Claim: Republicans Need to See Evidence of Climate Change Harms

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to climate research, Democrats are more likely to accept assurances from people who claim to be experts. Republicans don’t trust claims of expertise, they want to see the evidence.

How to talk about climate change: Highlight harms — not benefits — to alter behaviour

Eugene Y. Chan, Toronto Metropolitan University
Published: July 11, 2022 11.31am EDT

In a recent paper I co-authored with Jack Lin, a student at the California State University Northridge, we found that stressing the “seriousness” or “importance” of climate change could lead to counterintuitive results.

We recruited randomly selected 762 Americans and had them read a passage outlining the effects of climate change. But, in the passage given to half of the participants, we added words such as “serious” and “grave” to stress the importance of the harmful effects of climate change. 

We then asked the participants how likely they were to engage in various sustainable behaviours such as eating locally grown foods, taking public transportation and using less water.

You would think that saying that climate change is serious would promote more sustainable behavioural intentions. Instead, we found that using “serious” and other similar adjectives lowered behavioural intentions to make sustainable efforts. This effect was especially pronounced among participants who identified supporting the Republican Party.

Word choice can trigger your sense of free will

How could these results be explained? Well, Republican supporters generally are higher on “psychological reactance.” Meaning they are typically more averse to restrictions on their individual freedoms and sense of free will. Therefore, to say that climate change effects are “serious” are seen by these individuals as an attempt to influence their perceived views of climate change. Conservatives in other parts of the world also tend to score higher on psychological reactance.

Whether one is conservative or liberal, research has found that highlighting losses is better at promoting behaviours than highlighting gains. For example, indicating the harms to humans, animals and the environment from not acting is more effective than indicating the benefits from acting. Other research has also found that using pie charts to communicate statistics and figures is better at promoting comprehension than writing those figures down in text form.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/amp/how-to-talk-about-climate-change-highlight-harms-not-benefits-to-alter-behaviour-185356

The abstract of the study;

Published: 

Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?

Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin 

Climatic Change volume 172, Article number: 17 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

The divide in how people with different political views act upon climate change is evident, with conservatives generally less likely to take action to limit the effects of climate change. Typical communications aimed at conveying the importance of climate change and its effects on both the environment and human well-being typically stress the “seriousness” of such effects. In the current examination, we posit that using such adjectives can actually exacerbate the left–right divide. This is likely because, we propose, conservatives are higher on psychological reactance, and so they see communications conveying the “gravity” of climate change to be a limitation of their free will, thus producing the opposite behaviors of what such communications intend. We find support for our hypothesis in two studies with Americans with both dispositional as well as situational psychological reactance measures. Our results offer novel policy implications regarding by suggesting how a typical communication tactic could actually hamper the very aims of such communications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03372-5

Of course, the problem with having to present evidence of harm is that other people can present counter evidence.

For example, claims of climate harm look very shaky in the context of NASA’s evidence the world is greening. To date, adding CO2 to the atmosphere has been beneficial, and has increased plant growth rates across the entire planet.

What about possible future global warming?

The evidence from much warmer periods in the past demonstrates that primates and other mammals thrive in very warm conditions. Our primate ancestors thrived and spread across the planet during the Eocene Thermal Maximum, one of the warmest periods in the paleo record – a period which may have been as much as 14F (8C) warmer than today. Primates thrived during past periods of extreme global warming. If our small brained monkey ancestors figured out how to thrive during past periods of extreme global warming, I’m pretty confident big brained Humans could figure it out.

The evidence of current global greening, and the evidence of past abundance during warm periods, is quite a mountain to climb, for those who wish to persuade evidence based decision makers that a mere 1.5-2C of warming is a climate crisis.

5 31 votes
Article Rating
325 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 6:08 pm

We are coming out of the Little Ice Age, so warming is generally a good thing, as the LIA was war, famine, and plague.
What got me into taking climate change advocacy seriously was the 2000 attempt to use Mann’s hockey stick theme to deny that the LIA ever existed, and that any variability was human caused.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 6:46 pm

We still haven’t returned to the temperature level that the world enjoyed prior to the Little Ice Age.

Truthbknown
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2022 8:55 pm

The 40 years worth of laughable, ridiculous predictions of NYC being under water and islands sinking and glaciers melting and polar bears going extinct… Its s complete joke when you look at the history of “climate science”…

Dennis
Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2022 10:07 pm

Is that why ice is still melting?

/sarc.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 8:21 am

Another sadly and typically false MarkW claim. But what else is new.

Pages 2k temperature record attached.

Pages 2k 2019 Fig 1a.JPG
paul courtney
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 8:33 am

Mr. C: You expect to debunk Mr. W. with a debunked graph? Not surprised you have false info at your fingertip, but doesn’t it make your hand smell bad?

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 8:46 am

The so called Hockey Stick has been debunked so many times that only someone who works hard at maintaining their ignorance wouldn’t know it.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 10:14 am

More tired old parrotings from paul and MarkW of the totally false skeptical talking point that this graph has been “debunked”.

Of course this is total nonsense. This graph has been corroborated over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by a multitude of various research teams, from various scientific disciplines, from nations all over the world.

Pretending otherwise is nothing but hiding your head in the sand.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:27 pm

And yet more evasions from the master of them.
5 or 6 replications using the same faulty data and disproven methods by acolytes of the original author only counts as proof in climate science.

Why not deal with the arguments against, rather than just whining about how evil it is that people keep proving you wrong?

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 2:03 pm

MarkW, as usual, ignores the fact that multiple thorough reviews of what he claims are “faulty data and disproven methods” found that while some data and methods were not the best choices, the overall research conclusions were still valid.

MarkW also ignores all the other replications that used all different kinds of datasets and a variety of different techniques, and also found the same results as the studies that used the so-called “faulty data and disproven methods”.

MarkW then has the temerity to pretend that all of his willful ignorance of these realities somehow constitutes (oh please) “proving you wrong”.

And “skeptics” like MarkW still wonder why they are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community?

Unbelievable.

John Larson
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 3:14 pm

These days, it seems to me that “the scientific community” is dominated by people who don’t question the proclamations of favored sub-“communities” (publicly anyway). My suspicion is they don’t like being “cancelled” anymore than mere humans do ; )

MGC
Reply to  John Larson
July 15, 2022 5:15 am

John, they don’t “question the proclamations” because there is no scientifically valid reason to do so, just as there is no scientifically valid reason to “question the proclamations” of the heliocentric solar system model or of the theory of evolution.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 9:10 am

The fact that all of the data contradicts them is no reason to doubt their conclusions.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 4:28 pm

As usual, when caught in a lie, MGC goes for an even bigger lie.
A review that misses all the big stuff, can’t be that thorough.
It’s been proven that the “method” used to build the hockey stick, mines for hockey sticks. As long as one of the data sets has a hockey stick shape, the output will always be a hockey stick.
Then there’s the problem of splicing the thermometer record onto the end of a proxy record. A total no-no, but the so called reviewers let it slide.
And no, changing out one record set from several dozen, does not make it new data.

As to science, there is none in climate science, and never has been.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 7:12 pm

[You’re at double your limit. That’s enough for today.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 5:13 am

MarkW once again reveals that he simply ignores any and all information not congruent with his “skeptical” political ideology.

The North Report, an investigation conducted at the behest of congressional “skeptics”, concluded the following:

“It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.”

“the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

Yep, even an inquiry that “skeptics” set in motion found no reason to doubt the “hockey stick” results. And there’s been much, much more corroborating evidence published since then.

And then lastly, to top it all off, MarkW parrots the ridiculously false “skeptical” talking point about the so-called “problem” of “splicing the thermometer record onto the end of a proxy record”, claiming it is a “total no-no”. There is nothing at all fundamentally “wrong” with such a procedure. Just another nothing-but-nonsense so-called “skeptical” excuse for pretending away reality.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 8:49 am

MGC demonstrates that any evidence that doesn’t support his ideology is just rejected.

If you don’t recognize that splicing different types of date with different resolutions is a problem, then there is simply no hope for you.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 2:44 pm

When have you presented data. Screaming that all the experts agree with you is not data.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 1:10 pm

You can’t splice separate data points on to a graph and call it valid science. That is exactly what happened with the bristle cone study with select few trees to create the hockey stick illusion. Talk about cherry picking.

MGC
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 15, 2022 2:45 pm

Such utterly ridiculous nonsense from ‘MarkW’ and “Call me”.

If this tragically flimsy “can’t splice data together” so-called “skeptical” excuse were actually “valid”, then we couldn’t even compare temperatures measured by a mercury thermometer with temperatures measured by a digital thermometer. Nor could we compare pictures captured via film with pictures captured via digital technology.

These examples so clearly demonstrate the pure folly of this entirely laughable “skeptical” excuse for pretending away valid information.

Meab
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 8:55 am

This comes from the maggot who makes the laughable claim that the climate “crisis” is going to simultaneously make fresh water a scarce resource and inundate us with rain.

I call him a maggot because when he sees a pile of manure (debunked climate alarm claims) he shouts “lunch” and dives right in.

MGC
Reply to  Meab
July 14, 2022 10:30 am

Here’s Meab once again so sadly demonstrating Proverbs 26:11 for us. He still pretends to himself that fresh water is “not” becoming scarce in certain regions (like the U.S. Southwest) while, yes, rainfall has increased on average not only over the entire U.S. but globally as well.

So shameful.

Meab
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 12:48 pm

Your’re lying Maggot. The IPCC found a low confidence in increased drought worldwide in their latest analysis report, AR6. Some areas have worsening drought and some have lessening drought. Some areas that were in drought are no longer in drought. You’ve been schooled on the SW drought before, it’s nothing unusual for that area to be in drought.

