By Robert Bradley Jr.
“One-sided argumentation/advocacy in place of intellectual rigor is fraudulent and morally wrong. It speaks to desperation in a dark hour. Your climate courses should be restructured or terminated. At a minimum, a new reading curriculum is needed.”
Lisa Sachs, Director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, and Director of the Columbia Climate School’s Master of Science program in Climate Finance, recently wrote on social media:
Couldn’t be more excited for the official launch of Columbia Climate School‘s new MS in Climate Finance, as I hear from more and more incredible applicants AND practitioners, underscoring the importance, timeliness and breadth of rigorously understanding the intersection of Climate and Finance!!
I responded that climate finance was producing Net Zero for investors, with Sunnova being the most recent example. She deleted the comment and sent me this personal communication:
Rob, I don’t find your comments on my posts very helpful to anyone. If you’d like to discuss at some point, I’m happy to. I connected as a collegial connection but if it’s just to troll my posts, perhaps best not to be connected.
I responded:
Hi Lisa. Did you delete my comment about climate investing resulting in ‘Net Zero’ for investors, with Sunnova being the latest example? The empirical record is clear on this…. But the bigger issue is intellectual diversity and the obvious need for Climate Finance program to have fair presentations on climate science, CO2 science, climate economics, and energy policies. The case against climate alarm and forced energy transformation is strong and politically ascendant. Net Zero (“immoral” to DOE head Chris Wright) is dying for predictable reasons. So my question: does your Masters Program have a professor sympathetic to these views, or can there be public debates on campus on these issues for your students? If not, why not?
No response. I again asked her:
Lisa: I was hoping for a response. Is there not room in Climate Finance for a different perspective on climate alarm and forced energy transformation?
She responded lawyerlike:
Our program is focused on equipping students with the tools to understand risks, impacts, and opportunities in climate finance—this is not a political stance, but a necessary foundation for sound decision-making. There is broad international agreement on the realities of climate change and the transition, which also brings economic and energy benefits, including cost efficiency, stability, and independence. We welcome diverse perspectives, and if you have a rigorous and constructive case to make, I’d be happy to engage.
I answered:
Chris Wright, head of DOE, gave just that to the CERA conference before several thousand yesterday.
There are plenty of very top, qualified people to dispute each and all of your seven assumptions in your statement:
“There is broad international agreement on the realities of climate change and the transition, which also brings economic and energy benefits, including cost efficiency, stability, and independence.”
Is there a professor on campus who can make these arguments? Can a series of debates be held at the Columbia Climate School on the benefits of CO2 enrichment and the fallacies of the ‘energy transition’?
After no answer, I asked:
Any response to my previous communication? Is it your position that there are not two sides to the debates over climate alarm and forced energy transformation?
Again, no answer. To her, there is not debate about fundamental questions, just the ‘obvious’ need for ‘climate investments’ that are ‘sustainable’ (my characterization).
Earlier Exchange
Professor Sachs posted two days earlier:
Well, we’re getting closer and closer to a more coherent and honest conversation on climate finance and net zero… it’s taking time to peel back the layers of confusion, conflation and misrepresentation from the past several years!!
She then outlined five points, all of which assume what is in debate (climate alarm) with false optimism about an area in retreat. (All this from a scholarly professor?)
1. “Net Zero” is a global GHG accounting concept – not one that can be atomized at the entity level. We must systematically reduce emissions across energy, transport, industry and land use, and then permanently remove and store any residual emissions….
2. That is NOT to say that transformations cannot and will not happen – they can, they must, and they will. And individual corporate actors and financial institutions have an important role to play….
3. It’s also categorically true that those who invest in the future will win in the future…. Those who have the ability, the leadership, and the insights to invest in the future will reap the economic and diplomatic rewards; right now, that is unequivocally China….
4. Many important sectors (finance, energy, industry, transport, etc.) are decisively responsive to (and in some ways, dependent on) policy frameworks…. In the US and in the EU, that has led many sectors to invest in ways that gamble with our fate and bet against a sustainable future — because the policy makers are doing the same.
