Biden too, is dangerous, although in a different way. He too will be a traitor, due to his “climate change” policies.

Aksurveyor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 9:06 am

@Bruce Cobb the Obama Lackey Holdover who still can’t get over Hillary’s loss. Please show where President Trump is a Traitor, when congress could not. President Trump has every right to contest the election as did your Savior Al Gore, or your favorite girl Stacy Abrams who still hasn’t conceded. You are the loser with your “Traitor” rant.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Aksurveyor
December 13, 2020 11:25 am

Aksurveyor, you’re way off base thinking Bruce is an Obama lackey.

Not liking Trump doesn’t automatically make you a lefty.

Though I do agree that Trump is within his rights to contest election results. It’s just too bad the evidence has been very meager.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 10:28 am

I don’t know Bruce. Did you watch any of the hearings in PA, MI, or WI? There was a lot of very compelling testimony coming from people with sworn affidavits. While I doubt Trump will succeed, I think it is vitally important to continue to expose the corruption that clearly exists – particularly in cities like Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, and likely many other dem controlled urban centers. After watching several hours of hearings, and listening to similar testimony of poll watcher intimidation, ballot dumping, repeated counting of the same ballots, etc., it is clear to me that this has been going on for multiple elections and is likely fare more widespread than the media would have you believe. A full forensic audit needs to be done, which will take time and won’t affect this election, but would either provide assurance or reveal real corruption.

MarkW
Reply to  Barnes Moore
December 13, 2020 3:47 pm

One of the justices in the Wisconsin supreme court that recently voted against Trump, declared in open court that Trump’s case was based on racism.
Does anyone expect Trump to get a fair hearing in such a court?

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 3:43 pm

Opposing election fraud threatens the existence of our democracy.

Mark
December 13, 2020 6:57 am

very blustery day today here in the UK and renewables are providing nearly half the UK power supply – @43%. This is as big as I have seen it.

So – a “good” day for renewables.

Another way to say this is to Mrs Smith at No.56….” You can have your lights on for slightly over half the day today, because the other half Mr Jones @ No 78 want to charge his car up.”

The more you can move the debate to what it means to the individual, the more reality will sink in.

Rolf H Carlsson
December 13, 2020 7:08 am

The alarmists are steeling the future from the young, they are thieves of the worst kind. A lot of youngsters today have lost hope because they do not see a good future. Challenge the alarmists buy saying: “think if you are wrong – what will you say to the young who do not believe they have a future?”
Is that emotional enough?

MarkW
December 13, 2020 7:09 am

It’s the same case regarding socialism/communism. The communists give an emotional argument about how government should “care” about people. And the way to do this is to take money from people the communists claim haven’t earned it and don’t need it, so that it can be given to people who just need a little help.

The reality is the communists take money from people who work, keep a little bit for themselves, and use the rest to buy votes from people who don’t want to work.

Every country that has ever tried communism has been ruined by it. Mass poverty and misery. However the number of people who are convinced that this time they will be able to make it work continues to grow.

Gordon A. Dressler
December 13, 2020 7:56 am

Paul Hoffman writes in the above article: “Climate realists, like me, are losing the climate change debate . . . we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions.”

Mr Hoffman, I willing include myself in that “we”, but argue that perhaps you’re perhaps being too heavy with assigning responsibility mostly to us. You should not overlook the fact that there has been, over the last 50 or so years, as widespread and significant “dumbing down” of both critical reasoning skills and the desire to obtain truthful knowledge in so much of the developed world.

The reasons for such are manifold and complex . . . only the end result is clear to me.

The present world is said to be in the “Information Age”, which some assert started in 1971. That is an ironic name given that information is growing at an exponential rate facilitated by widespread use of computers, Web interconnectivity, and widespread availability of relatively cheap energy . . . but we must realize that “information” includes both truthful and untruthful components.

I do believe the growth of readily-available “information”, of both types, has contributed significantly to a decline in critical thinking due to the long-established human trait of “confirmation bias”.

I conclude that it is hard to win the hearts of people when they, themselves, have given up on half their minds.

