Global warming is almost totally out of the news since the evidence that is happening has all but disappeared. But it won’t go away because there are still those agile and innovative enough to make a fantastic living out of it.
It’s all excellent, but the best part may be where one of those scientifically-ignoramus politicians sneers at the speaker for being a philosopher. Her answer is quite instructive as well: “try running for the Senate on your platform”. That is her philosophy and it has nothing to do with what is right or moral. Just what sells.
Shame it doesn’t matter to greenies the world over who wish to luxuriate in their ignorance. So for the rest of us: Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare. What she said, and please note these are quotes:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. . . .
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
And I might note that it is not incidental that these cretins make a pile of money running these international agencies as well. The strategy could not be more clear:
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
To people for whom this policy makes sense, nothing you could say would dissuade them. More to the point is why we let them get away with it. They are the very essence of ignorance and evil.
To run for high office you have to at least pretend to care about global warming. There are too many voters on both sides, even on the Republican side, who would make disbelief in AGW the single issue that determined their vote. For me, belief in global warming is as clear a sign of feeblemindedness as I would care to choose. It may be a reality, but it is one for which the evidence is virtually non-existent while the costs of trying to contain our carbon footprint so immense that skepticism is the only answer that makes sense. I therefore googled “Donald Trump and Global Warming” and the following article, from MSNBC, seems to be representative of his views. And what makes this article so fascinating is that the article is trying to prove that Trump really thinks acceptance of AGW is utterly without merit although he is now beginning to pretend that he actually thinks it is important even though he doesn’t really think so. The article was published in February. Here’s the start.
Something unexpected is happening in the Republican presidential field.
Leading GOP candidates once denied the reality of manmade climate change, but now they seem to be softening their posture and subtly embracing it.
Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have long pledged to deepen President Obama’s climate commitments if elected to office. The Republican candidates are still far from believers or political backers of the president’s agenda. But a close parsing of their comments suggest the party of no is becoming the party of maybe – or perhaps even the party of yes.
Take the case of Donald Trump, the billionaire contrarian and big winner of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. His denial of climate change has been a centerpiece of his act for years.
Naturally, this is taken as a sign of ignorance and a lack of seriousness about dealing with one of our most important contemporary problems. But even though he is now trying to be more political in how he expresses his views, the folks at MSNBC are not going to be caught out in accepting his more recent statements as his real beliefs.
In tweets between 2012 and early 2015, he called climate change a “con job,” a “canard,” a “hoax,” “bulls**t,” and a concept “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Now, however, Trump wants to be president so has begun to reverse course.
But as his political star has risen, he’s changed his tune on global warming.
He’s walked back his wildest conspiracy theories and toned down his claims that cold weather somehow disproves global warming. He’s also retired some of his most incendiary language (“con job,” “canard”) and wrapped what remains in strong qualifiers.
In January, for example, after relentless mockery from the Sanders campaign, Trump told “Fox & Friends” that his tweet about climate change as a Chinese plot was a “joke.”
So what does Trump say now?
“Obviously, I joke,” he said. “I know much about climate change. I’d be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China.”
The Republican front-runner still uses the word “hoax,” deploying it on December 30 at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C. But he bookends it in un-Trump-like uncertainty. “A lot of it is a hoax,” he said, according to ThinkProgress, a left-leaning news site “I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”
You can trace the change to September, when Trump delivered his most expansive comments on climate change. Speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, he criticized Obama for trying “to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists.”
And that is their last word on Trump. The rest of the article shows similar lack of belief on climate change by the other leading Republicans. Trump, however, has been the most consistent and hardline of the lot. Whatever he ends up saying from this point on, you may be sure what he really thinks is what he has most consistently said. If he thought global warming was a con job and bulls**t a year ago, there is nothing that has happened since to have changed his mind.
Climate has fallen somewhat into the background, in some small part because the planet is not actually warming. Not that it matters to some: AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers
Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.
So stay tuned. The comparison with tobacco is so spurious that even to have raised it shows how intellectually challenged these people are. But as they say, if you can’t beat ’em, jail ’em.
Not that it matters, of course, but Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. . . .
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Since it was almost never about science in the first place, nothing changes. If the study showed that there was no money to be made in grants and funding by arguing that global warming was a problem, that would be really valuable. But merely to show that all of those people lining up for money are wrong, how is that supposed to matter?
We remain the most sensible country on earth although one would wish it were even better. The article doesn’t actually say it in the title – Pew: Americans the least concerned about climate change – but that is only because they are describing the chart at the start of the story. But then there is also this sentence in the text:
In a global survey of 40 nations about how concerned people are about climate change, America scored 8.78 on a scale from three to 12, where 12 is the most concerned. The U.S. was tied with the United Kingdom and only Poland, Israel and Australia scored lower, just by a hair.