5. But the energy transition is happening and present unprecedented opportunities. Climate impacts are real and present great risks. Leadership is possible. Truth-telling helps. Policies and politics are responsive to powerful voices (for better and worse). Vision is rewarded.
I responded:
Your assumption is that CO2 is a pollutant and worse–and Net Zero is a worthy goal. Maybe just the opposite! Do you allow debate at Columbia Center on this? The students deserve to hear both sides, particularly when the ignored side is winning in business and in politics.
Other critics joined in:
David Brattain: “Banks are lowering targets because NetZero is a loser. Climate Cult is a loser and the US Government is out of the fantasy funding business!”
And an ally of Sachs questioned her faith in China:
Nicole Reynolds: “Coal is still heavily favored in China’s electricity market design and the continued construction of coal plants alongside renewables hardly supports its decarbonization commitments…. Countries always defend their own interests so let’s not pretend that their technology advancements ‘benefit’ the world when China’s actions may very well push us past tipping points.”
Final Comment:
“The more rigorously and honestly we can chart the transition pathways and the challenges (indeed),” Lisa Sachs states, “the more we can help to shape solutions.” This is fair game for those of the opposite view. Look out the window, read the room, Lisa. Your naive view that it is business-as-usual with climate government subsidies and climate bulling is wrong. The failed Podesta-Biden-Harris era is over. It is Trump time, unleashing the best energies as chosen by consumers with taxpayers neutral.
One-sided argumentation/advocacy in place of intellectual rigor is fraudulent and morally wrong. It speaks to desperation in a dark hour. Your climate courses should be restructured or terminated. At a minimum, a new reading curriculum is needed, the subject of tomorrow’s post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Today’s London Times has an oped byJuliet Samuel attacking the UK’s Net Zero quango and revealing in detail the dishonest conflicts of interest in the form of ‘green’ money-making investments held by members of the Climate Change Committee and calling up the evidence for its costs and realism. “.Government and industry are selling snake oil. It’s time to stop buying”.
i think this is a milestone.
There seem to be cracks in the Net Zero dam.
People in the UK are suffering economic pain because of Net Zero policies and they are beginning to wake up to the fact.
The Columbia professor above is a True Believer who does not want her beliefs questioned. I predict she will be teaching a different subject in the not-too-distant future, as Net Zero investing will be dead.
The best thing the professor could teach her students is how to stay away from bad climate investments like windmills and solar. Unfortunately, I don’t think she would recognize a bad climate investment. Not until it goes bankrupt. But that’s too late for the real world.
The only reason the IPCC has made CO2 its miracle mascot is to tie it to fossil fuels which Europe does not have enough of. The woke elites went hog-wild for wind and solar.
But, at about 30% W/S on the grid, various costs increase exponentially.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much output, creates operational difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and increasingly more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years.
.
All three have “achieved” near-zero/real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the elites who live in the poshest places.
Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations are further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, poor, uneducated, inexperienced folks from all over; a chaotic, culture-clashing burden the native populations never voted for.
.
All that W/S money uglified the countryside, killed fisheries and tourism, etc.
But the climate is not any different than 30 years ago, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years.
During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C, only a small fraction of a C can be attributed to CO2, with the rest from deforestation, earth surface changes, urban heat islands, etc.
BTW, the 1850 temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, the 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) are more widespread and more accurate, due to NASA satellites.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-hard-hitting-comments
The woke Euro elites tried to lure the US into going down the wind/solar/battery black hole, and make $billions in the process. That scam did not work out. The European wind industry is in shambles
.
Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures and used on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden as an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, and put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and voided their licenses, to put their environmental impact under proper scrutiny.
.
Europe was using the IPCC-invented, global-warming/climate-change/CO2-is-evil hoax, so the US would also deliver electricity to users at high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is-a-dog-eat-dog-business
.
When will woke Euro elites finally admit, CO2 is a life-creating gas, absolutely essential to grow more flora and fauna, and increase crop yields to feed hungry people?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
Trump has slowed everything down, but Congress needs to pass legislation for it to be semi-permanent. Fixing the Endangermant Finding and limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 will be key.
The NetZero nonsense is only an election away from being reconstituted. The 2026 Congressional election is not far off – keeping control of both the House and Senate will be crucial.