Fran
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 13, 2020 11:02 am

Spent my whole adult life in universities 1969-2012. All this talk of ‘dumbing down’ fails to recognize how little 100 IQ points get you, and half are dumber than that. The media plays to that level. To the extent that universities have dumbed down has been to cope with an ever increasing segment of the population being admitted, BUT the cream of the crop do still receive a reasonable education, in science at least.

A big part of the problem of getting the point across about the climate scam is that it is hard to explain in simple memorizable bits. And, it is very hard to make natural fluctuations in the climate into an emotional issue. In contrast, predictions of disaster get people by the emotions by their very nature. They are attractive in the same way horror movies are, mostly to the young who have yet to deal with any real disasters/tragedies, and have yet to develop any sense of purpose.

Another problem is that humans trying to make sense of the world are attracted to anything that promotes a feeling of AGENCY and being able to predict cause and effect. The notion that humans control the climate plays to these very deep motivations. It is much more intrinsically attractive than climate changing without us having any control. Perhaps this is why the scam is so attractive to politicians – their whole reason d’etre is control of a city, state or country.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Fran
December 13, 2020 2:55 pm

All good points all, well reasoned!

I will just add that the “cream of the crop”, by all accounts, appears to be an ever-decreasing percentage of the total. 🙁

MarkW
Reply to  Fran
December 13, 2020 3:50 pm

I’ve been saying that the right to vote should be limited to those who are net taxpayers.

Old Woman of the North
Reply to  Fran
December 15, 2020 9:57 am

I just ask people how they think humans can have any control over the sun, earth’s orbit and axial tilt, ocean currents, winds, air pressure or temperature. Most look blank then acknowledge that they cannot. But I guess that they can still ‘believe’. Human hubris is unbounded.

John Bell
December 13, 2020 8:18 am

Until it starts hitting them in the pocket book they will continue to go along with the virtue signalling, as long as they do not have to pay, but methinks that after 4 years of Biden they will be up in arms.

max
December 13, 2020 8:47 am

I believe this is s difficult question. Undoubtedly, the media exerts influence with the tone and topic of coverage, but there’s also a lifetime of “stay calm, nothing to be alarmed about” moments in entertainment that are almost always proven wrong or false. The opportunity to use emotion in such an argument are few and far between. Emotional content is what sets propaganda apart, less intellectual content, more emotional appeals to a far larger audience, especially as the average intelligence of the audience drops (audience gets larger).

markl
December 13, 2020 8:59 am

It’s control of the media stupid. Control the media and you control the peoples’ thoughts. Basic propaganda 101. Newspapers are on their way out being replaced by digital media that blatantly skews, censors, and promote so called social awareness over governance. The chances of reading the Federalist Papers today are nil to none. As fast as we come up with new Conservative outlets they get bought out by the Marxists.

Bill Everett
December 13, 2020 9:11 am

I can’t remember seeing any discussion about the insignificant size of the human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere. If my non-scientist calculations are correct, human CO2 input would have to be increased 625 times what it is currently just to be an inconsequential one percent of the atmosphere. This is the information that must be repeatedly put before the public.

Bill Everett
December 13, 2020 9:20 am

By my non-scientist calculations, the human input of CO2 into the atmosphere would have to be increased 625 times its current level in order to be an inconsequential one percent of the atmosphere. This type of information should be repeatedly placed before the public. I do not recall seeing, even once, any discussion of this type. The constant drumbeat theme should be that the human CO2 contribution is far too small to be significant.

Curious George
December 13, 2020 9:28 am

Aztecs believed that a human had to be sacrificed to the Sun God Huitzilopochtli to make sure that the sun would rise again. And it worked! For centuries! Can you imagine a more scientific proof?

Fran
Reply to  Curious George
December 13, 2020 11:07 am

Good one. There must be suffering and sacrifice to keep the climate safe. Easy to sell and when the world does not burn up, you have your proof.

Kevin kilty
December 13, 2020 9:30 am

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!”

This sentence sort of undoes your argument. At some point facts, i.e. that the efforts are inadequate to the stated task, enter and then emotion has to be left behind. How does one get the Karen’s of our world to put emotion aside for a moment of rational reflection. I have only two examples of my arguments with left-wing people in the past two decades which caused them to reflect for a moment and admit they had not considered all the facts. These were both men.