You know that yet you choose to lie. Why?

MGC
Reply to  Meab
July 14, 2022 1:51 pm

re: “The IPCC found a low confidence in increased drought worldwide”

Typical “skeptical” response: bring up global information that is completely irrelevant to a discussion of drought occurring in specific local regions.

Meab sadly continues to childishly make fun of and tries to pretend away what is so obviously a correct statement:

some particular regions are having more severe drought even as rainfall increases globally.

One wonders what is so difficult for Meab to understand about such an obviously correct statement. Why is that, Meab?

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 4:31 pm

Typical alarmist response. Claim that a change in one area is proof that the whole world is changing. Then when challenged on their idiocy proclaim that they were just talking about one area.

The area you are so concerned about has always had droughts, and over the last 1000 years has had many droughts that were much bigger than the one that has your panties in such a wad. They are called deserts for a reason.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 2:47 pm

“Typical “skeptical” response: bring up global information that is completely irrelevant to a discussion of drought occurring in specific local regions.”

I’m happy to discuss local effects if you’re willing to agree there are no global effects of concern.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:15 pm

Lack of (or excess) rainfall is nature. Lack of water supply is bad governance.
I wish I could remember who I heard that from.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:30 pm

One thing I have noticed with MGC, pretty much all alarmists. They never actually deal with the arguments presented. They just throw out more insults and issue some more made up facts.

As to MGC trying to pretend that there is anything unusual about droughts in the American Southwest, or that world wide rainfall goes both up and down. You just have to consider the source.

BTW, I would love to know how MGC measures rainfall over the oceans.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 6:47 pm

re: “They never actually deal with the arguments presented.”

What a comical reply. MarkW is laughably guilty of the very thing that he pretends others are doing when he says:

“Claim that a change in one area is proof that the whole world is changing. Then when challenged on their idiocy proclaim that they were just talking about one area.”

Such a ridiculously false misrepresentation. The claim was, and has always been, that some particular regions are having more severe drought even as rainfall increases globally.

This is an obviously true statement, yet for some inexplicable reason Meab refuses to accept it.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 8:51 am

I have given you data, over and over again.
You just reject anything that doesn’t fit comfortably within your ideology.

Your demonstrated ignorance about all things scientific is just further evidence of your religion based thinking.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 2:36 pm

A total non-sequitur of a “reply”.

Not unexpected, given that there is no possible rational nor honest rebuttal to the obviously true statement (some particular regions are having more severe drought even as rainfall increases globally) that is the topic of this particular discussion.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 5:35 pm

Speaking of non-sequitor’s, none hold a candle to you.

Your claim that rainfall is increasing worldwide is claim so unsupported by actual data that only someone totally disconnected from science, or even reality could possibly make it.
Name the sensors that are recording this rainfall, all over the planet.

As to fantasies about droughts, if you limit your time line to just the last few decades, yes there are places that are having droughts that are more severe. But so what. The history of the planet is billions of years. For example, we know that the southwest US had much more severe droughts hundreds of years ago, so you desperate belief that the current droughts could only have been caused by CO2 is quaint, ludicrous, but still quaint.

Perhaps when you finish growing up and join the world of adults, you will stop believing in fantasies.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 7:22 pm

Perhaps when MarkW finishes growing up he will stop hiding from reality:

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation
“Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.10 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.”

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 12:49 pm

Even if the world’s sensor network was capable of picking up such a small signal (it isn’t) a big so what? You still haven’t demonstrated that this extremely small change was caused by CO2.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 17, 2022 2:34 pm

Once again data is presented that rips MarkW’s fairy tale beliefs to shreds, but he simply pretends it away.

And then he adds a further “move the goalposts” follow up.

So tragically typical.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:21 pm

Perhaps it MIGHT be caused by the unending paving of America? All the heat generated by the highways and streets sending more heat back into the atmosphere, resulting in more rain? I’m no expert on that, but you get the idea, right?

MGC
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
July 17, 2022 2:28 pm

IAMPCBOB

The part of the world that is warming the fastest is the Arctic. Yeah, it must be all that “unending paving” up there in the Arctic Ocean that is making it warm up so fast.

Moreover, it was predicted … way back in the 19th century … that CO2 emissions would create faster warming in the Arctic than elsewhere.

And yet so-called “skeptics” still want to pretend that CO2 emissions are “not” the cause behind current climate changes.

Unbelievable.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  MarkW
July 17, 2022 1:19 pm

I seriously doubt it, MarkW! This is their ‘new’ religion, Climate Change, and they believe it, even without any proof at all! In fact, they don’t ‘believe’ in proof, nor will they accept any!!

DCE
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 6:22 am

Considering a 300+ year megadrought in the SW wiped out the Anasazi civilization, centuries before we were pouring millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, I’d say droughts are the usual state of affairs in the SW, not an unusual occurrence.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  DCE
July 17, 2022 1:24 pm

Yes, and going forward, there will likely be even MORE megadroughts, and NONE of them will be caused by humans OR excess CO2!

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:12 pm

So what? Some areas have ALWAYS had more, or less, rain, than others! It has ALWAYS been this way! Also, due to climate (the weather?) these areas are always in a state of flux, and ever changing! Areas that were deserts in the past are now green and fruitful, and just the opposite is true as well. Climate change ‘experts’ (a drip under pressure) are loathe to accept or even acknowledge this basic fact! About all they have to peddle is ‘FEAR PORN’, of which we have seen MORE than enough over the past 2 years or so!

MGC
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
July 17, 2022 2:22 pm

The point which you miss, is that these specific, regional changes now being seen were correctly predicted decades ago to occur as a result of CO2 climate change; predicted by climate models that so-called “skeptics” falsely pretend are always “wrong”.

Truthbknown
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2022 8:50 pm

Its not like “science” ever Lied to us before….

Dennis
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 13, 2022 10:08 pm

“The Science”, gotta be The.

Matthew A. Siekierski
Reply to  Dennis
July 14, 2022 3:21 am

Or “Science!™”

Old.George
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 15, 2022 5:31 am

While science doesn’t lie, scientists do from time to time. Especially when they have an agenda or monetary motives.

Real science is not a dictum from on high. Real science is the best math which fits experiment and may be proven to be merely close needing refinement. See Newton’s “Laws” refined by Einstein — who, by the way, defied current consensus.
When 100 current physicists said he was wrong he noted that one would do if they had math that worked better.

Science is the art of proving the current consensus wrong.

DonM
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 14, 2022 9:23 am

” … the 2000 attempt to use Mann’s hockey stick theme to deny that the LIA ever existed ….”

That type of thing, Tom, is what the authors of the subject post should have realized.

Their take-away should have been that exaggerations and lies, when recognized, push people away; the fact that people that are more likely to recognize the exaggerations and lies will group together (as ‘conservatives’), and other people that are emotionally driven will also group together (as democrats) is the key.

The more lies they told the republicans, the less likely they were to go along with what the study managers wanted them to do. Simple as that.

Ron Long
July 13, 2022 6:11 pm

Great, Eric. There we have it. “persons who identified supporting the Republican Party” are more thoughtful, cautious, intelligent, and resistant to Green Crazy Nonsense. They also think Brandon and his script writers have destroyed the US economy.

Editor
Reply to  Ron Long
July 13, 2022 6:21 pm

Ron, I agree with your comment, but I would change the word “think” in your second sentence to understand, making it read, They also understand Brandon and his script writers have destroyed the US economy.

Regards,
Bob

David A
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 10:04 pm

Concerning Biden I agree with the post as…

highlighting losses is better at promoting behaviours than highlighting gains

Because Biden has exactly zero positive gains.

Hasbeen
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 10:15 pm

The fact is that most Democrats would not understand evidence, so must rely on what they are told by their chosen “expert”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Hasbeen
July 14, 2022 3:59 am

More like they would not CONSIDER evidence. They’ve fallen for the propaganda and their minds are now closed.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 17, 2022 1:28 pm

So, we should not confuse them further by offering actual facts!

Reply to  Hasbeen
July 14, 2022 5:58 am

There is no evidence or data for the coming climate crisis.
It exists only in the overactive imaginations of deluded leftists.
Always coming in 10 to 20 years.
For the past 50 years.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 17, 2022 1:28 pm

Oh, it’s been MUCH longer than that, I’m afraid!

Truthbknown
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 13, 2022 8:56 pm

Doesn’t matter, he was NOT elected!

Simon
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 13, 2022 10:20 pm

If he wasn’t elected, how did he get in?

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 1:38 am

Ahh the colluuuusion clown is on the scene. What’s next? Do you have knowledge of Trump’s inner circle?

Russia colluuuusion indeed.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 14, 2022 3:55 am

Do you have knowledge of Trump’s inner circle?”
All over the news. Cipollini announced to the world what a shambles and embarrassment the Whitehouse became during the last days. He and the others tried to convince the crook he had lost. He was having none of it. Meanwhile in a recording before the election just released Bannon says the plan was if Trump loses he will say the election was stolen. That’s it. Game over.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 3:56 am

You still believe colluuuusion. You are a clown indeed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 4:25 am

“He and the others tried to convince the crook he had lost. He was having none of it.”

And with good reason. There was lots of corruption in the 2020 election. Millions of people see it just like Trump does.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 8:35 am

re: “Millions of people see it just like Trump does.”

The easily hoodwinked see it that way. Zero reliable evidence to back any of these utterly ludicrous “stolen election” Trumpian lies.

