Climate Change

Is the 'Momentum' for Action on Climate Change Unstoppable?

"Acknowledging the uncertainty we are all feeling with regard to the changes in the political situation in the United States."

|

MarrakechBenjaminSibuetDreamstime
Benjamin Sibuet/Dreamstime

Marrakech—Anxiety about where U.S. climate policy is likely to go under the Trump administration is pervasive at the COP22 U.N. climate change conference. As a consequence, the meeting rooms in the tents at the Bab Ighli conference center are packed whenever members of the official U.S. delegation appear in press conferences and panel discussions. Keeping a stiff upper lip, they steadfastly decline to speculate on what incoming officials in the Trump administration might do.

These anxieties were nicely summarized by a question/statement by PR Watch reporter Alex Carlin at a press conference featuring John Pershing, the Obama administration's special envoy on climate change. "Addressing the transition, when the new guys come in and you're in a meeting with those people, we have a new situation that is unprecedented. Their policy is not an adult rational policy based on math or science; it's something else. Dealing with an existential problem for the planet, you have two questions: can you appeal to them on a basic, rational level, in other words, educate them, number one? Can you set up any kind of symposiums where you educate them that two plus two is four and not five?," asked Carlin. "And second, can you demonstrate to them that if they continue with this childish position, we, America, will lose our status, we will become a pariah state; we will be humiliated?" PR Watch is a project of the self-described "nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization" the Center for Media and Democracy.

Noting that he and other Obama administration officials currently in charge of climate change policy don't yet know who is on the Trump transition team, Pershing diplomatically replied, "We will certainly work to convey the importance that we find in this issue to them as they move forward."

The diplomatic tack of refusing to speculate on Trump administration climate policy was also taken by Brian Deese, who is a senior advisor to President Obama on climate, conservation and energy policy during a session on U.S. Climate Action at All Levels on Tuesday. Nevertheless, Deese, like many other participants at COP22, argues that the "momentum" for action on climate change is unstoppable.

Deese pointed out that the U.S. economy grew by 10 percent while carbon dioxide emissions fell by 9 percent since 2008. This is longest stretch in U.S. history in which economic growth has been decoupled from an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. He asserted that the fact that an economy can grow at a healthy rate without increased emissions is an important signal of structural shifts and in markets. Healthy growth rate? Deese discreetly neglected to note that U.S. economic growth under President Obama has been the slowest since World War II. It is worth noting, however, that total energy consumption in the U.S. has been falling which suggests that energy sources are not just decarbonizing but are becoming more efficient too. "The principle takeaway is that the trajectory in which our economy will continue to grow and carbon emissions will continue to fall will be sustained and move forward in the future," declared Deese.

Progressive U.S. States Go Their Own Way on Climate Policy

Deb Markowitz Secretary of Natural Resources for Vermont was next up. She opened with the observation that the meeting hall was packed "probably because of your concerns" about what "he who shall not be named" might do with regard to U.S. climate policy. The Voldemort reference did get a chuckle out of the audience. Her role was to argue that even if the Trump administration backtracked on climate change policies that progressive states like hers would continue to push them forward. It is amazing how ideologically blinkered Markowitz is.

Markowitz started out by claiming that "we've been through this before" when the Bush Administration withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Garbling history, Markowitz also suggested that a Republican Congress had somehow prevented President Obama from moving forward with a comprehensive climate change deal at the Copenhagen conference in 2009. Actually, the Democrats had majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives in 2009.

Secretary Markowitz continued to self-confidently make a series of interesting claims about the success of her "small rural state" in addressing climate change. For example, she said that 1 in 20 jobs in Vermont are now in the solar power industry thanks for tax incentives and regulatory reforms. She didn't mention that electricity costs 50 percent more than the U.S. average in the Green Mountain State. She did praise the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade carbon dioxide auction market to which Vermont and other northeastern states have belonged since 2009 for generating "revenue to put into energy efficiency programs and other greenhouse gas reduction efforts." Or as an April 2016 Congressional Research Service study plainly put it: "The auction proceeds—over $2.4billion to date—have provided a new source of revenue, which has been used to support various policy objectives."

Markowitz, noting the building new coal-fired power plants is not economic, was properly dismissive of Trump's promises to bring back coal jobs. "There are no coal mining jobs if nobody is buying coal," she said. Markowitz failed to mention that while coal-fired generation fell from 21 to 7 percent of the RGGI states' electricity between 2005 and 2015, natural gas generation rose from 25 to 41 percent. Although, Vermont does not have the appropriate geology to obtain natural gas from fracking shale, Markowitz has previously lauded the fact that the state was the first in the nation to ban the practice. By the way, electricity from renewable energy sources among the RGGI states increased from 2.5 to just over 5 percent during that period.