Old Retired Guy
December 13, 2020 9:40 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2020 9:47 am

Part of the problem is that the costs of Climatism build up slowly and steadily. This is partly endemic, and partly by design. People are less apt to either notice, or care much about costs increasing, as long as they happen relatively slowly. And if they do notice, they blame the wrong people. For example, when electricy rates go up, who do people blame? Why, it’s the greedy power companies, of course! And, if people feel pinched economically more and more, why then it’s “rich people” and “greedy corporations” who are to blame, of course. They don’t see the Green Filth with their hands in the pockets of all, dragging us down, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Mr.
December 13, 2020 9:56 am

The end game for the madness of crowds which in these times is personified by the belief in grid scale renewables can be predicted by Mazlo’s 5 Hierarchy of Needs –
basic life sustaining stuff
shelter & safety
companionship (rumpy- pumpy)
esteem (peer acceptance / groupthink?)
self actualization (artistic pursuits, self indulgences, body art, identity focus)

Developed western populations have largely attained Dr Mazlo’s 4th and 5th levels – so now free to not worry about the basics of life.

But if the madness of renewables is left to fester to the stage where people have to revert to worrying about food, warmth, movement, cleanliness and other basics, they will soon demand and pursue the means of sagsin satisfying these needs so as to once again enjoy the higher levels of the heirarchy.
It will run its course but take time.

Kevin A
Reply to  Mr.
December 13, 2020 10:25 am

@Mr. “It will run its course but take time.” Unfortunately by then the socialist will be in control, will have removed all traces of the second amendment and setup internment reeducation camps.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kevin A
December 13, 2020 1:13 pm

It would take an armed conflict to overturn our Constitution.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 13, 2020 3:56 pm

It would only take a couple of liberal justices to render the written document completely meaningless.
First they declare that the 2nd amendment only applies to people in the national guard.
Second, they declare that Freedom of Speech doesn’t cover hate speech, and the government gets to decide what is hate speeh.
Third, they declare that freedom of association doesn’t apply to hate groups, and any group that opposes the government is a hate group.

The constitution is a pretty weak reed to place all of our faith in. It can be gotten rid of quite easily, and with thunderous applause from those who believe that more government is the answer to every problem

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2020 6:20 pm

Like I said: “It would take an armed conflict to overturn our Constitution.” There are more guns than there are people in the U.S.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2020 6:20 pm

Like I said: “It would take an armed conflict to overturn our Constitution.” There are more guns than there are people in the U.S.

leitmotif
December 13, 2020 10:35 am

Sky News Australia allows climate sceptics to air their views on television. MPs are often seen in the Australian parliament speaking out about bogus climate change claims.

Do Australian governmental climate change policies differ that much from those nations who suppress dissenting voices?

yarpos
December 13, 2020 12:15 pm

Pocketbook nah, surely no price is too high to save the planet. Also , if it saves just one kiddie……

The only thing that will the energy argument is to be smacked in the face by blackouts, especially if they happen or are feared to happen near an election cycle. Although now with the ability to better “manage” elections , at least in the US, that fea goes away also.

Jon Beard
December 13, 2020 12:17 pm

Wind and solar produce power 25% of the time. Even if it were possible to build enough to replace fossil fuel 100% this power would be available only 25% of the time and fossil fuel would be required 75% of the time. There is no way around it.
Wind or solar cost 1100% more to build and require 100% fossil fuel back-up 75% of the time and the power produced costs 300% more. A combined cycle natural gas power plant costs 50% more and cuts emissions 50 to 60% as opposed to the 25% of wind or solar because a combined cycle provides power 100% of the time.
Combined cycle cannot be used as back-up to wind or solar as they cannot ramp up and down to accommodate the wild swings of wind or solar.
Wind or solar systems partnered with single cycle NG produce 25% more carbon emissions, require 25% more use of fossil fuels. Oh, and they kill many hundreds of thousands of birds, hawks, eagles, bats and many endangered species each year.
So if you like 300% higher cost, higher carbon emissions, don’t like birds and want to waste fossil fuels