Craig
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 9:12 am

Zero reliable evidence? Maybe if you never open your eyes.
https://node-1.2000mules.com/

MGC
Reply to  Craig
July 14, 2022 10:36 am

It’s simply amazing what some people want to imagine is “evidence”.

Sorry, Craig, but this is not “evidence”. It’s just more totally made up out of thin air phony baloney nonsense, that you and so many others continue to fall for hook, line, and sinker.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:34 pm

Ohhh, that’s a killer rebuttal if I ever saw one.
Too bad it’s the best MGC is capable of.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  bigoilbob
July 17, 2022 1:31 pm

Sorry Bob, but those are things the Democrats still lack.

Simon
Reply to  Craig
July 14, 2022 1:24 pm

You can drive a truck through the mules movie it has that many holes…

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 2:52 pm

Like your brain. Russia colluuuusion indeed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 15, 2022 4:41 am

Well, you have a right to your opinion, but the 2000 mules video is not the only thing pointing out corruption of the election process in 2020. There are lots of State investigations that show the same thing. Thousands of dead people voting for example.

I don’t imagine I will convince you, though, because you don’t want to be convinced. You have your mind made up already. But that doesn’t change the fact that there was enough corrupted votes to swing the election one way or the other. Those are the facts.

Trump seems to think those corrupted votes all went for Biden. I agree. You don’t have to.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 15, 2022 8:04 pm

Thousands of dead people voting for example.”
Can you provide any credible evidence for this? And you will convince me if there is evidence.But there is only stuff in the shadows.
“Trump seems to think those corrupted votes all went for Biden.”
Well why would you believe it just coz he says it? that make no sense. Where is you truth filter?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 17, 2022 12:50 pm

Every time a state tries to remove the dead and moved voters from it’s rolls, the Democrat party fights against tooth and nail.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 17, 2022 1:34 pm

It seems to me that ANYONE would be suspicious when there were more VOTERS in some districts than there were registered voters! Or, how about those THOUSANDS of mail in ballots that were never signed? There is plenty of evidence of fraud, for anyone who can SEE it!

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:33 pm

It’s hard to see when you refuse to look. The evidence has been presented. However since the evidence doesn’t support what MGC wants to believe, he has to discard it and discredit the source. It’s the only mental skill he has so he has to try and maximize it.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 6:39 pm

Even Trump’s inner circle admitted there was no evidence. Yet the hoodwinked Trumpians still desperately want to believe the Liar-in-Chief’s lies.

Ted
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 5:43 pm

The Arizona audit found over 50,000 ballots that were either duplicate votes that should not have counted or did not meet minimum standards, such as required signature or an address matching that of the voter. But no chance they could swing an election decided by less than 11,000 votes. There likely would have been more evidence had Maricopa County officials not deleted files the day before they were supposed to hand over the machines.

MGC
Reply to  Ted
July 16, 2022 6:57 am

re: “Arizona audit found over 50,000 ballots that were either duplicate votes that should not have counted or did not meet minimum standards”

Another tired parroting of ridiculously false claims from that utterly ludicrous “CyberNinjas” so called “audit”.

No, the Arizona Senate GOP’s ‘audit’ did not find 57,000 questionable ballots
https://www.12news.com/article/news/verify/arizona-audit-57000-ballots-senate-gop/75-a0a98638-f74f-4861-b6e0-e1d53c3eec06

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 9:02 am

Ah, a budding consensus.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 1:23 pm

While that may be true that millions still are convinced there was corruption, the evidence does not support that on any level.

  1. According to Bannon, Trump planned to say it was stolen if he lost, before the election was even held. The recording is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxNoUnxN_cs
  2. All but one of the many court cases were thrown out. Many by Trump appointed judges.
  3. His closest legal advisors who were most informed, told him he lost.
  4. When ask by Pat Cipollone at the infamous meeting, what evidence they (Sydney Powell and Rudi)had for their crazy theories, they admitted they had none. Unbelievably Trump still went with them.
  5. Trumps initial move was to try to subvert the election legally. He wanted to seize the voting machines. When it was pointed out to him he couldn’t do that, he then planned to do it using violence on Jan 6.
  6. It now appears Trump tried to influence a witness by illegally contacting them. Who knows where that will end up.

It is obvious to anyone with any filter for truth that Trumps desire to win “trumped” his sense of decency. He could not admit defeat and so went about developing a plan to con a nation and to also attempt to subvert democracy.

Last edited 29 days ago by Simon
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 15, 2022 4:48 am

Simon has drunk the Democrat Koolaide.

Simon, there’s going to be more investigations beginning in January 2023, that will be controlled by the Republicans, and they will revisit all these charges against Trump, only this time both sides of the story will be heard, and I don’t think you are going to like the outcome because the truth is not on your side as you will see. Assuming you want to see, which is debatable.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 15, 2022 9:13 am

Reminds me of the Jan 6 commission. Yes there are Republicans on it, but Nancy rejected the Republicans that were nominated by Republican leadership, and hand picked a few Republicans who had already agreed to support what ever Nancy wanted them to support.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 16, 2022 6:51 am

re: “rejected the Republicans that were nominated by Republican leadership”

For good reason. We now see evidence that some, perhaps all of those nominees, were directly involved in the planning and orchestration of insurrection themselves.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 12:56 pm

When MGC decides to make stuff up, he goes all out.
So everybody who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and it’s legitimate to ban anyone who doesn’t agree ahead of time as to what the results should be, from the committee.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 17, 2022 2:12 pm

“make stuff up?” Thanks for demonstrating that you don’t have a clue as to what’s going on, MarkW.

One has to be living in a truly delusional dreamworld to imagine that it is OK to put folks on a committee that is investigating insurrection, who may have actually played a part in that insurrection themselves.

[last one for the day-cr]

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  MarkW
July 17, 2022 1:38 pm

Otherwise known as RINO’s. We are quite well aware of them!

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 15, 2022 1:55 pm

Tom
that does seem to be your go to when the facts aren’t in your favour. “In the future there will be an investigation…” Tom, hello… there already is an investigation involved both sides. And involving the people closest to Trump. That investigation is utterly damning for him.
But just for ow, which of my six points are not true?

  1. According to Bannon, Trump planned to say it was stolen if he lost, before the election was even held. The recording is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxNoUnxN_cs
  2. All but one of the many court cases were thrown out. Many by Trump appointed judges.
  3. His closest legal advisors who were most informed, told him he lost (including his much loved daughter).
  4. When ask by Pat Cipollone at the infamous meeting, what evidence they (Sydney Powell and Rudi)had for their crazy theories, they admitted they had none. Unbelievably Trump still went with them.
  5. Trumps initial move was to try to subvert the election legally. He wanted to seize the voting machines. When it was pointed out to him he couldn’t do that, he then planned to do it using violence on Jan 6.
  6. It now appears Trump tried to influence a witness by illegally contacting them. Who knows where that will end up.
MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 15, 2022 2:46 pm

One of these days Simon will get new talking points. Until then he’ll keep pushing the already disproven ones.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 11:15 pm

All the ones I have mentioned i this thread happened pretty much this week. Keep up Mark.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Simon
July 17, 2022 1:40 pm

If you believe that what we are seeing in this ‘investigation’ is a real thing, then you are already too far gone!

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Simon has drunk the Democrat Koolaide.”

I believe the entire Democrat Party has been drinking the Koolaide! For quite a long time, now, in fact.

Scissor
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 4:50 am

When Brandon shit his pants in front of the Pope, guess what? He had shit his pants.

Simon
Reply to  Scissor
July 14, 2022 10:52 pm

Classy comment….

HotScot
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 3:42 am

He managed to “get in” as you correctly term it (not elected) because his son’s laptop was ‘Russian disinformation’ during the election run up and suppressed; before being ‘discovered’ it wasn’t disinformation at all.

And we know that alone would have swung the election in Trump’s favour.

Always assuming the Democrats didn’t work a bit harder at ballot fraud of course, for which there is now sufficient evidence to justify an investigation.

How can a POTUS possibly expect to maintain credibility when, in the face of substantial evidence, he doesn’t actively seek a full and transparent investigation to dispel all doubts that he was fairly elected?

I assume from your comment you voted Democrat and are therefore happy to take responsibility for the border crisis, rampant inflation, cancel culture, engaging in a proxy war in Europe (whilst abandoning troops and equipment in Afghanistan) which has nothing to do with America (other than to run interference for pedo Joe and his pervert son’s business dealings with ‘enemy’ regimes) and hilariously, appointing at least two transsexuals (from a tiny, fringe minority group) sought out as talismen/women/things for the kinky Biden brand and their collective obsession with sex.

Not even in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that even the fringe far left would set out to destroy America using every bizarre technique available.

How can you look back on your party’s zenith of credibility, JFK, and sincerely imagine Biden is good for it?

Abortion may be a sensitive subject but I can think of no other nation where a government deliberately and maliciously uses personal choice over life (amongst other subjects such as skin colour) to divide the country and destroy faith in the highest law of the land.

I’m a Brit, so largely disinterested in internal American politics, but people here are watching, slack jawed, at the utter mess the Democrats have reduced American politics to.

Nor are we Brit’s alone. America is now the international, political laughing stock; as I am reliably informed from the many friends I have overseas.

It would be funny were it not so dangerous.

Simon
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 3:57 am

Yawn. That is nothing more than a rant….