Moderator World Resources Institute Global Energy Director Jennifer Layke asked the panel what words of advice they might offer the international community in the current context. Markowitz jumped in suggesting that there were great co-benefits to be obtained from enacting climate control policies. Such as? "If we changed our agriculture from the chemical-laden mega-farm approach to organic systems that would make a tremendous difference," she asserted. This transition to organic would create sinks in which soils would sequester excess carbon from the atmosphere. On the other hand, organic crop yields are about 25 percent lower than those obtained from conventional farming, which implies plowing up more land to grow food.

Markowitz proudly noted that Vermont is 80 percent forested. She claimed that the state is now "incenting" landowners to manage their forests with climate change in mind. She is apparently clueless about how it is that Vermont's forest cover increased from 63 percent in 1948 to 80 percent today. The U.S. Forest Service reported that the state experienced "a steady increase in forest cover as lands were reforested due to the abandonment of farmland." In fact, the acreage in Vermont's farmland has fallen by more than 75 percent since 1948. Of course, this is because modern farming produces so much more from much less land.

Moderator Layke closed the panel discussion with thanks to President Obama for his leadership on climate change, and ended on a down note by saying that she must "acknowledge the uncertainty we are all feeling with regard to the changes in the political situation in the United States."

Tomorrow: Keeping carbon in the ground.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Humanist Visionaries of Libertarianism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Progressive U.S. States Go Their Own Way on Climate Policy

    You mean… like federalism? What a novel idea!

    1. Unfortunately it’s a one-way ratchet in progressive states. They are all for central control until they have an idea that gives them more power locally. They exercise that until the fed gov atches up and decides to exercise more power…then they cheer that until their next great idea that gives local govt even more control.

    2. Too bad the states run by mob rule rather than little federations of their own.

    3. “Racist Rogue States Move Forward with Plans to Subvert Official Federal Climate Policy”

  2. I saw a rainbow a few weeks ago. I’m not worried. (And yes I have proof.)

    1. If the US went 100 percent renewables that would be a double rainbow. In fact, every rainbow will be a double rainbow!

      1. My daughter was born under a double rainbow. The hospital staff was super impressed.

      2. The biggest problem with the whole “climate change” debacle is dishonesty. Scientists were dishonest with their data, throwing the entire issue into doubt and claiming knowledge and understanding they did not have. Do we have climate change? Almost certainly. Is it getting warmer? Maybe. Sometimes. Is the cause human activity? Maybe. Some of it. How much? Nobody knows. Or at least, lots of people “know” it either is or is not primarily human driven (both at the same time).

        Can we do anything about it? Maybe.
        Should we do anything about it? Maybe.

        One thing that seems clear is that the models are wrong. The whole purpose of a model is to predict system response. But none of the models have done a very good job of that. Algore infamously predicted an ice free Arctic for IIRC, somewhere around two years ago.

        Could be several reasons for climate change: More solar output, more CO2, more volcanic activity. And it’s entirely possible that our little snapshot of time – whether years or centuries – is just misleading.

        1. What do a liberal politician’s predictions have to do with reality? Hypocrisy much?

  3. Alex Carlin: “Derision and condescension was a winning strategy in the 2016 elections, can we ratchet that up a bit and better apply that to in issue that 90% of the American public couldn’t give a shit about?”

    1. The Democrats are right on it. They’re now planning on putting a hardline Muslim in as chair of the DNC. It’s a great plan, I applaud them. They can’t stop, they just can’t. The lulz are barely even starting.

    2. Don’t you realize how stupid you are you little backwards children. Now vote for our candidate next time or we’ll call you racists again and fart in your general direction. ~ blows raspberry. / Progtards

  4. “Is the ‘Momentum’ for Action on Climate Change Unstoppable?”

    Yes, I would say with the enormous power of the UN (hehe), China and India unwilling to do anything at all, unless it’s to get some US taxpayer dollars, and no chance of any type of actual binding agreement being approved by Congress for the next 4 years, it’s unstoppable. /derp

    BTW, TX just discovered the biggest shale oil find, ever. Looks like we’re almost out of oil, again!

    Permian’s Wolfcamp formation

    1. All of them are shitting their pants precisely because if America pulls out of their agreements there won’t be anyone left to pay them all off. They don’t care if America is leading the way on reducing our carbon footprint or not. We could lower our CO2 output to 0% (not really, that’s impossible.) and these bobbleheads would still complain that we aren’t paying them off enough.