By a hair or not, we are the lowest. You can go to the survey at the link and put in your own response to compare your views with the standard. Not that the lower end is all that low. If you complete the survey and then look at the results across the world, it still says that in Australia 43% of the population think climate change is a serious problem. Still, it is now more than half who do not and the trends are in the right direction.
This story is so incredible that you have to wonder how these people cannot see the irony of their idiotic situation. As I read it, they are having trouble building metallic inputs for solar panels because their wind-powered electricity grid is not generating enough power and the intermittent supply is raising electricity costs. Read it yourself.
South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis called a crisis meeting of energy users and suppliers today to deal with sharp rises and falls in wholesale electricity prices that threaten the redevelopment of a Port Pirie lead and zinc smelter to make metals for solar panels and mobile phones, even with a $291 million government subsidy.
The volatility in wholesale prices – caused mostly by the state’s reliance on wind power and the ability of coal and gas power stations to charge high prices when the wind drops – is creating havoc for industry in the state, which is one of the country’s most economically depressed.
“The state government recognises we must do more to address issues in the market as we transition to a low-carbon economy,” said Mr Koutsantonis, who also serves as Energy Minister.
Is there really no mechanism for these people to learn anything?
It would be one thing if I thought these people were saying what they’re saying and doing what they’re doing because that is where the votes are. What amazes me more than anything is that these people really believe it. From The Oz just now: Paris Climate Deal: Turnbull government stares down dissenters, from which:
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has defended the non-binding nature of the Paris climate agreement, as the Turnbull government stares down climate change dissenters within its own ranks.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, an outspoken climate change sceptic, warned the agreement was “essentially meaningless” and Australia should avoid “metaphorically burning our economy just to appear good on the global stage”.
“Basically countries set their own targets and there’s no enforcement strategy. It provides flexibility to do anything essentially,” he told ABC Radio.
“The entire globe needs to have similar commitments and be similarly achieving those goals.” . . .
Mr Hunt regretted there would be “no sanctions or penalties if a country falls short of its target”.
“Our preference would have been for that. That’s probably the only real and significant element that we would have wanted, but we all knew that that wasn’t possible for the United States, it wasn’t on China’s agenda,” he told Macquarie Radio.
“Others haven’t always honoured their agreements in the past, that is true. But the difference this time is everybody’s in the cart, everybody’s made their commitment; if countries fall short of that or indeed they renege on it I think there would be enormous internal and external pressure and criticism.”
There is such a thing as a high-IQ idiot and there are plenty of them around.
IN ADDITION: I was reminded by Old School Conservative in the comments of the reaction by the journalists in Paris which is useful in understanding the kinds of media coverage these meetings and agreements get. More HIQI in action as may be seen in their incredible reaction.
First this, which might get lost in the wash of today’s events: Malcolm Turnbull has lifted Tony Abbott’s wind power investment ban.
Malcolm Turnbull has lifted Tony Abbott’s controversial ban on government investment in wind power, in his first major break from the former regime’s environmental policy.
Fairfax Media can reveal that Environment Minister Greg Hunt has issued the Clean Energy Finance Corporation with new orders that negate the Abbott government’s June decree, which prohibited the $10 billion green bank from investing in new wind power projects. . . .
Under the new mandate, the corporation will be allowed to invest in any wind projects provided they involve “emerging and innovative” technology, although it does encourage it to “focus on offshore wind technologies”.
This is what innovation apparently means: wasting our money on useless projects that will never provide any benefit to anyone other than those who get to spend the money (see the NBN for the prototype). The reality is you cannot trust them to keep their word. And why this is especially grievous is that the agreement signed in Paris commits the government to do precisely nothing it does not want to. If they are stupid enough to fall for all of this, then they can continue believing that Yuri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind and act on this belief. This is from Skeptics Central in London, explaining how empty the agreement is.
London 12 December: Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), has welcomed the non-binding and toothless UN climate agreement which was adopted in Paris tonight.*) Dr Peiser said:
“The Paris agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality. The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.”
“As seasoned observers predicted, the Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.”
“In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. This voluntary agreement also removes the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”
Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, added:
“The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose. Following Paris, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”
*) We would like to apologise to editors and correspondents as this is exactly the same statement we issued a year ago, with the sole change of Paris for Lima; but since there has been no substantive change in the COP21 deal there is no change in our assessment.
You get the same message here at Climate Depot.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about ‘global warming’s’ ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase prostitution, bar room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth’s temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved ‘climate change’ even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’
Morano on UN’s 2C Limit: “We had one UK scientist, Philip Stott, who has said there are quite literally hundreds of factors governing global climate. For the UN to pick one politically-selected factor — CO2 — and then try to tweak it at the margins and then come up with some temperature goal 50 -100 years in the future, is akin to scientific nonsense. You could call it modern day witchcraft.”
That’s all very well, but if governments want to they will as our own government is about to demonstrate. The government is unbelievable – in the most literal sense the word has.
Law of Markets 