HotScot
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 4:47 am

Are you saying:

  1. Hunters laptop isn’t factual? (not to mention his iCloud account)
  2. There’s no evidence for ballot fraud? (2000Mules, amongst the arrests for ballot fraud)
  3. There isn’t a border crisis?
  4. Inflation isn’t a problem?
  5. Ukraine isn’t a proxy war? (already admitted)
  6. Biden didn’t abandon troops and $80Bn of kit to the Taliban?
  7. That transsexuals in government are selected on merit rather than appearance?
  8. Abortion hasn’t been weaponised by Biden?
  9. The world isn’t laughing at America right now?

Hardly a rant when the receipts are there……..

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 8:53 am

No, what he’s saying is that none of that matters. His side is in power and his supply of free stuff is no longer in danger.

Simon
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 1:37 pm
  1. Hunters laptop isn’t factual? (not to mention his iCloud account). Hunter is totally irrelevant. He is not the president. If his laptop has proof of election fraud then let’s see it.
  2. There’s no evidence for ballot fraud? (2000Mules, amongst the arrests for ballot fraud). The movie is just plain silly. See bigoilbob’s reply above.
  3. There isn’t a border crisis? Maybe but that has been the case for a very long time.
  4. Inflation isn’t a problem? It is all over the world at the moment. But that does not change the fact this election was not stolen.
  5. Ukraine isn’t a proxy war? (already admitted) That’s just silly.
  6. Biden didn’t abandon troops and $80Bn of kit to the Taliban? Afghanistan was a screw up that was a team effort. Trump and Biden got it completely wrong. Mind you, no one has got it right for a very long time so they are not alone.
  7. That transsexuals in government are selected on merit rather than appearance? Look up the word “paranoia.”
  8. Abortion hasn’t been weaponised by Biden? And Trump . You do realise Trump was pro choice till he got in to politics and wanted to court the evangelical right… right?
  9. The world isn’t laughing at America right now? The world is laughing, but it is because they have an ex president who is embarrassing the hell out of them with his now obvious attempts to lie to the nation and behave like a petulant child. Trust me the world had been laughing at the US during the entirety of the Trump presidency. He was a con man clown and it is now more obvious than ever. But Biden is not the answer either. Someone new is needed for sure.
Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 2:53 pm

How are you still conning people on here?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
July 15, 2022 4:54 am

I don’t think he is conning anyone, he is just trying to con people without much success.

HotScot
Reply to  Simon
July 15, 2022 5:54 pm

Wow. Delusional or what?

I’m a Brit. I’m pointing out this as an impartial observer. I don’t care if Biden is an incompetent pedo, that’s America’s problem. We have our own problems in the UK.

Perception is reality.

You left wing creeps are about to crash and burn. If you don’t, the world will follow Sri Lanka.

This isn’t fantasy, it’s fact climate sceptics have been warning you of for 40 years.

It’s now actually happening and you morons are still denying it.

How many more countries will it take to persuade you? Holland is on its way to utter mayhem, Italy’s PM has offered his resignation and of course Boris has now been kicked out of office.

These are all Net Zero, WEF supporters and graduates Schwab boasted about.

Honestly, you people are insane.

Our governments were warned pre WW2 and they ignored sound advice.

You are doing the same now.

Last edited 28 days ago by HotScot
MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 8:51 am

Funny, the same can be said of your every post.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 1:38 pm

Well come on smart guy. How is Trump looking now that the rats are leaving the sinking ship and the truth is coming out? You still sure he is such a good guy?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
July 14, 2022 4:33 pm

As usual, Simon sees what he needs to see.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 5:25 pm

So once again Mark resorts to … well nothing… when he’s got nothing(which is more often than not).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 15, 2022 4:58 am

More Democrat lies and distortions. That’s what you are hanging your hat on, Simon.

They have been accusing Trump of things for five years now, and still haven’t laid a glove on the man. Only in the minds of those who hate Trump and will believe anything bad said about him, like you.

The truth will come out eventually. it’s not what you think it is.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 15, 2022 1:59 pm

More Democrat lies and distortions.” These are not democrat lies Tom. They are statements from Trumps lawyers and team who worked for him in the Whitehouse. You don’t seem to have any comment about those. Have you listened to Pat Cipollone’s comments? Is he lying? Is Cassidy Hutchinson lying. Is Ivanka Trump lying? Is Bill Barr Lying? I’d love to know what you have to say about the statements of these people? How in your mind you dismiss them?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:41 am

You will recognize a tree by its fruit. It is not what people say but what they do that is the scary part. The bankruptcy of a particular ideology reveals itself in the actions of the adherent. However, people who observe closely and think carefully cannot have the wool pulled over their eyes by politicians, activists and climate alarmists.

Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 6:02 am

Your Boris “the hair” Johnson was not worse than Biden, but was pretty bad. If other Conservatives are like him, the UK is in trouble.

HotScot
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 6:55 am

We have the ability to unseat our leaders by parliamentary means other than impeachment.

Boris was elected for one reason only, to deliver Brexit. I don’t believe any serious political observer expected him to outlast that objective, and so it proved.

We have some great Conservative candidates including Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch, both determined NetZero critics, and both wholly against identity and sexual politics.

Sadly, I expect at least one, if not both, to be knocked out of the race in about 20 minutes (today at 3pm).

In which case my choice falls to Liz Truss. She was against Brexit but has been lauded since for her success in doing trade deals across the world.

My recognition of a politicians success is not their dogmatic belief in a political cause (Boris) but their ability to listen to the public and respond to changing politics both internally and globally.

Truss seems to have left the Brexit debate behind. She’s also critical of NetZero and identity/sexual politics and has considerable experience within government.

She’s no Thatcher, but then she doesn’t have the causes Thatcher had to fight for; principally wresting numerous industries from nationalisation and the clutches of the Unions.

Trusses challenges will emerge from geopolitics and the fight against globalism.

Assuming she’s selected to lead the country I think she has the ability to be at least as influential as Thatcher, but without the dogmatism.

The problem is, there are two candidates the bookies have ahead of her. The WEF plant Richi Sunak, and Penny Morduant who, in my opinion, is simply not up to the job.

However, Lis Truss was the last to announce her candidacy. I suspect she spent more time planning her campaign that the rest.

Richard Page
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 1:45 pm

Yeah Suella Braverman is out sadly. I can’t say I share your opinion of Liz Truss and there are still question marks over Penny Mordaunt. However, if it turns into a popularity contest over the weekend with debates and interviews on tv then I think Penny Mordaunt will perform better to a tv audience than many of the others. I quite like Kemi Badenoch as one to watch for the future, even if she doesn’t get much further in this contest.

HOJO
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 10:37 am

Truthful and to the point, enjoyed your commentary

jeffery p
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 14, 2022 11:46 am

We need to look forward, not backward. I don’t have the reference handy, but at least one poll showed Trump as a shoo-in if he would just stop talking about the 2020 election.

Let’s be honest, Trump and his campaign blew it. He failed to properly challenge the illegal changes to state election laws before the election. After the election was too late. No judge was going to throw out thousands of votes that may or may not have been cast by legitimate voters because a state official or bureaucrat invented Covid exceptions to election procedures. Once the votes were accepted, it was a fait accompli. The Trump campaign also ran up against state laws requiring certification of the vote by a certain date.

When I say Trump blew it, I mean he still had a chance even with the legacy media and the social networks collaborating to cover up the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop and other unflattering facts about “Dim Bulb” Joe Biden. There are simply a lot of missed chances and unforced errors on the part of Trump and his campaign.

Nobody can honestly claim 2020 was a fair election. Nobody can honestly claim there was no voter fraud. If you expand beyond the traditional, technical definition of voter fraud, there are too many discrepancies to count. But it’s all water under the bridge.

Trump not only blew his own reelection but he lost the senate, too. We should not forget that. If we focus on the last election instead of issues that matter for the majority of voters, the 2022 election will be lost as well.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jeffery p
July 15, 2022 5:09 am

“But it’s [the stolen 2020 election] all water under the bridge.”

No, it’s not. Unless you want more corrupt elections in the future.

Let’s see what happens in January. That’s when a *real* Republican investigation will begin about the election and about Biden and about corrupt Democrat administrations past and present, and about Hillary Clinton and what she and the Obama-Biden administration put this nation through for five years with their phoney Russia/Trump collusion lies. They used the power of the federal government to attack their poltical opponents which is a crime. And the Democrats are still using the power of the federal government to attack their political opponents.

Now, come January, their political opponents will get to turn the tables on them and root out all the criminality and corruption that has gone on in the last two Democrat administrations.

It’s time for an accounting.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 17, 2022 12:51 pm

He’s a leftist, the only illegitimate election, is one the left doesn’t win.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Ron Long
July 13, 2022 11:41 pm

When Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time…” I don’t think he was talking about his own Republican party.

Reply to  Ron Long
July 14, 2022 5:56 am

I’m a libertarian, since 1973, but did vote for Trump in 2020, because Biden was mentally incompetent, and a radical leftist too (I repeat myself).

I believe Republicans are more likely to consider their actual experience with global warming since 1975, versus the annual predictions of climate doom, and then dismiss the predictions. Leftists dismiss actual experience with global warming and believe predictions of climate doom. Because leftist scientists “say so”.

Never forget that “climate change” (CAGW) is a prediction, not reality.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:07 am

You mean Republicans actually analyze the data, while Dems are all about feelings?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 15, 2022 5:23 am

Some Republicans are rather emotional, too.

Look at how some Republicans buy into the Democrat propaganda about January 6. They don’t want Trump to run again. They want to let the Democrats get away with their theft rather than challenge them on the election results. The mental stress is too much for them. Pathetic. Kowtow to the Leftwing Media. Conform to the leftwing meme. That will keep you safe. For a little while.