      Everyone comes crying to the United States because we have capital and are apparently very gullible. Oddly enough, no one seems interested in taking other countries to account for their massive and pervasive pollution. I’m not talking about just CO2, which in my view doesn’t even count as a pollutant. I’m talking about actual chemical and garbage pollution that many of these nations dump right into their own water table or the ocean itself.

      Places like India, China, and virtually all of South America have very real issues with very real pollution. This imagined kind distracts from those issues and I imagine that’s exactly the way they want it.

      1. Here’s hoping Trump doesn’t send the same groveling sycophants to these affairs that Obama does.

  5. “If we changed our agriculture from the chemical-laden mega-farm approach to organic systems that would make a tremendous difference,” s

    I would make a tremendous difference alright; a whole lot of people would starve to death. These people are evil and ignorant. There is no polite way to put it. Environmentalism is a religious cult that means the world and you real harm. They expect you to suffer and hopefully die for their cause.

    1. Mass graves aren’t going to fill themselves.. it’s going to take conviction.. and pragmatism.

    2. Once they finally implement Malthusian conditions, their Malthusian results will magically appear. So I guess I give them credit for understanding that they don’t live in a world where Malthus’s linear food growth and geometric population growth apply to humans. The fact that creating such conditions condemn 50% or more of the humans currently living on this planet to starvation makes them evil on a scale of the worst monsters in history.

    3. I can’t even recall how many times I’ve read about the econazis saying that the population of earth should be 500 million people. I’m not sure exactly how they plan the mass murder of 7.5 billion humans, but my guess is, these people being leftists, that it’s by any means possible. Evil, certainly.

      Sure, there are plenty of well meaning greenies. They shop at the Wholefoods and buy overpriced, poor quality produce, to put their moral superiority on public display. Which is why I can’t stand to go in there, the proximity to that many smug hipster douchebags is too much.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for locally produced produce and markets. I’ve visited a few local farm markets around here with ‘fresh locally grown’ food, only to find out that it’s just supermarket produce placed in stands outside.

      The entire greenie movement is a joke in one form or other. And their anti-GMO thing is pure lunacy. They freaking love science, right, lol.

      1. The religion has really infested the cooking ‘arts’ too…. I want to watch my cooking shows without the smug, thank you very much.

        1. Jamie fucking Oliver. God that guy is annoying.

          1. Is he the one who came to America to tell us we’re doing it wrong?

            1. Yes. He is the Limey pretty boy who spends his life lecturing Americans how we don’t cook or grow our food properly.

              1. Who doesn’t go to the English for their cooking advice, given the incredible native cuisine of the island?

                1. On the other hand, if you can make English cooking taste good, you’re probably good at cooking.

      2. Scratch a prog, uncover a budding mass-murderer.

    4. Some of them might just be ignorant or evil. But, at this point, their ignorance is either willful, and therefore evil, or the result of profound stupidity. So, it’s more accurate to say that they are either stupid or evil, or both.

    5. The other day I walked by a store window offering organic toys and other crafts. Add ‘organic’ to the long list of words that no longer have any meaning.

    6. Look, mankind is a disease and they are the cure. They are the proper stewards of Earth and after everyone else is dead mankind will live in harmony with nature on a few scattered communes of perhaps 100 people each. They’ll tend their gardens and have plenty of energy from their one windmill. I mean, duh, billions of people are too many because it’s a big scary number with lots of zeros!

      This is the real progressive dream; everyone else is dead, so now everyone is a progressive. It’s more or less Gene Roddenberry’s dream only you replace the Replicator to usher in a post-scarcity society with mass graves. Whatever works, right?

  6. If you think things are bad now, just want until the first actually negative consequence of global warming finally happens.

    Any minute now.

    1. An island no one has ever heard of is going to be under water soon. I’ve been promised for decades.

      1. And every time you drill into one of those stories, it turns out just be some other factor like erosion.

        1. That’s because they aren’t islands, they’re basically glorified sand bars where perhaps 100 people live that shouldn’t have ever settled those places in the first place.

          In addition to that, islands sink back into the ocean all the time. It’s literally what islands do. What else would one expect of a mountain submerged in the worlds hugest river (y’know, like the one that carved the Grand Canyon? Erosion is ever present.) They are using natural geological processes to ‘prove’ that they’re right. Any process that doesn’t agree with their agenda is an exception, any process that correlates is causal. Simple!