“at about 30% W/S on the grid”
Watts per Sea Urchin?
Tom,
wind and solar are bad investmenst because they cannot do what far too many people think they can, which is a replacement for conventional generation.
Practically and technically wind, solar, wave and tidal are not suited for large scale grid supply.
My view is extreme, but I don’t believe a single watt of renewable generation (Hydro excepted) should be grid connected.
Looks as though antisemitism and pro-Palestine protests aren’t the only problems at Columbia.
The question here in my mind is whether the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment and the Columbia Climate School will get (or are getting) any money from the Fed given Donald Trump’s and Musk’s efforts to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending with DOGE.
If they are getting any fed tax dollars for this climate and sustainable energy garbage now, I will celebrate when Musk cuts it off.
Antisemitism? Are you smoking something?
Even the Atlantic has conceded extensive antisemitism at Columbia.
Communism is antisemitic. Just read ‘Das Kapital’.
Leftists in general are almost universally anti-Semitic.
Written by a…?
And that’s supposed to be proof? Ever hear of self-hatred?
It pays to keep up….
Columbia University’s Anti-Semitism Problem – The Atlantic
You must have missed all the Palestinan/Hamas bullying and persecution of Jewish students.
That’s why Trump cut off Columbia University’s federal tax dollars.
Yes anti-Semitism, and it’s running amok.
In yr defense, it seems a multitude of people are ganging up against you (-45 so far). Given the whole Gaza situation it seems to me a lot of people are super sensitive about this and cannot accept ANY criticism or nuance without shouting:’blasphemy!’
Nothing screams “nuance” more than the rape and murder of hundreds of people attending a music festival.
Sure, we’re super-sensitive. Your friends are trying to kill every Jewish man, woman and child in the world and all you can do is cry about the fact that they won’t simply roll over and die.
Amazing how sensitive anti-Semites are when their sins are pointed out.
No more Sachs of money?
😉
“If they are getting any fed tax dollars for this climate and sustainable energy garbage now, I will celebrate when Musk cuts it off.”
I think Trump has cutoff $400 million in federal tax dollars to Columbia University and I think that is all the federal funds they get, so Columbia is not getting any federal tax dollars now to fund anything, climate or otherwise.
Too bad. They might have to dip into their $29 Billion endowment to survive. How will they ever manage?
Every one of the “Ives” seem to increase the size of their endowment funds every year by more than the amount of the federal grants they rake in. Why the heck should us taxpayers be sending them a dime? It’s not like they don’t charge tuitions that are far beyond the means of 99% of population.
They compete for the top 1 percent of test scores. The bills are paid by everyone else.
The latest news is the Trump administration and Columbia University are about to reach an agreement that will restore Columbia University’s federal funding.
Columbia University has to do certain things to get the money, like prohibit people on campus from hiding their identity with a mask, among other things meant to crack down on anti-semitism.
Go Trump-
Law students at elite Sydney uni asked to perform ‘privilege walk’
Fingers crossed for our Federal election
Why are US tax dollars subsidizing non-US colleges and universities?
That was noted in an article following the one listed.
There is no reasoning with someone like her. She has a self-interested Belief system to protect.
You misunderstand
She has no conviction when it comes to “climate science”
This is merely about money (pardon the pun)
Modern day academics are not scholars. They are businessmen or women. Their job is to wh0re themselves at the highest price
Whether that’s related to their “research” or selling a new “degree” to generate revenue for the university doesn’t matter, as long as the overheads are generous
This Lisa Sachs is a non entity, an overpromoted bimbo, disguised as a professor
Don’t waste your time arguing with her
It is pointless to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
They never know when they have lost.
That old saying seems to apply to this climate bigot.
There’s an old saying about wrestling with pigs. You’ll both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
You understand. 🙂
I find it amusing that every Tom Dick and Harry and Lisa in US universities are termed “professor” when in fact they are plain teachers or what we call lecturers.
I pity students who start their career based on the Climate Scam™.
The climate has always changed and always will. There are many misconceptions based on using weather models with CO2 salad dressing to predict climate change.
Climate change is primarily the study of ice stored on land and whether it is increasing or decreasing. I cannot see how the study of ice on land and finance intersect.