If the Leftwing Media promotes it, some Republicans buy it. They still think the Leftwing Media is the “Voice of Authority” for society, so they are prone to go along with whatever they say. This also causes them not to speak up on controversial subjects which might cause the Leftwing Media to come after them, and they don’t want that, so they shut their mouths when they should be speaking up.

It’s psychological warfare and Republicans are losing, particularly where it concerns human-caused climate change. They are afraid to challenge the concept, and go silent as a result, and then allow the Democrats to destroy our nation with their Green New Deal disaster.

Where are our anti-Net Zero Republicans? Which Republican has the guts to speak up and say that human-caused climate change is an unproven proposition? Which Republican even looks at it that way?

We have no Republican champions when it comes to human-caused climate change. Not one of them will come out and say it is unproven, even though it is.

DCE
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 15, 2022 6:27 am

As a Not Retired Engineer, I have to say that you are correct. It’s not about data, not about facts, not about evidence. It’s all about ‘feelz’.

To quote one of my favorite modern day philosophers: “Facts don’t care about feelings.”

jeffery p
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 11:51 am

The handling of Covid shows how one side believes in the opinions of experts regardless of the facts.

Chris Hanley
July 13, 2022 6:25 pm

For example, claims of climate harm look very shaky in the context of NASA’s evidence the world is greening …

True, the greening of the planet can be attributed at least partly to human CO2 emissions based on well established science whereas none of the supposed and well publicized harmful weather events like floods heat waves etc. etc. can be directly and unequivocally attributed to the modest warming since mid-century last, let alone any human influences.

James B.
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 13, 2022 6:34 pm

Statistically significant weather event trends have gone down over the past century.

Human contributions of CO2 are < 4% of total CO2 emissions, so not much human influence, on either side of the cost/benefit analysis ledger.

Dave Fair
Reply to  James B.
July 13, 2022 7:21 pm

CO2 emissions at the margin are the issue. I have seen no evidence that marginal increases in natural emissions are anywhere near Man’s. Arguing that Man’s annual emissions are <4% of nature’s is a loser. Its better to argue that there is little to no proof that the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have affected Earth’s climate.

Hammer the fact that there have been no increasing adverse weather statistics over the past 120 years, at least. Also, that projections of future harm are from thoroughly discredited CliSciFi models that can’t even get the past correctly. Point out the lies and misdirections in UN IPCC and U.S. National Climate Assessment reports.

Truthbknown
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 13, 2022 9:02 pm

So why all the hysterical, phony predictions by “scientists” over the last 30 years. Your “science” has been disproven for decades! You are a believer based solely on brainwashing and blind faith in utter horse schitt that has been debunked hundreds of times!

Last edited 30 days ago by Truthbknown
David A
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 13, 2022 10:07 pm

Reread Dave Fair’s post, slowly. He did not say anything you think he said.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David A
July 14, 2022 4:28 am

Yeah, Dave is on your side of the issue, tbk.

HotScot
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 14, 2022 3:56 am

Using numbers and science to counter the left’s expert manipulation of propaganda will see you lose the debate every, single, time.

90% of the planet (likely more) have no higher education, far less a scientific qualification, so you can recite science and maths to them until you are blue in the face, and all you’ll get in return is a blank stare.

The loony left do what they do best, adopt propaganda as their weapon of choice. Everyone understands propaganda, so the only people science influences is the educated 10% who likely understand what’s going on anyway.

Mind you, pedo Joe has done more in 18 months to hole the green blob below the water line than climate sceptics have managed in 40 years.

Begging and pleading with despotic regimes for Oil and Gas when America is swimming in the stuff has delivered the most enormous slap in the face for the American public.

The mid-terms should be a bloodbath, other than you can be sure the O’Biden regime is plotting, as we speak, to win out once again.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:30 am

“The mid-terms should be a bloodbath, other than you can be sure the O’Biden regime is plotting, as we speak, to win out once again.”

You can bet the Democrats will be plotting to steal the elections. It’s about the only thing they have left.

Freedom-loving people should be paying close attention.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 9:10 am

And the Republicans will figure out a way to lose. The recent Supreme Court decisions will not help the Republicans in November, either.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 14, 2022 1:41 pm

Those people who are going to vote based on overturning RvW would never have voted Republican in the first place. Nor is there any evidence that this decision has motivated large numbers of liberals to vote, who weren’t going to.
As to motivation, a lot of Republicans and conservatives are seeing that the political process can be made to work for them, if they keep working.

DCE
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 15, 2022 6:36 am

Recent polls have shown those recent SCOTUS decisions will play little part in the midterms. People are more concerned with things like inflation, energy costs, and supply issues. If the Democrats hang their hopes on SCOTUS overturning R v W and the Bruen 2nd Amendment decision to win the midterms, they are going to be disappointed.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 12:30 pm

Numbers just turn people off. I’m a numbers freak, to the point where I load NOAA temperature data sets into an Oracle database on my home computer and crunch away. But when I get into it with the wife and oldest son (both degreed, wife in History, son in IT) and start bringing up numbers, they’re both like “There you do with STATISTICS again!” and put their fingers in their ears and make “LALALALALA” sounds.

Well, figuratively.

Very depressing.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 14, 2022 4:09 am

Sorry, but where would you possibly see “evidence” regarding natural CO2 emissions, when said natural emissions are only ESTIMATED, and are not being MEASURED?!

I’m so sick of estimates and assumptions being treated like “data” or “facts.” Ditto for dodgy proxies being g compared with modern instrument measurements as if they are equivalent metrics.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 14, 2022 6:04 am

Nature is still absorbing some of the manmade CO2 emissions. All increases of the CO2 level since about 300pp, have been manmade, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:11 am

Proof of both assertions, please.

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 14, 2022 9:00 am

Man made emissions are also estimated, based on reported production levels of things like oil, gas and coal.
However these estimates are more than enough to account for the increases in CO2 concentrations that have been recorded.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 14, 2022 11:15 am

I keep telling the skeptical world that it is “the only game in town.” You don’t control the narratives that politicians, NGOs, Deep State bureaucrats and Leftist media develop and support on massive scales. You will not win by belaboring the fringes of “The Science.”

Last edited 29 days ago by Dave Fair
RdM
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 14, 2022 5:18 am

Arguing that Man’s annual emissions are <4% of nature’s is a loser.

Its better to argue that there is little to no proof that the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have affected Earth’s climate.

Interesting but just an opinion on diverse opinions.
Why not both? Different strokes for different folks, etc.

Wot about the termites!? ;=})
Humans <4% vs the rest not worth mentioning?
And that 4% only of the ~0.04% CO2 average in air?

Surely either approach might be educative in different audiences?

But you’re right;- no increasing adverse statistics and no proof of CO2 influence on ‘warming’ is a strong argument to show them.

But will, would they take it in, believe it, even if presented in perfect form?

What really will be convincing enough?

Last edited 29 days ago by RdM
Reply to  RdM
July 14, 2022 6:09 am

Although only a rough estimate of +200ppm.
manmade CO2 emissions account for more than 100% of the CO2 level increase from an estimated 280ppm to a measured 420ppm. Therefore, nature must be absorbing a significant percentage of manmade CO2 emissions.

Let me repeat for the science deniers:
All the evidence points to nature as being a net CO2 absorber, not a net CO2 emitter.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:03 am

So how come CO2 hadn’t over time before 1850 reduced down to zero ppm?

Reply to  Mr.
July 14, 2022 10:17 am

Because the oceans never got cold enough to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 11:10 am

So you’re saying the oceans have become colder since 1850?

Where do these guys get their info from then?

comment image

Reply to  Mr.
July 14, 2022 11:59 am

The prior comment was about ocean temperatures BEFORE 1850

Your comment was on ocean temperatures AFTER 1850

Thise are two different subjects.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 12:47 pm

OK, help me understand –
are you saying that, prior to ~ 1850, the oceans used to suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere than was being emitted, because they were colder than they are today.

And in doing that, CO2 was around 270 ppm (and presumably falling, because more CO2 was being absorbed than was being emitted ?)

But you also hold that in present times, the oceans are still sucking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than is being emitted, despite (as claimed) the oceans are now growing somewhat warmer than they were in pre-industrial times?

My conclusion from what (I think) you’re saying then, is that at some juncture in the future, the oceans’ capacity to act as enough of a sink to produce a net CO2 effect will be overwhelmed by the (claimed) inexorable rise of oceanic temperature?

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
July 14, 2022 1:46 pm

In present times, the fact that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing means that the oceans will take up a chunk of that CO2 until the balance between the oceans and atmosphere is re-established. The current uptake has nothing to do with the oceans temperature.

DCE
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 6:49 am

Cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. If you warm cold water it will release some of the CO2 that was absorbed when the water was colder.

MarkW
Reply to  DCE
July 15, 2022 8:56 am

Completely true. However when you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, some of that CO2 will be absorbed by water until a balance is re-established.

Beyond that, the alarmists are only claiming that the oceans have warmed by around 0.003C.

Given how little the oceans have warmed, and given that CO2 levels have gone up by over 50%, I daresay that the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than the are releasing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mr.
July 14, 2022 11:20 am

Data I’ve seen indicate that over geologic time it was headed that way. But, draw your own conclusions.

Last edited 29 days ago by Dave Fair
DCE
Reply to  Mr.
July 15, 2022 6:41 am

If that happened we’d all have died out before 1850, No carbon dioxide, no plants.

MarkW
Reply to  DCE
July 15, 2022 9:22 am

Where did you get the idea that there was no CO2 in the atmosphere prior to 1850?

At the peak of previous glacial period, CO2 levels fell below 200ppm, which is getting dangerously close to 150ppm level at which plants start dying.

BTW, that’s 150ppm at sea level. As you get higher, you need more CO2 to make up for the reduced air density.

Meab
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 9:25 am

Nature is a net CO2 absorber, true, but the future trajectory of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT settled science.

Most of the models used by the IPCC project that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will top out at 600 to 700 ppm in 80 to 100 years – not reaching a doubling from the current 420 ppm. This reflects a slowing down of fossil fuel burning over the next several decades as natural gas and oil becomes harder to find (and more expensive) and a continuation of nature removing CO2.

Other models predict a higher concentration based on the (unlikely) assumption that nature’s ability to remove CO2 will slow down as the oceans become saturated.

Reply to  Meab
July 14, 2022 10:24 am

” the future trajectory of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT settled science.”

Climate science has no proven ability to predict the future climate.

It doesn’t matter which CO2 projection is closest to what will actually happen — all are harmless.

The next +100ppm increase of CO2 will impede Earth’s ability to cool itself less than the last +100ppm. which is an unknown number but was certainly harmless.

Our planet would prosper with 1000ppm.
Greater C3 photosynthesis plant growth would support more animal and human life.

Based on climate trends in the past 50 years. the warmer winter nights (TMIN) in the Arctic would get somewhat warmer, while daytime highs (TMAX) in the tropics would barely change from more CO2 in the troposphere.

Last edited 29 days ago by Richard Greene
Meab
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 12:51 pm

Agree!

G Mawer
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 11:11 am

I have not seen the 200ppm estimate used before. I have seen 200GT used before. Could you have confused the two different terms. If so your argument is based on an error in understanding……as so many do.

Reply to  G Mawer
July 14, 2022 12:19 pm

200GT: You must be kidding?

Estimates vary, but total manmade CO2 emissions are believed to be at least 2000 gigatons since 1850 with an estimated 1000 gigatons remaining in the atmosphere, causing CO2 levels to increase from an estimated 280ppm to a measured 420ppm, or +140ppm

If +1000 gigatons of CO2 emissions
remaining in the atmosphere caused CO2 levels to rise by +140ppm, that means +2000 gigatons of of CO2 emissions were sufficient to have caused a +280ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 (with
no absorption of the added CO2 by nature.)

I round the +280ppm estimate to +200ppm
rather than +300ppm, because the people
who collect the CO2 emissions data are biased and seem likely to exaggerate manmade CO2 emissions.

The conclusion remains the same:
— All CO2 level increases since 1850 are more than accounted for by manmade CO2 emissions.

The right argument is whether those CO2 emissions were bad news or good news. If from burning fossil fuels with modern pollution controls, I say the added CO2 is good news.

MarkW
Reply to  RdM
July 14, 2022 9:01 am

Relying on bad science and bad math is what the other side does. We don’t need to do it as well.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  RdM
July 14, 2022 9:12 am

Blackouts and famine? Increased number of people freezing to death?

DCE
Reply to  RdM
July 15, 2022 6:46 am

Personally, my totally unscientific and emotion-based theory, backed up only by..um..me is this:

All AGW has been caused by land use changes and poor color choices. All that concrete, asphalt, roof shingles and dark colored cars and trucks. It’s all Urban Heat Island Effect! Paint all of the concrete, asphalt, roof shingles, and vehicles white to reflect all of that sunlight and AGW will stop.

See? It’s easy! (Now I have to go out and buy some white paint futures….)

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 14, 2022 9:08 am

Can you provide evidence that it is only the marginal CO2 increases that matter, rather than the total CO2? If so, please do.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 14, 2022 11:25 am

Well, Jim, it would be difficult to assert that constant levels of atmospheric CO2 cause changes in temperature.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 13, 2022 6:48 pm

In addition, for every “extreme” weather event that has been recorded in the last few decades, we can point to even worse weather events that have been recorded over the last several hundred years. Long prior to any increase in CO2 levels.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 4:02 am

The UK MET office, in their desperation to remain credible, are now issuing ‘extreme heat’ warnings for spiralling temperatures that might reach the giddy heights of em…. 32ºC this weekend.

Break out the BBQ’s and paddling pools, however will we survive!!!!!!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:36 am

The central U.S. is into a pretty good heatwave that will continue for weeks. I saw a prediction of 109F in about 10 days in my neck of the woods.

This year’s summer may be an extreme one. We used to get this kind of weather all the time around here when I was a kid, but it got milder over the years, and now we get these extreme summers about every 10 years. The last one was in 2011, and that was a bad one. As bad as I’ve ever seen and I’ve lived here a long time.

The European heatwave is a “walk in the park”. 🙂

The south/central U.S. needs a nice tropical storm to come along about this time.

Last edited 29 days ago by Tom Abbott
HotScot
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 4:52 am

109F for a few weeks is hardly “extreme”.

Africa and India (amongst others) endure that heat regularly, and air conditioning and swimming pools are not nearly as accessible as they are in America.

I don’t consider the weather in Europe a “heatwave”. It’s a spell of welcome, nice weather.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
July 15, 2022 5:33 am

“109F for a few weeks is hardly “extreme”.”

109F for a few weeks would be extreme, but that’s not what I wrote. The 109F prediction was for one day.

The latest prediction is for a temperature of 114F in about 10 days.

Texas is going to experience this hot weather and it is going to be put on the edge of electrical grid blackouts. Yesterday, Tesla advised their car owners in Texas not to charge their cars between the hours of 3pm and 8pm.

And it’s only going to get hotter, and put more pressure on the Texas grid.

Maybe Texas ought to build a few more conventional powerplants and scrap those unreliable windmills that fail at the worst possible times.

Last edited 28 days ago by Tom Abbott
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 9:14 am

And this heatwave will be used by the usual suspects in the run up to the November election.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 15, 2022 5:38 am

No doubt about it.

Meab
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 9:43 am

When I lived in Las Vegas (dry climate) I used to go for walks as long as it was below 106. I could sit in the shade by the pool up to 112 and I’m not particularly heat tolerant. If you don’t have to work outside, you should be able to tolerate 109 at low humidity if you are healthy and have water.

On the other hand, wearing a suit in Washington DC at 90 degrees and 70+% humidity was absolute torture.

DCE
Reply to  Meab
July 15, 2022 7:02 am

But it’s a <i>dry</i> heat! (I hate it when someone uses that phrase.)

Try 106 degrees with a 70% RH. That’s entirely different and darned uncomfortable.

Truthbknown
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 13, 2022 8:59 pm

Utter BS! Is NYC under water yet Dipschitt? That was supposed to happen 10 years ago… NASA is full of crap and has been caught faking data over and over!

David A
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 13, 2022 10:08 pm

Read slowly, react after reading slowly.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  David A
July 14, 2022 9:15 am

React after undertstanding!

MarkW
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 14, 2022 9:06 am

Once again, you are attacking someone who agrees with you.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Truthbknown
July 14, 2022 9:15 am

That is not exactly what Hansen projected. But point well taken – West Side Highway is still nicely above sea level.

Forrest Gardener
July 13, 2022 6:25 pm

This reads as research in how to make people believe what they should be skeptical about.

I’ll wait for the paper on how to make people skeptical about what they believe.

That after all is the basis of all scientific processes.

EastBayLarry
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 13, 2022 9:07 pm

Highlight harms — not benefits — to alter behaviour”
See? Here’s the problem. It was never about changing the climate, it’s about controlling how people feel/think.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  EastBayLarry
July 14, 2022 4:11 am

Yup! All about pushing the agenda.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  EastBayLarry
July 14, 2022 4:52 am

Yes, they are just trying to hone their climate change propaganda.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 9:16 am

They have “… a failure to communicate”.

Fraizer
July 13, 2022 6:43 pm

The short version being that R’s have a more sensitive BS meter.

Terry
July 13, 2022 6:43 pm

In a day and age where the sensible person can’t trust anything he she reads the result of this isn’t surprising.

observa
July 13, 2022 6:47 pm

You’re already deeply skeptical about their climastrology and they use more dooming/crisis words to frighten children and they expect what exactly from rational adults? They get taxpayer funded for this stuff?

Dave Fair
Reply to  observa
July 13, 2022 7:25 pm

They are spouting what the Leftist politicians and Deep State bureaucrats pay them for, with OPM.

Simonsays
July 13, 2022 6:52 pm

Funny how they found adding adjectives like Serious and Grave made people less convinced about the climate change argument. It just shows the more hyperbole and exaggerated statements you make the more people see these claims for what they are, that of a the snake oil salesman.

Old Man Winter
July 13, 2022 6:54 pm

Just desserts!

waswere.jpg
Neville
July 13, 2022 7:11 pm

AGAIN here’s Dr Rosling’s 200 countries over 200 years BBC video and it takes just 5 minutes of your time.
This proves that since the start of the Industrial REV Human life expectancy and Wealth have soared and continues to this day.
And he used 120,000 DATA points to prove his case. Unbelievable but true.

G Mawer
July 13, 2022 7:14 pm

Therefore, to say that climate change effects are “serious” are seen by these individuals as an attempt to influence their perceived views of climate change.

Ya think!!

Dave Fair
Reply to  G Mawer
July 13, 2022 7:44 pm

They are attempting to persuade you (propaganda) not inform you (real science).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 14, 2022 4:56 am

Exactly.

MarkW
Reply to  G Mawer
July 14, 2022 9:11 am

People who think have come to the realization, that the only reason why people place emotionally laden words in a report, is because they are trying to influence the readers emotions.
They also know that if you have to appeal to emotions, it means that you already know that you don’t have the facts to back up your case.

July 13, 2022 7:23 pm

“According to climate research, Democrats are more likely to accept assurances from people who claim to be experts. Republicans don’t trust claims of expertise, they want to see the evidence.”

I think that it’s a case of those who accept fake emotional arguments over logic tend to become Democrats, because when you examine the parties agenda, all of its rationalization arises from shallow emotional appeals, mostly by attacking ego with guilt, shame and fear.

Doonman
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 13, 2022 11:01 pm

The deplorables know who they are. They are all white supremacist racist ethno-european male capitalists who stole everything they have from the poor under privileged downtrodden masses while forcing women to carry their unwanted fetuses to term. In their spare time they rape the earth, spread toxins everywhere and eat meat.

Alcheson
Reply to  Doonman
July 14, 2022 12:17 am

Well you started and ended right…know who they are and eat meat, but everything else….pfft

Derg
Reply to  Doonman
July 14, 2022 1:42 am

Filthy pigs in human clothing.

HotScot
Reply to  Doonman
July 14, 2022 4:17 am

You missed the slavery angle………

HotScot
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 14, 2022 4:16 am

I wonder if it’s more to do with education.

It’s all very well taking a random sample of people, but if there are a disproportionate number of highly educated Republicans (perhaps because they are wealthier and more able to afford it?) Vs. less well educated Democrats (perhaps because they are traditionally blue collar and less able to afford higher education?), then the question of which group is more inclined to reject hysterical claims is distorted.

Perhaps I missed this distinction in the article.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 9:57 am

There is a solid trend with increased education correlating with voting Republican.
However this trend reverses once you hit grad school.

People who go for practical degrees, tend to drop out and get a job as soon as they have their bachelors. On the other hand people who get degrees in things like women’s studies, need advanced degrees if they hope to get a job in their field. (Even then, most end up as baristas or run for congress.)

Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 12:27 pm

I think you only need street smarts to recognize the hypocrisy and lunacy associated with nearly every Democrat talking point and their COVID response has opened many eyes. This is why more and more people in traditional Democrat voting blocks are getting fed up with their party. It’s mostly those Democrats who lack street smarts and think they’re smarter than everyone else who are being emotionally manipulated into ignoring/justifying the evil turn their party has taken. One of the reasons they hate Trump so much is that he used to be one of them, didn’t like the new direction, and abandoned his tribal allegiance.

commieBob
July 13, 2022 7:28 pm

The Democrats need to admit the benefits bestowed on us by fossil fuels.

Some folks imagine there was a wonderful time when humanity lived in harmony with the environment and everyone was eternally happy. In reality, the environment has always been out to get us. My favorite cartoon has the following text:

Something’s just not right – our air is clean, our water is pure,  we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty.

link

A lot of the reason for the short lifespans was infant and child mortality. There was also non-negligible death in child birth. Ask your favorite woke feminist to chew on that for a while.

The average person in the developed world lives better than the kings and emperors of yore. People, especially the Marxist woke, aren’t nearly grateful enough for that unearned privilege. Pigs!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2022 8:16 pm

‘Some folks imagine there was a wonderful time when humanity lived in harmony with the environment and everyone was eternally happy.’

I think that was Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s shtick, which lies at the heart of most socialist and environmental movements.

BobM
Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2022 9:46 pm

“In reality, the environment has always been out to get us.”

Exactly. The Boy Scout motto, “Be Prepared”, is a warning. Mother Nature could care less that a human is around vs. any other critter. I’m guessing most Liberals weren’t into scouting. Too bad, it is eye-opening. Things like a fire, warmth, shelter, food, are not to be taken for granted. They are not due anyone because they exist. They are not “rights”. Liberals seem clueless to the fact that without fossil fuels they would be dead in a couple of months.

H.R.
Reply to  BobM
July 14, 2022 3:09 am

“Liberals seem clueless to the fact that without fossil fuels they would be dead in a couple of months.”


They’re about to find that out in just a few months, BobM.

HotScot
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2022 4:21 am

…..

Primitive-man.jpeg
Neville
July 13, 2022 7:45 pm

BTW here’s another very easy way to prove that fossil fuels are the reason for our health and wealth today.

In 1800 population was 1 billion and life expectancy was below 40 years.

Then by 1927 pop was 2 bn and life exp about 45 yrs.

Then by 1960 pop was 3 bn and life exp about 50 yrs

Then by 1974 pop was 4 bn and life exp about 58.5 yrs.

Then by 1987 pop was 5 bn and life exp about 63.4 yrs.

Then by 1999 pop was 6 bn and life exp about 65.9 yrs.

Then by 2011 pop was 7 bn and life exp about 70 yrs.

Then by 2022 pop was 7.9 bn and life exp about 73 yrs.

When will they WAKE UP?

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy

David A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 13, 2022 10:14 pm

Except the last two years. Unfortunately. The good news is all the negative has zero to do with climate, something humans cannot control, and everything to do with choice.

HOJO
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 11:14 am

But that’s the point they don’t want us to be around anymore and they must stop any kind of fun, cause fun hurts, and hugs kill and we must eat the bugs and hide in our 200ft square apartments waiting for orders

DCE
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 15, 2022 7:11 am

But Eric, they can’t have that! The thought of someone else someplace else living well, if not better than them, fills them with anger…so they have to do something about it!

That’s as good an explanation I can come up with on the spur of the moment.

Ed Hanley
July 13, 2022 8:02 pm

“Psychological reactance” – BS! Conservatives, including some Republicans, are simply more informed on climate issues, and easily recognize a lie. And like everyone else they resent being lied to.

David A
Reply to  Ed Hanley
July 13, 2022 10:15 pm

Yep, no matter how politely they lie, they wont change rational informed folk.

Derg
Reply to  David A
July 14, 2022 1:45 am

But they can rule them 😔

Disputin
Reply to  Derg
July 14, 2022 4:03 am

“But they can rule them”

Temporarily

Derg
Reply to  Disputin
July 14, 2022 7:29 am

I hope….but those people are evil.

HotScot
Reply to  Derg
July 14, 2022 4:23 am

Not very well……..

David A
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:51 am

At some point many folk, especially those with a positive mind frame, will say “This is the hill SOMEBODY will die on”

Farmers are getting close. These yahoo “Blackbeards think by creating chaos, they will step into the mess and exert control. They also think they can control the climate.

HOJO
Reply to  David A
July 14, 2022 11:21 am

Eisenhower said and I quote
Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from a corn field
The pro starvation crowd is very sick and needs to be stopped

Derg
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 7:29 am

💯 %
Agreement

Shoki Kaneda
July 13, 2022 8:08 pm

Those awful Republicans — demanding evidence. They are a threat to dictatorship democracy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
July 14, 2022 4:37 am

You had it right the first time!

Frank S.
July 13, 2022 8:21 pm

So what’s wrong with being circumspect? “Climate Change” a deliberately vague catch phrase, has existed in the literal sense since the Earth formed an atmosphere. The figurative offers those with a penchant for exaggeration and hyperbole every opportunity to fearmonger about degrees, centimeters and time frames. The Earth’s mean temperature has been in a very stable few degrees +/- flux for 12,000 years, and that hasn’t “changed”.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Frank S.
July 13, 2022 9:25 pm

While true, there was another time, over 100K years ago, that was much like the one we are in today. These are called interglacials, because they exist between ice ages. Ice ages exist generally 100K years, interglacials 10-20K years. Thus, it should be clear to everyone what is ultimately in our climate future. Yet there will be trillions of dollars spent fighting what cannot be fought to win, and which will have absolutely, zero, effect.
This interglacial has now lasted over 12K years and can last much longer, or end.

OweninGA
Reply to  John Shotsky
July 14, 2022 4:00 am

Worse still, in trying to suppress the rise in CO2, if successful, they very well could lead to the extinction of most life on Earth. When the next glacial cold period hits and the oceans take in all that CO2 from the atmosphere causing CO2 levels around 100ppm, most plants stop producing and die. Without the plants, the animals die. In the next couple of thousand years, we might want to get the CO2 level closer to 800ppm to assure life after the next glaciation period.

Reply to  OweninGA
July 14, 2022 6:13 am

“Worse still, in trying to suppress the rise in CO2, if successful, they very well could lead to the extinction of most life on Earth.”

Let’s not get carried away.
All the climate conferences and IPCC reports have done absolutely nothing to affect the rise of CO2, which is actually faster than 50 years ago.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 10:01 am

He did say “if successful” and so far they haven’t been.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John Shotsky
July 14, 2022 4:40 am

And if Temps are going UP, that is cause for celebration, not apprehension. The descent into the next ice age, when it occurs, will be something humans won’t be able to do a damn thing about.

You know, just like now.

Jeff L
July 13, 2022 8:31 pm

Appeal to authority – a top logical fallacy.
Apparently the left falls for this fallacy … routinely. The right …. not so much

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff L
July 14, 2022 10:03 am

The left is based on that fallacy.
Socialism is based on a belief that there is a class of people who are so much smarter than the rest of us, that they should be placed in charge of making all the big decisions.

July 13, 2022 8:46 pm

In his farewell speech of 17 January 1961 President Eisenhower warmed:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

RickWill
July 13, 2022 9:24 pm

Conservatives in other parts of the world also tend to score higher on psychological reactance.

Isn’t that the same as saying they have enquiring minds. They simply want solid evidence.

The whole basis of the modern two party political system is adversarial. The alternative is the UN dictatorship.

John Hultquist
July 13, 2022 9:26 pm

” . . . eating locally grown foods …”
Things not grown locally to me:
Avocados.
Bananas,
Cashews, coffee, cocoa
Oranges, lemons
Peaches, Pineapple, Mango
Vanilla, cinnamon
Fish and shellfish
Mushrooms
. . . and many more

Things available locally year-round:

Pine needles

griff
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 14, 2022 12:52 am

Pine needle tea, is I believe a thing.

and mad chefs on UK TV cooking shows are always ‘smoking’ stuff with pine needles. (ugh)

HotScot
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 4:30 am

Evidently pine needle tea counteracts the effects of the spike protein delivered by the clotshots people now regret taking.

I wouldn’t know as I’m unjabbed and remain entirely healthy – whilst I watch formerly entirely healthy, jabbed friends, coming down with conditions they have never experienced before.

Coincidence I guess…….

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:42 am

HotScot
Add Dandelion Leaf Tea to your list of brews.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 6:02 am

Do they not consider their emissions? Do they not realise adding flavour is causing climate change?

HOJO
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 11:25 am

It contains both Suramin and Shikimic acid both are immunity boosters and can be taken to fight the C word

Richard Page
Reply to  HOJO
July 14, 2022 1:57 pm

Cows?

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 1:56 pm

I’m allergic to most forms of conifer needles – pines, leylandii, christmas trees are an absolute no-no.

SAMURAI
July 13, 2022 9:53 pm

The sad thing about the CAGW scam is there is ZERO evidence of any net harm being caused by 1C of beneficial warming recovery enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850…

To the contrary, IPCC’s AR5 Report admits that over the past 100 years, there have no increasing global trends in frequency nor severity of: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, thunderstorms, subtropical storms, tropical storms, and hail..

There is hard evidence that increased CO2 levels have beneficially: increased crop yields by 15%, increased plants’ drought resistance, increased global greening by 20%, reduced crop frost loss, greatly increased arable land area in Northern latitudes, extended growing seasons, allowed earlier planting and later harvests, increase tree lines, lowered exposure deaths, increased tree growth, lowered winter utility costs.etc…

US Leftist political hacks often say US CO2 emissions cause $1.2 Trillion/year in global warming damage…

As the famous line in the Jerry Maguire movie goes,

“SHOW ME DA MONEY!!!”

David A
Reply to  SAMURAI
July 13, 2022 10:18 pm

What year IPCC report admitted that?

SAMURAI
Reply to  David A
July 13, 2022 11:41 pm

David-san:

AR5 was released in 2014.

Steve Case
Reply to  David A
July 13, 2022 11:55 pm

Good catch!
IPCC AR5 Chapter ?? Page ??? Paragraph ??
and a link to the chapter would have been great.

HotScot
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2022 4:32 am

I don’t want to seem mean, but you could read it.

David A
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 4:58 am

I up-voted the comment, and remembered something like that. I think we are yet a decade or three from where they once admitted that the benefits would be overtaken by the harms. The benefits are locked in, and not refuted for the most part, the harms are simply failing to manifest, and any warming effect exponentially declines as CO2 increases.

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 14, 2022 6:15 am

Climate change caused Nut Zero
That will cause net harm.

Dennis
July 13, 2022 10:06 pm

Over the past week I have been north of Coffs Harbour NSW and almost daily at a picturesque beach with ancient rock formations constructed thousands of years ago by local Aborigine tribes, fish traps. As the tide runs out fish are trapped and can be caught by hand or by spearing.

Ocean rising, climate hoax?

Coeur de Lion
July 13, 2022 10:10 pm

Anyone else read Donna Laframboise on the decades of IPCC dishonesties? Devastating. Her second concentrates on the corrupt chairmanship of Dr Rajendra Pachauri the sexually compromised railway engineer.

Dennis
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 13, 2022 10:28 pm

The perfect manager for a gravy train.

Richard Page
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 14, 2022 2:01 pm

Shame that he died before the court case could be heard; that would have been very damaging to the IPCC and ‘the cause.’

Philip CM
July 13, 2022 10:45 pm

The climate has changed, and it seems to be on its way towards another change. Climate changing. It seems to have a history of doing that… regardless of human political affiliations.

I have never found the prospect of a +2C global increase in temperature to be all that fearful. We had in spite of politics a generally secure energy to production system in place and with a few tweaks at the production end could and would meet the new challenge.

That secure energy infrastructure changed with the green agenda. Solar and wind replaced power plants that were going off line, and too few new replacements are being built. Brownouts are commonplace in major cities across the world, where never before. So, I do become very concerned with the prospect of a -2C global decrease in temperature, and I border on anxiety when it comes to the idea that the same grifters of ‘science’ who promoted CAGW alarmism, will do an Olympian backflip and become likewise, the scourge of global cooling.
They will all, the alarmist and true believers, be very quick to forget the energy crisis brought on by the arrogance of the green net zero agenda. Blame Putin all you want. The green agenda is not capable of mastering the challenges of a -2C drop in global temperature any more than it can manage today’s energy demands.
Imagine if back during the 1970’s with the prophecy of a new ice age, if the ‘climate prophets’ then attempted to sell the idea that solar and wind would be the solution to managing that “impending crisis”. Had he been around, Elon Musk would have never gotten Tesla off the ground.

Last edited 30 days ago by Philip CM
Steve Case
Reply to  Philip CM
July 14, 2022 12:05 am

I have never found the prospect of a +2C global increase in temperature to be all that fearful.
__________________________________

Yes, the “Climate Change” scam wants us to believe that a warmer world would be a catastrophe. The claim is false on its face, a colder world is way more likely to be a catastrophic disaster.

David A
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2022 5:04 am

Just think if CO2 had dropped from 280 PPM to 150 PPM, Yikes.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2022 10:07 am

Better than 90% of the last 20,000 years the temperature has been warmer than today. At times as much as 5C to 10C warmer.
Not only did nothing bad happen, the Earth and the humans that live on it, thrived.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 10:33 am

Baloney
Likely warmer from 5000 to 9000 years ago
At least a few degrees C. warmer.
+5 to +10 degrees C. warmer very unlikely.
Climate reconstructions are rough approximations.
Unknown if any other period in the past 20,000 years
was warmer than in the past decade. Probably not.
4,000 years out of 20,000 years is 20%
Your 90% is complete nonsense.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2022 6:45 am

“Unknown if any other period in the past 20,000 years
was warmer than in the past decade. Probably not.”

It was warmer in the U.S. in the Early Twentieth Century than it is today.

comment image

1998 being just as warm as 2016.

And unmodified, regional charts from all over the globe show it was just as warm or warmer in the Early Twentieth Century than it is today.

300 graphs:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.neDvp33z.hWRS8nJ5.dpbs

We have adeqate proof to show the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature chart is a Big Lie, and that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.

It was, in fact, just as warm or warmer, in the recent past, as it is today, using the unmodified instrument temperature record as evidence.

Bob
July 13, 2022 10:50 pm

These green devils are so predictable it takes my breath away. Your message is not reasonable or believable so blame the messenger. Just because you have drunk the kool-aid doesn’t mean we all have.

Roaddog
July 13, 2022 11:22 pm

Two years exposure to Anthony Fauci is sufficient to convince any sane citizen that anyone government designates an “expert” is in fact a charlatan.

Reply to  Roaddog
July 14, 2022 10:34 am

Let’s not ever forget what President gave grouchy Fauci so much TV face time to scaremonger about Covid — Donald Trump.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2022 6:47 am

A stupid accusation.

griff
July 14, 2022 12:51 am

Republicans and evidence: 698 mass shootings in USA in 2021. In the whole of Europe (population over 500 million) approx 10.

Apparently it is people who kill not guns – we have different people in Europe.

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 1:50 am

Exactly, nobody dies in Europe 😉

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2022 4:10 am

F the Ukrainians if they can’t take a joke. We got no dog in that fight,,,,

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 14, 2022 5:15 am

Everybody has a dog in that fight.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 8:45 am

Why? Is your Grannie a Uki?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 15, 2022 6:49 am

Why? You can’t see the reason why?

MarkW
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 14, 2022 10:13 am

They came for the Jews, but I wasn’t a Jew, so I said nothing.
Martin Niemöller

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 6:49 am

Yes, something like that. Gregory thinks he won’t be next.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 4:36 am

Define a mass shooting.

That’s what’s known as part of the evidential process.

Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 6:29 am

Mass shooting = 4 or more people shot
Mass murder = 4 or more people killed

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 10:14 am

There has been a significant increase in mass shootings in Europe over the last few years.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 5:12 am

The “mass shootings” are mostly gang related.

Biden ought to be traveling to Chicago every monday lamenting the shootings and deaths that took place there over the weekend. But we never hear a peep out of Biden over the slaughter in Chicago. Perhaps that’s why the slaughter continues. Democrats control the city of Chicago.

And yes, it is people who kill people. The trigger doesn’t pull itself.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 14, 2022 10:15 am

Gun laws only disarm the law abiding.
Criminals will always have easy access to guns.

Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 6:28 am

Briad definition of mass shootings.
If four people are shot and no one dies,
that’s being called a mass shooting.

The FBI traditional definition for mass murder is a better statistic.
Four or more dead in one incident
A typical year has 100 dead from mass murders.

In 2021 there were about 21,000 gun homicides
Mass murder deaths are less than 1% of total gun homicides.

Leftists frequently combine gun suicides (55%) with gun homicides (45%)
You missed that propaganda Grifter, you’re slipping.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 10:16 am

The former prime minister of Japan was killed with a home made gun.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 12:24 pm

There are also a lot of suicides in Japan, but rarely with guns
Here in the US suicides are almost 55% of gun deaths.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 1:05 pm

Now you can 3D print a gun.

MarkW