          1. Yup. Preachin’ to the choir.

          2. You smug assholes won’t be so smug when Guam tips over.

    2. It’s almost too late, it’s our last chance, again!

      1. Doctor: I’m afraid you’ll die in six months.
        Patient: But I won’t make enough money to pay your bill in six months.
        Doctor: Okay, make it a year, then.

  7. Garbling history, Markowitz also suggested lied when she said that a Republican Congress had somehow prevented President Obama from moving forward with a comprehensive climate change deal at the Copenhagen conference in 2009. Actually, the Democrats had majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives in 2009.

    Before that, in 2007, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution with a 95-0 vote to express “the sense of the Senate” that “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997”.

    95-0. Name after WV Democrat Robert Byrd. Markowitz is an abject liar.

    1. Carbon clownery specializes in past-adjustments for current narratives. Never has a group always thinking (allegedly) in terms of centuries had such a short collective memory. Markowitz’s fantasy ideation is no surprise here.

  8. “Their policy is not an adult rational policy based on math or science; it’s something else. Dealing with an existential problem for the planet, you have two questions: can you appeal to them on a basic, rational level, in other words, educate them, number one? Can you set up any kind of symposiums where you educate them that two plus two is four and not five?,” asked Carlin.”

    Awesome.

    “Glanvill. Is that you?” /rubs face.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Glanvill

    1. Do some of these people go to school to learn how to ask endless, incomprehensible questions?

      1. Reaper indoctrination technology is still centuries off, at best… until then, they have to work with what they got.

        1. I’m commander Shepard and I approve this message.

    2. The hubris of these people – even if every last thing they say were true, it’s not an existential problem for the planet. Earth existed long before human beings and will continue to exist long after human beings die out.

    3. Yea , right .

      Having implemented the most basic equations of radiant heat transfer for bodies of arbitrary spectra in a free downloadable Array Programming Language , see http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics , these antiscientists can’t demonstrate they even know how to calculate the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp . ( I am waiting for some clever YouTube experiment quantitatively testing the computations . )
      James Hansen’s assertion that Venus’s extreme surface temperature is due to some spectral “GreenHouseGas” effect is quantitatively absurd by an order of magnitude .

      As my friend Dr Howard Hayden says , they would do anything for the cause — other than take a physics course .

  9. State. She did praise the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade carbon dioxide auction market to which Vermont and other northeastern states have belonged since 2009 for generating “revenue to put into energy efficiency programs and other greenhouse gas reduction efforts.” Or as an April 2016 Congressional Research Service study plainly put it: “The auction proceeds?over $2.4billion to date?have provided a new source of revenue, which has been used to support various policy objectives.”

    And no doubt made people’s electricity and energy a lot more expensive and a lot of peoiple’s lives a lot worse as a result. Did anyone mention that Ron? I know none of these crazy fucks care if a bunch of poor people freeze but it would be nice if they were forced to at least admit it.

    1. Don’t worry, John, the poor folk won’t freeze. It’s illegal to turn off someone’s heat in the winter and in the spring, you can pay for it. You need to start paying your fair share, you evil kochtopus puppet!

    2. Here’s what EIA says about retail power prices:

      Vermont 17.21 cents/kWh

      US average 12.54 cents/kWh

      Green Mountain smugness costs 37% more than the US average. Close to half again more as stated in the article, but not quite.

    3. people’s electricity and energy a lot more expensive

      One of those Kennedy inbreeds used to go on NYS tv all the time and shill for Venezuela – “Chavez is ready to help poor New Yorkers with their heating bills!”

      I haven’t that commercial in a while.

  10. Sounds like global warming conferences have become a big international business.

    1. With all the RICO investigations, payoffs to cronies, subsidies, influential connections to the scientific community, and spare cash lying around to help the green energy initiatives I keep waiting to see media coverage of the annual Denialists Frickin’ Idiots Conference.

      You’d think the security would be kinda lax, I mean, it’s not like they’re trying to sell off dead baby parts or anything.

  11. Hey, Jack! Tell us again how we don’t need no stinking senate vote, since Obo’s in WH and he has a pen!

    1. Obama don’t need no steeenkin’ senate vote when he has the EPA packed with greenie socialists and the scientifically ignorant Supreme Court believes CO2 is pollution.

  12. “John Pershing, the Obama administration’s special envoy on climate change”

    That seems like a pretty cush job, where does one apply and who does one need to pay off?