They’ll be flipping burgers soon.
“MS in Climate Finance”
As opposed to a boring old…. MSc in Law and Finance [eg University of Oxford]
“Our program is focused on equipping students with the tools…”
And so is ours…
“Climate change ‘can teach schoolchildren about race’
Global warming and sustainability ‘should form a more central part of school lessons’ says equalities think tank – Daily Telegraph
“The document outlines the need to engage and include young people in both the “design and implementation of climate-related policies” and highlights the importance of equipping children with the knowledge, skills and behaviours to tackle the climate crisis.”
https://www.teachthefuture.uk/blog/uks-2025-nationally-determined-contribution-a-huge-leap-for-climate-education
Behaviours?
“Experts urge government to address climate emergency in national curriculum reforms
Over 150 education and environment experts, led by UCL academics, have signed an open letter to Bridget Phillipson
The letter, published today and led by Professor Nicola Walshe (Pro-Director Education and Executive Director of the UCL Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Education) together with sustainability charity Global Action Plan, urges Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education, to ensure that the new National Curriculum adequately prepares young people for the challenges of tackling the climate emergency.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physical-sciences/news/2025/feb/experts-urge-government-address-climate-emergency-national-curriculum-reforms
As you might have noticed, the science is most definitely settled – and the next cohort of children are about to be wholly fnucked up. I’d say it’s criminal.
Well, it’s easy to see the trajectory: we believe in…X…so we provide our students with the tools to get there. We train OUR students in the way we think they should be trained. We already know the answers so it’s just a matter of posing the questions how to get from A to B.
How can you disagree with that?😄
In the world I come from one would laugh at that
Maybe but it seems it is the way they are actually thinking. No need to doubt, ‘overwhelming evidence’. That is what they chose to believe and you take it from there. And if your funding depends on it, well..
It takes zero effort to believe something you get paid for and offers opportunity. Doubt is a dangerous thing. The cult surrounds itself w groupthink..
Engineering school required a “core curriculum” of liberal arts courses. The strategy for a guaranteed A was write papers that agree with whatever the professor said. Elephants can fly? Sure, mass and surface area scale so that the bigger you make something the higher it flies. Duh.
I’m seeing a lot more climate change skepticism in many venues, so maybe the Net Zero policy dam is breaking, and the children will be spared the climate change brainwashing in the future.
CO2 Reality is Dawning.
For the last generation of teachers, that might be all they learned – do you think they’ll learn new things in their free time?
Thursday funny.
Despite all the bad news on the heat pump front – including his own house – Ed is undeterred.
Miliband Hires Fashion Model to Pose With Heat Pumps in a Castle for Advertising Campaign
The campaign is apparently going to focus on the message: Embrace “heat pump pride” over “heat pump prejudice.”
https://order-order.com/2025/03/20/miliband-hires-fashion-model-to-pose-with-heat-pumps-in-a-castle-for-advertising-campaign/
Are they installing the heat pumps inside the castles? That looks like the exterior unit.
That is my thought, also.
Perhaps they are putting exchangers in each room. That way they only have to run the refrigerant pipes to each room, rather than air ducts.
Commonplace with multi head units. Run refrigerant and condensate drain.
Just a question of ventilation.
I’m sure you all remember that immortal line from “This is Spinal Tap”.
Slight modification “Lick my heat pump”.
In D minor as I recall….
Downton Abbey always seemed so cozy and comfortable. Did they have heat pumps, as well?
Every one of these deluded fools needs extensive education (ironic!) about HOW THINGS ARE MADE.
EVERY ENERGY INPUT in the manufacture and material production (not to mention NECESSARY backup) to producing worse-than-useless windmills and solar panels comes from COAL, OIL AND GAS.
And since none of it lasts very long, it requires CONTINUED manufacturing.
Under Biden’s Eco-Nazi regime, American CO2 emissions ROSE. That should tell you everything you need to know about their STUPID IDEAS. AND whether they are worthy of “investment.”