Vincent
Reply to  Jon Beard
December 14, 2020 1:20 am

[quote]”Wind and solar produce power 25% of the time. Even if it were possible to build enough to replace fossil fuel 100% this power would be available only 25% of the time and fossil fuel would be required 75% of the time. There is no way around it.”[/quote]
————————————————————————
Are you sure about this? Wind and solar might produce power approximately, on average, around 25% of the time, depending on the location. In some locations, perhaps 30% for wind and 20% for solar, and vice versa in other locations. However, if we have wind and solar power in many different locations, separated by distances as much as thousands of kilometres, and all connected with High Voltage Direct Current lines, preferably underground or under sea, then wouldn’t we have a power supply 100% of the time?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Vincent
December 14, 2020 12:05 pm

No. And at what cost?

leitmotif
December 13, 2020 12:22 pm

On topic from James Delingpole at Breitbart.

Delingpole: No, Lying BBC, Britain’s Weather Isn’t Getting Wilder

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/12/delingpole-no-lying-bbc-britains-weather-isnt-getting-wilder/

Dave Fair
December 13, 2020 1:03 pm

Our Republic will survive this latest assault on reason, as it has survived past assaults: The War of 1812 and other external wars, the War Between the States, Woodrow Wilson, Prohibition, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, forced busing, 9/11, Obama and etc. And, always remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that our 2nd Amendment of the Constitution (one of the original 10 Amendments that keeps government out of our individual, pre-Constitutional rights) protects our natural right to self defense and the individual ownership of all types of arms currently in common use by citizens, independent of any State militia. Chew on that, would-be authoritarians.

Mickey Reno
December 13, 2020 1:40 pm

I’m fighting back with ridicule of stupid “science.”

kramer
December 13, 2020 3:27 pm

If a climate tax is implemented and the dividends are given back to us, you can be sure that the poor will get more than they pay. You can also be sure that the bulk of the money the poor gets will be from the middle class.

Seems to me that if we frame a tax and dividend scheme as a way for the rich to keep their money while getting the middle class to pay to help support the poor, this would put the brakes on a tax scheme. Alternatively, if a tax/ton is put on carbon, make is so that the more you make (or more richer you are), the more carbon tax you pay.

Either way, we have to screw the rich on this since it is them who wants to screw us by making us pay to help support the poor.

Some simple graphics would do, for example, a graph of US working age population vs (income and estimated carbon footprint). From there, you could get a picture of how much each income class emits in CO2 (I have seen these CO2 emission vs wealth studies already). You take that emitted CO2 and covert it into the carbon tax ton cost and then you graph this cost over income group. What you’ll see is that the bulk of the revenue would come from the middle class due to the sheer higher numbers of middle class vs rich people. But the rich people would have bigger carbon footprints.

Just frame a carbon tax as a scheme to save the rich money while effing the middle class because this is actually what is happening.

Bill Parsons
December 13, 2020 3:52 pm

Great picture to accompany your article, Paul Hoffman. Since your article advocates creating buy-ins that reach across the emotional and intellectual divide, I’d like to think some of the powerful anti-woke images are being created BY skeptics – smart folks you work with perhaps – rather than the constant repurposing of art and photography from other people’s ad work.

Is there a by-line or attribution for this image?

Bill Parsons
December 13, 2020 4:21 pm

The fact that the Earth is greening under the effects of greater CO2 and warming is sooner or later going to shake the woke world. It undermines alarmism absolutely.

The green crowd cannot argue against what they claim as sacred ground. The efflorescence of chlorophyl-bearing life on the planet is Gaia’s smile. If the pseudo-scientific need something that can easily be seen there are the satellite photos. It is irrefutable science. It will eventually defuse their best emotional arguments. It is actually happening during – and because of – a period of mildly warming climate and rising CO2, and it doesn’t matter which came first. It’s glorious, it is right. It is good.

(End sermon on the mount)

commieBob
December 13, 2020 5:35 pm

Is there a boxer in the house?