    1. The $ value of your super-PAC bundling efforts is a prerequisite on your resume… you do have that, don’t you?

  13. If Bailey isn’t at least an associate member of the AGW cult, why does he seem to take people like this seriously and keep writing articles like this?

    1. Junkets. Fun, fun junkets to places with good weather, great food, and fancy hotels.

      1. fair point. If he laughed at them, they would not invite him back.

        1. And Reason wouldn’t give him the assignment or the expense account.

    2. Bailey doesn’t understand basic control theory. He has no clue about coupled non-linear systems, ergodic vs non-ergodic, not clue regarding doubling sensitivity of CO2, H2O feedbacks, clouds, albedo, model V&V, etc. Nothing, he is just a bumbling amateur.

      1. Hey, he’s a Science Journalist, so he’s exempt from the quiz on that stuff.

      2. So where’s would one go to learn about all that?

        Asking for a friend, of course.

        1. Well you might get a degree in Applied Mathematics/Numerical Analysis or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering, something icky like that.

  14. Note to enviros: if your entire cult’s success relies on the power structure of one nation, a nation that has regular transfers of power between parties with divergent opinions, remaining in the party that supports your pseudoscience, then you’re doing it wrong.

    The AGW cultists are pretty much completely fucked now. They’re not gonna get to extract hundreds of billions of dollars from us…filter some of it through their pockets…and pass it on to tinpot dictators who will mostly steal it. Thank God in Heaven that’s not gonna happen now and people in developing nations will be able to get food, electricity, safe running water and all the other benefits the cultists want to deny them in the name of Gaia.

    1. Hundreds of billions? You haven’t been paying attention. They plan on extorting trillions from the unwashed masses. They don’t even talk in terms of billions, that’s for small time crime gangs.

    2. I hate to be a pessimist but I fully expect Trump to do a Nixon-in-China on global warming.

      Trump’s Nixon-in-China won’t have the fortuitous results of the original Nixon-in-China.

      1. Of course, I’m still not convinced that trading with China was ever that great of an idea in the first place. Free trade presupposes that the trading partners are acting in some kind of good faith, but China is continually proving that they don’t know what good faith looks like.

  15. Markowitz proudly noted that Vermont is 80 percent forested

    PA has added thousands of fracked natural gas wells over the past 10 years and has remained 58-59 percent forested since the 1960s. You can have trees and industry, green weenies.

    1. Fracking is responsible for the bulk of the U.S.’s greenhouse emissions reductions anyway.

      1. Fracking has reduced GHG emissions by several orders of magnitude more than new solar, wind, geothermal, and other “renewable” sources. In fact, the “renewables” wouldn’t even be practical were it not for peak generation turbines fired by fracked gas.

    2. In fact, almost every state in America is more forested now than 50 years ago. Any urban/suburban development has taken place mostly on reclaimed agricultural land.

      1. It looks even better if you turn the wayback machine to pre-westward expansion America.

        1. The Injuns burned off huge swaths of the Mississippi valley and the midwest nearly every year for the buffalo. Their CO2 emissions were probably as great or greater than ours now.

          1. The same goes for those pesky Roman’s and Mount Vesuvius. Gaia is the #1 CO2 maker, but Green’s will go on and on about how the carbon cycle can only process so much CO2. Of course, they have no idea how much it can process but they just know it’s only enough for the elite to have electricity.

            Nevermind all the anecdotal evidence that strongly indicates that it can process far, far more CO2 than mankind could ever release or create. We are quite literally closer to all dying off from not enough CO2 in the atmosphere than we are to dying a heat death from too much.

            Earth rolled along fine, with abundant life diversity expansion, at 2,500+ PPM of CO2 in the past (Also, there was an ice age with roughly the same PPM as a jungle age. Wut?!) 170PPM means most plant life on Earth dies overnight. We’re at ~400PPM. Those are simple facts, but to a climatologist simple facts are anathema. Climatology is the Marketing Degree of STEM fields. They’re experts at nothing, and generalists in a few fields. Why trust them?

            1. they just know it’s only enough for the elite to have electricity

              WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

              The elites can drive emission-free Teslas, but they still need jet fuel for their private jets.

              1. Oh, you mean coal powered cars? How steampunk of them!

    3. Did she mention that almost one-quarter of the electricity generated in Vermont is fired by wood?

  16. And second, can you demonstrate to them that if they continue with this childish position, we, America, will lose our status, we will become a pariah state; we will be humiliated?

    Translation: I’m scared shitless that if America stops funding this that everyone else on the planet will breathe a deep sigh of relief and go back to building their economies.

    1. Democrats approve of this message

    2. A couple months ago someone asked me this in panic – *rising crescendo* “If Trump is elected what will the rest of the world think of us?!”

      Me – *flat voice* “I don’t give a fuck what they think.”

      1. “Me – *flat voice* “I don’t give a fuck what they think.”

        Ahh.. the crux of the matter.

        1. Yeah, that neatly encapsulates two kinds of people.

  17. So how many of conference attendees actually believe what they’re saying about Climate Change and how many are desperate for wealth redistribution or any personal gains to be made from the idea, do you suppose? I realize I leave a large cynic footprint in this area, but…

    1. That’s a tough question to answer as it would require that those people be honest with themselves. I suspect it’s like a small percentage hardcore fanatics who really believe in CAGW, followed by a much larger group of people who are scared enough at the possibility of CAGW. Then there are the people who don’t really care about CAGW, but do very much care about building a world government and enriching themselves at the expense of others.

      The important thing to remember is that without the support of that large group that the movement will wither. It is important to construct a rat-hole by which those people can exit the movement while still saving face.

      Every student of the arts of diplomacy in the civil-service and staff colleges of the U.K. hears much about the rat-hole problem. How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face?

      Because if you do not allow people to escape then they will double-down. The rat-hole is not open to the Ehrlichs, Gores and Manns of the movement, but only to the people who were duped by their leaders.

      1. The first step in digging a diplomatic rat-hole is to show that one understands how one’s opponents came to make their mistake. One might make a point of agreeing with their premise ? in the present instance, the long-proven fact that adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere such as ours can be expected, ceteris paribus, to cause some warming.

        Then one tries to find justifications for their standpoint. There are five good reasons why the global warming that they ? and we ? might have expected has not occurred for 16 years: natural variability in general; the appreciable decline in solar activity since the Grand Maximum that peaked in 1960; the current 30-year cooling phase of the ocean oscillations, which began late in 2001 with the transition from the warming phase that had begun in 1976; the recent double-dip la Ni?a; and the frequency with which supra-decadal periods without warming have occurred in the instrumental record since 1850.

        The next trick is to help them, sympathetically, to focus the blame for their error on as few of their number as possible. Here, the target is obvious. The models are to blame for the mess the true-believers are in.

        1. Do we really do all this just to avoid saying “I was wrong”?

      2. How does one find an out for a group of people who don’t want to get out? I mean it, these people aren’t interested in your denials of scientific consensus. Sure, there are plenty of useful idiots that are marginally interested in the environment and go along because it sounds good, but there are two problems with your rat-hole theory.

        A) You would need to have the ‘settled science’ of Climate Change be significantly challenged by at least a significant minority of the scientific community, which likely won’t happen given how many dollars are distributed to them to continue reinforcing their false narrative.

        B) You would need to have these people feel real pain in their every day lives as a direct and obvious result of these policies.

        Since A won’t ever happen, and B is continually hand waved away as the fault of the opposition no one will take your rat hole even if it’s offered. They are not interested in truth or in reconcillation. They are interested in forcing the majority of mankind of return to the 15th century and in the process cull over 7 billion humans from the face of the planet.

        You might be interested in reconciliation or a compromise, but you have completely misunderstood what the agenda is here. They don’t have any inkling whatsoever that they have made any kind of mistake anywhere in their agenda, and without that knowledge no one is interested in taking your out.

        1. How does one find an out for a group of people who don’t want to get out?

          It’s a two-prong strategy: Hammer the top tier (Gore, Mann, et als) for whom there is no rat-hole while simultaneously opening a rat-hole for the go-alongs.

          I very much understand the agenda of the true believers and the statist opportinists; you do not realize that the movement will wither once the go-alongs leave. Any other criticisms of the rat-hole problem you may take up with His Lordship.

          1. So, the plan is to hammer people who are not only immune to evidence but who have an active profit motive in keeping up the fa?ade that they have purposefully and disingenuously built up without any predictive science to back it up while also giving a large group of religious followers a way out of the cult they have willfully chosen to be a part of.

            Got it. Sounds like a sure-fire plan for success in convincing a large group of people for whom cutting off electrical generation saves the Earth sans any evidence. I’m sure rational discussion and presenting of evidence with a kind and gentle tone of understanding will turn them away from saving the Earth. You’re dealing with religious zealots, not a government that made an oopsie on the international stage. ‘His Lordship’ may or may not be right about rat holes in diplomacy, but does he also think one could use a rat hole to give Muslim’s a way out of their fundamental beliefs? I would wager no.

            1. And, I forgot to include, the priest-class of Science would also need to actually present truthful information regarding this whole ‘saving the planet’ thing, which I pointed out above but it was apparently ignored.

            2. Got it.

              No, you don’t, actually. Try re-reading what I actually wrote.

              1. So you see no issue with the fact that what is suggested in your above quote has been going on for close to twenty years with no discernible change in overall belief in a flawed science. I suppose we just haven’t done it hard enough, but where have I heard that before?

    2. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

      1. Of course. The go-alongs are generally not the ones at the conference, not the ones making money off this. The go-alongs are the ones who donate a hundred bucks a year to the Sierra Club, etc. Without the support of those people, the salaried positions go away.

        1. Sierra Club is financed by billionaires, law suits, and greenmail. For example, Bloomberg donated $50 million for their work against coal. And he’s not the only one. The small donors are chump change.

          1. The small donors are chump change.

            True. But they bring the votes and the social pressure at all the PTA meetings and Mommy’s Day Out things. This is really about flipping CAGW from a socially virtuous position to a socially embarrassing position.

            Bloomberg, for all his money only has one vote. The go-alongs have the votes.

            1. To pretend that $50 million dollars doesn’t convince a single person to vote the way Bloomberg prefers would appear to be blissfully ignorant of the world as it is, but I appreciate the way you believe the world should be.

  18. I just heard some dimwit named Jessica Tarlov from Fox News talking about the necessity to “halt” climate change, and suggested that Trump might have a tough time achieving his goals on the issue because “conceivably not all Republican members of Congress are against climate change.”

    1. Is she saying that the end goal of her movement is climate stasis? Second, it is not only possible, but probable that the net effect of the UNCC consensus prediction is an Earth that supports more humans. So it seems to me that we have the perfect Marxist movement that promises a return to a utopia that never existed if they can just kill enough of the wrong type of people.

    2. If the Republicans want to remain a minority party, they might want to avoid that. No one buys this shit or thinks it is important outside of people who make money on it and people like Bailey who will believe anything a guy in a lab coat tells them. Killing off measures to control CO2 would be the smartest thing the GOP could do.

  19. This is what rubs me the wrong way about AGW members (among other things). They act like the Paris agreement will actually accomplish something. And they can’t imagine that someone may want to undo it because it has no positive impact

    1. Or that because it was ratified by some extragovernmental body it has any binding power on the governments represented at the talks. Its like having the Organization of Concerned Scientists hold a convention, ratify a platform for something, and then bitch when the respective university deans and presidents ignore their platform.

    2. See above. Things like the Paris agreement are driven by the concerned-but-not-fanatical people who think that CAGW could happen and that reduction of carbon emissions is a good thing in any case just because.

    3. Every country on earth with the exception of the US strongly favors the Paris COP agreement. That’s because the Paris agreement place no incremental enforceable burden on any country other than the US. China and India “intend” to plateau their emissions in 2030 after ramping up between now and then. Europe didn’t commit to anything that it had not already committed to. However, the US promised a total emissions reduction of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 values by 2025, with hope that it will go to 30 percent by 2030. I suppose that if the economy does what it has done since 2007, that might be possible though it will be unpleasant. Remember that wasted investment in GHG abatement is counted in GDP even though it does nothing to improve standard of living

  20. Ron, how are you staying sane in the face of such nonsense? Whether AGW is real or not, these people are laughable.

  21. Nah. We will see pants shitting, panic and tantrums from the loss of revenue that will make the Hildog supporters look like they are just shrugging her loss off.

    I look forward to it. Gonna stock up on popcorn.

  22. Deese pointed out that the U.S. economy grew by 10 percent while carbon dioxide emissions fell by 9 percent since 2008. This is longest stretch in U.S. history in which economic growth has been decoupled from an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. He asserted that the fact that an economy can grow at a healthy rate without increased emissions is an important signal of structural shifts and in markets.

    That decline in emissions happened DESPITE the climate lobby, not because of it. They did everything they could to stop the fracking that lead to a cleaner energy source. Using every unscientific argument in their rhetorical tool box.

  23. So how long before the enviros start whining about wind and solar?

    Also when can we expect solar to actually make 1% of the grid lol

    1. Once there’s money in the blood mineral grievance industry.

    2. “So how long before the enviros start whining about wind and solar?”
      They’ve already started, as it’s common knowledge that windmills smite eagles..

      “Also when can we expect solar to actually make 1% of the grid lol”
      It would be a damn sight easier if those windmills didn’t self-destruct after 3-4 years..

    3. It’ll break 1% after they shut down all the coal, gas, and nuclear plants.

    4. Look at Denmark and Germany, the two leading producers of wind and solar. I think they’re at about 30% and 40%, respectively, of the grid now in those countries. It’s no coincidence that energy consumers in those countries pay the highest prices in the developed world.

      1. And Germany’s eco-warriors make those of America look like pikers. They were roughly at America’s current level of cloying preachiness when I lived there 30 years ago.

      2. IIRC, Germany is a net purchaser of energy from other countries, precisely because they did shut down their nuke plants. So that 30-40% figure probably doesn’t tell the whole picture.

        1. It does reveal quite a bit, considering that Germany and Denmark are some of the most cloudy places on Earth, their shift to solar and wind has been expensive for a whole host reasons, namely that they place so much emphasis (capital) on unproductive sources.

  24. “…she said that 1 in 20 jobs in Vermont are now in the solar power industry thanks for tax incentives and regulatory reforms”

    EIA data on sources of electricity in Vermont:

    Total generated in Vermont 1,982,047 MWh
    Hydroelectric Conventional 1,139,498
    Natural Gas 1,493
    Petroleum 3,056
    Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic 48,022
    Other Biomass 18,993
    Wind 325,365
    Wood and Wood Derived Fuels 445,620

    Now that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant is shut down, Vermont imports over 60% of its electricity demand. End consumer electricity demand was 5,521,109 MWh in 2015.

    So, 5% of Vermont’s jobs are dedicated to producing less than 1% of its electricity demand.

    And its retarded politicians think that’s a good thing.

    1. What do you mean? It will take 500% employment to achieve 100% electricity supply! Five Hundred. Percent. Employment.

    2. They have reduced their carbon footprint by buying electricity generated in Ohio.

      1. Yeah, it’s pretty disingenuous to only look at what Vermont is generating themselves if they import 60% of their usage. That’s just plain-Jane NIMBYism since it sounds like they’re still being fired by coal or natural gas. That’s pretty much par for the course with this crowd. They pretend like the United States is to blame for the environment when it’s demonstrably untrue.

        All those American transfer payments are supposedly to make the rest of the world stop destroying the environment, which pretty blatantly means that the rest of the world doesn’t honestly give a flying fuck about it but they will take the cash. China is pretty open about that even if they occasionally pay lip service to it.

        1. Anyone who believes a single thing China has to say about anything ought to have their head examined.

    3. Maybe their new governor will get rid of that twit.

  25. Brian Deese, who is a senior advisor to President Obama on climate

    Fake fact: not only is this guy a nut, but as wikileaks revealed, his bid to become a senior adviser in the Obama administration was bankrolled by his family’s salted-peanut company.

    1. I love Deese Nuts.

  26. “Addressing the transition, when the new guys come in and you’re in a meeting with those people, we have a new situation that is unprecedented. Their policy is not an adult rational policy based on math or science; it’s something else.”

    Yes, what is this “democracy” silliness everyone keeps talking about?

    Whatever it is, it isn’t based on math and science at all!

  27. If and when global warming starts having a noticeable negative impact on our lives, it seems to me like it should become more expensive to pollute . It would clearly become costlier to make the situation worse, but would it be reflected in the price of gas, or is that what an externality is?

  28. President Trump should solicit, and sign when it is tendered to him, an Act of Congress to the effect, “Neither the federal government, nor any state government, may regulate or tax the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use without an express act of Congress so authorizing. All prior regulations that purport to regulate or tax carbon dioxide emissions are null & void.”.

    That would end the fatuous fabulizing about fossil fuels and climate change.

  29. Yes greens, be afraid. Be very afraid. There’s a new sheriff in town, and your snake-oil revival tent is being shut down…

  30. It’s as “unstoppable” as Hillary Clinton’s momentum, right?

  31. Polyanna that I am,I’m hoping el Presidente Trump sends the UN to Brussels with the rest of the One Worlders.

  32. Alternate lede:
    World scam artists unsure if gravy train will continue.

  33. Richard Lindzen and Patrick J. Michaels upon thine Church of Climate-Eschatology. With skepticism and independent thought I smite at thee. May the fact-arrows of my general’s legions blot out the sun from the sky as they rain down in torrents of celebutard-dunce-quote-destroying terror. Lo, do I see the heretics rise against the priesthood, smashing the idols of groupthink and setting a fire-of-falsifiability to the Holy Places!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.