It could be that she’s just a Nepo-Baby:
Q. “Is Lisa Sachs related to Jeffrey Sachs?”
A. “Lisa Ehrlich Sachs, a daughter of Dr. Sonia Ehrlich Sachs and Jeffrey D.”
May 30, 2009
Lisa Sachs, Matthew Beck – The New York Times
That’s how the Celebocracy works.
Yes, Strativarius, that’s true regarding ‘celeb-ocracy’ and of corrupt-ocracy in general.
But my point in asking whether “… she’s just a Nepo-Baby” is that one shouldn’t assume that she is actually in charge of that program, rather that she could be merely an agent (a ‘front’) for her immensely influential father. (Other commenters here at WUWT seem to have arrived at the same point, in their own way.)
Curious, I skipped ahead to Bradley’s sequel post (not yet up at WUWT) for his concluding “Comment: This all sounds reasonable, but … speed to the wrong destination is not a virtue … Path dependency and “the tyranny of the status quo” in climate research and understanding can ruin a student’s time and subsequent career path. Lisa Sachs repeated refusal to address intellectual diversity and the need for balanced debate on open climate questions speak for themselves. It is climate propaganda at Columbia U.” [Bold font added]
On another day, one could lay out the tragic story of the decades-long rise & fall of J D Sachs (& family).
Briefly, the tragedy appears to dovetail neatly with the sacrifice (over the past ~ 4 decades) of the noble goal of development economics (alleviation of desperate poverty) on the altar of the false god of ‘sustainability’, an atrocity identified by Mikko Paunio as follows:
“[Because] H[ygiene] needs water in quantity (around 200-250 litres per day per person) and electricity provisions to communities to pump clean water in and wastewater out from households. … [thus] countries would need investments in coal fired power plants, … to support municipal water supply and sewer systems, and to diminish now rapid deforestation.” Q.E.D.
“the sacrifice (over the past ~ 4 decades) of the noble goal of development economics (alleviation of desperate poverty)”
That’s the impression I got from reading the J Sachs book I mentioned a few moments ago. It wasn’t necessarily BS, the guy (or his ghost writer? I don’t know) seemed to actually care. Don’t run out to buy it, but if you see a copy at the free library or a thrift shop for a buck, it’s better than yet another procedural crime novel.
Thanks, KevinM, I’ll have to check it out. What about this one — The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty (2013) ?
P.S. by ‘the tragic fall’ (in the greek sense / heroic) referred to above, I meant his Columbia phase (from 2002, the shift from developmental to global ‘sustainability’ missions), whereas this book ‘End of Poverty’ would appear to be from the Harvard phase (before 2002).
The second mission may have nullified the first, by kicking away the ‘energy ladder’ (Paunio hypothesis relating hygienics to industrialization / electrification) that all developed countries had climbed.
Well, listening to Jeffrey’s (quite amazing) speech in the EU parliament against the warmongers, NATO aggression etc. he mentioned he’d rather see that money and effort going into ‘sustainable goals’. I found that a bit odd and after some digging i found out he is a boardmember of several ‘sustainable’ organisations..
including the Earth institute and
Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University.
>>Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development. He is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including debt crises, hyperinflations, the transition from central planning to market economies, the control of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, the escape from extreme poverty, and…>>>>>
‘ the battle against human-induced climate change.’
Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he holds the rank of University Professor, the university’s highest academic rank. Sachs held the position of Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University from 2002 to 2016. He is President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development, and an SDG Advocate for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and António Guterres (2017-18).
Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers: The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011). Other books include To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace (2013), The Age of Sustainable Development (2015), Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair & Sustainable (2017), A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2018), and most recently, The Ages of Globalization: Geography, Technology, and Institutions (2020).
Sachs was the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership. He was twice named among Time magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders and has received 32 honorary doctorate degrees. The New York Times called Sachs “probably the most important economist in the world,” and Time magazine called Sachs “the world’s best-known economist.” A survey by The Economist ranked Sachs as among the three most influential living economists.
Prior to joining Columbia, Sachs spent over twenty years as a professor at Harvard University, most recently as the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade. A native of Detroit, Michigan, Sachs received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard.
Publications
Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
Jeffrey D. Sachs Guido Schmidt-Traub Mariana Mazzucato Dirk Messner Nebojsa Nakicenovic Johan Rockström
Jeffrey D. Sachs
Jeffrey D. Sachs
University Professor; Director, Center for Sustainable Development in the Earth Institute
My Contact Info
Interchurch Building, Suite 1040
475 Riverside Drive
New York NY 10115, United States
+1 212 870 2762
sachs@columbia.edu
http://www.jeffsachs.org
LinkedIn
Mailing Address
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1040 · New York, NY 10115
Delivery Address
61 Claremont Avenue, Suite 1040, Suite · New York, NY 10026
Facebook Twitter
Columbia University
©2025 Columbia University Accessibility Nondiscrimination Careers Built using Columbia Sites
You can also see why the Greens who have joined the war party would not want him or his EU speech highlighted, even though he has high Green credentials ( and is a nice man) and he is on their side. You obviously cannot combine the Green Ideology with the war mongering although they try their best to do exactly that. Just by borrowing even more funds..
And i should add that ‘sustainable goals’ UN style meant fighting poverty, hunger, diseases etc. Those funds are now moved to ‘fighting climate change’. That is actually my biggest gripe..
“You obviously cannot combine the Green ideology with the war mongering…”
Whaaaat? It’s like oil and water; you just have to shake the cruet a little harder, and, “Voila!;” salad dressing!
The leaders of the WarWhores and GangGreen obviously have much in common; they’ll say and do ANYTHING for the right money, and their followers are a bunch of mindlessly programmed twits! Just look at how easy it was to get them to go from the buying to the burning of Teslas! Who thinks witch hunts aren’t possible!?
Ok, let me restate that. The old greens were pro environment, anti polution, anti nuclear and often, if they came from the left anti war/NATO.
The Peace movement got widespread backing. To see them now riding the War horse makes me sick. The hawks always were pro aggression, US hegemony, pro industry, against interfering workers rights. Some went Green seeing an opportunity, not a strong conviction as witnessed by them pulling out of the Green Agenda the moment the tide turns.
That used to be the standard clash of ideas.
But mind viruses have entered and have taken over people’s brains, bodysnatchers style.
Lots of -1s for bn, but not from me. I hear what is trying to be said. I’d add it’s also refreshing to see that the components of world ideologies can shift without war… another point in favor of Western democracy. I hope we don’t break it.
Appreciated.🙂
Re “the components of world ideologies can shift without war… another point in favor of Western democracy”
Very well said, but it does remind me of an aphorism (or two):
In other words, blessed are those whose ancestors risked it all to arrive on the shores of what became these U.S. of A.!
I think am’s two groups are competing for the same dollars – of which there were plenty in recent history but might become more scarce for a few years.
Thanks. I looked, but did not find that info.
Jeffrey D. is, or was, the writer for Scientific American who was the primary reason I did not resubscribe about 10+ years ago.
Thanks. I thought the same but did not Google because I did not want to “be that way”. J Sachs book on the end of poverty was well written, refreshingly non-doomy, and IIRC after 10 years it was not climate-centric. I finished thinking “here’s an obvious liberal who wrote smart and practical words”. A shame his daughter seems less thoughtful.
Thanks, KevinM, for this sensitive comment / reply. I admit to feeling a bit guilty re that ‘expediency’
— a search with that personal-info question: “Is Lisa Sachs related to Jeffrey Sachs?” —
based only on the family-name coincidence plus common affiliation (Columbia Univ.) and intersection of finance / economics with so-called ‘climate-science’.
Only after posting did I notice under “Related” the links to (3) past WUWT articles showing the ‘bad blood’ between J. D. Sachs / Columbia Earth vs. the Heartland Institute, dating back to this one by Anthony Watts:
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/the-most-slimy-essay-ever-from-the-guardian-and-columbia-university/ —
which shows that Watts and maybe even Rob Bradley probably knew the familial aspect (father-daughter) quite well but didn’t think it was necessary / appropriate to spell it out.
I’ve never read the elder Sachs’ famous books (‘End of Poverty’) but have been amazed / saddened over the past quarter-century to see all too many of his party-line attacks on dissenters from orthodoxy.
So, just to be clear, I have no personal animus re Sachs & his Family, not even re Hansen / GISS, all of whom seem to have made some valuable contributions within their specialities — I wish them all the best! — but rather would attribute their more public failings to the evil consequences of accepting sponsor$hip from nefarious sources.
My best to you all, — RLW
[Disclosure: As best as I can recall, from our youthful years (we were all younger in the 1980s), I never actually met JDS, but was close to a few colleagues who knew him well as a rising development economist of great talent and ambition. I was on always on the math / physical science side rather than on the econ / public policy front.]
Lisa is in the running for a big surprise.
As are her students. 🙂
Does anyone believe she really believes what she purports to believe?
Hard to tell. The left has developed the ability to believe whatever they need to believe, in order to stay in good graces with the party.
This center needs to be relocated here
https://religion.columbia.edu
My college professor father-in-law was a proud Columbia PhD graduate who got his degree there on the GI bill, after serving as an aircraft mechanic on a WWII aircraft carrier. He must be turning over in his grave now. He was refined, knowledgeable, loved by his students, and loved hearing and discussing challenges to his views. He would usually win the debate. Columbia, as it is today, is gone, and likely never to return.
“Master of Science program in Climate Finance.”
Modern “science”.
OMG… another do-gooder railing about climate change so she can get a post at Columbia University…. how about let’s debate the “facts” meaning confirmable data based debate about climate… Time to phase out b.s. climate change ranting that is not data based.
An MS in climate finance???
An MA perhaps, but no way an MS. There is no science in climate science.
If you push every student into STEM fields, does not every field become a STEM field?
Climate finance is rent-seeking, guaranteed by government subsidy. Nothing more.
Climate is very rich already, and getting richer.
“Columbia Climate School‘s new MS in Climate Finance”
Presumes some sort of business undergrad?
“For the middle 50% of admitted Columbia University students who chose to submit SAT scores, the range is 1520-1560, with an average of around 1540.”
Oh well.
Lisa Sachs is apparently not yet aware that her scam democrat Dark Money is rightly being dried up by DOGE. LOL
Any program or position with “climate” in the title has a better than 95% chance of being essentially leftist dogma, disconnected from science or reality.
The same is true of adding “social” to a title or position. When both are added, God help us.
Oh Please. Are we busy running an academic democracy circle election for educational policy again?
Good news. This is exactly what is needed. Academics, politicians, wrong headed climate scientists, media personalities all need to be personally challenged publicly. Excellent work Robert.
She is in it for the money and misplaced prestige enough for me to marginalize this whacko.
Here is the ONE QUESTION that the warmers CANNOT answer:
(Written so that sections can be deleted as appropriate for the context)
PLEASE SHOW ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT MAN’S CO2 IS CAUSING SERIOUS GLOBAL WARMING.
Please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
If you cannot do that, you are admitting that what you posted is pure garbage.
If you cannot do that, you are admitting that what you posted is wrong.
—-
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief are not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
—
Examples of opposing evidence include:
1-There is NOTHING UNUSUAL about our climate – The Holocene (Our current inter-glacial) has been both warmer and cooler than now BEFORE man emitted CO2 See:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipcc_says.html
An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures, Philip J. Lloyd, DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417, http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/natural_climate.html
2-Global warming started 200 years BEFORE man started releasing CO2
See: https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
3- CO2 changes FOLLOW, NOT LEAD, temperature changes in the ice core data AND at all other times. See:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
4- NO ONE HAS EVER shown good evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (prove this wrong by posting actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.)
5- Solar cycles are a better fit to climate than CO2, thus negating the claim that the simultaneous rise of temperature and CO2 proves CO2 is causing increased temperature. See: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/CO2_Solar_Corrlations.html
6- Recent warming is at the same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/co2_rate_of_warming.html http://www.debunkingclimate.com/no-rapid-warming.html#no-rapid-warming
7- Most climate records start at the end of the coldest time in 8,000 years, so natural warming is the best explanation for our current warming: “The Little Ice Age (LIA), which lasted from about 1250 to 1860 AD, was likely the coldest period of the last 8000 years.” from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379122001627
8-We have never had accurate whole earth coverage of temperature until satellites in 1979, so it is not possible to make any claims about today’s climate being unusual compared to meaningful