Yes, I do realize that the picture is posed.

I have seen pictures of people who were supposed to be boxers with their wrists cocked at an angle. Shouldn’t that result in a broken wrist?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  commieBob
December 13, 2020 7:38 pm

“Is there a boxer in the house?”

I saw a professional boxer last night who has a fight record of 17-0, and he knocked out all 17 of his opponents in the first round. After watching him destroy his opponent last night in two minutes and thirty seconds,knocking him down three times in the process, I can understand why he has that record.

Now the biggest question about him is not will he win the fight, but will he win the fight in the first round.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2020 4:20 am

Btw, the guy that got knocked down three times and eventually knocked out, had never been knocked down in any of his previous fights, until that night.

Ulric Lyons
December 13, 2020 6:33 pm

“Weather patterns are much more attributable to cyclical changes in ocean currents than to climate change.”

Major heatwaves are discretely solar driven, without which they would not occur, and they drive the ocean phases inversely, with positive NAO/AO conditions driving La Nina conditions and AMO cooling. This negative feedback rules out climate tipping points.

A big problem is the weaponisation of the Met Office, who claim that our 2018 UK heatwave was made 30 times more likely by human induced climate heating. It is false attribution such as this which drives the climate impacts myths, which then generate the climate crisis hysteria, to generate the laws and the cash flow. The irony is that many UK folk would welcome the long hot summers that we must now go green to avoid according to the MetO climate projections. It’s not going to happen though as all our heatwaves are discretely solar forced, I have predicted nearly all of them since 2010.

This covers why four out of the five hottest UK summers in the last 50 years happened when they did. The inner bodies order the weekly-monthly scale anomalies:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

Tom Abbott
December 13, 2020 6:43 pm

From the article: “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.”

I heard the Ford Motor Company say in a commercial yesterday that they did not “Deny the Climate”. This was during a promotion for their new line of electric cars.

So is the Ford Motor Company taking a swipe at skeptics of the Human-caused Climate Change narrative, in their commercial? I would say, yes, they are.

To the Ford Motor Company: You can build all those electric vehicles, but can you sell them? You should probably be careful about trying to force products down people’s throats. That’s not good public relations, which is not good for business. You’ll be woke and broke!, if you are not careful.

To all Automobile companies: If you guys are so woke and concerned about CO2, why are you building autombiles with gasoline engines that produce 400 and 500 and 600 and 700 horsepower? Shouldn’t you be buildig little dinky gasoline engines? Oh, that’s right, noone would buy them if you did, would they.

You automobile companies ought to stick to satisfying customers demands rather than trying to force products down their throats. Leave that to the politicians.

I like my gasoline-powered automobile. It’s going to be a big fight trying to take our cars away. I don’t think you can do it. You can propose it, but you can’t do it because people in the United States won’t stand for it. Watch and see.

commieBob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2020 7:57 pm

Yep. It’s an example of get woke go broke.

With regard to the linked story … Any time Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) get a comeuppance it fills me with joy.

Bill Everett
December 13, 2020 8:41 pm

Shouldn’t there be a discussion of the ridiculously small size of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. By my figuring it would have to be increased 625 times its current level to be just one percent of the atmosphere. I doubt that the public is aware of this.

Robert Lyman
December 13, 2020 10:17 pm

It would very much help to change the terminology of the discussion. This is not about “GHG emissions”, whatever those are, it is about the effects of significantly increasing the costs of the energy services (i.e. light, heat, air conditioning, mobility, etc.) that people need to support their standard of living and reducing the availability, security of supply and reliability of these services. It is about doing all of this to have zero marginal effect on the global environment. In other words, it is about rejecting a media and elite policy that offers all pain and no gain.

Bill Everett
December 15, 2020 7:35 am

I think that if viewers of the OCO-2 satellite mapping correctly interpret what they are seeing then they will reach a conclusion that global CO2 increase is because of the increased vegetation (primarily broadleaf) and not human activity. This will mean that a bevy of “scientists”, politicians, media reporters and entertainers will have had the argument exactly backwards. The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Global warming is the cause of the rising level of atmospheric CO2.

%d bloggers like this: