The Democrats’ foolish War on Climate

by David Wojick

The party platform adopted at the Democratic National Convention, on page 45, calls for a national mobilization on the scale of World War II. What enemy deserves the wrath endured by Hirohito and Hitler? Climate change! Democrats want to declare a war on climate.

Here is the amazing declaration: “We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II.”

This scale of mobilization is incredibly expensive and disruptive to people’s lives, something to which the Democrats seem oblivious. Great sacrifices by average Americans were required for mobilization during the Second World War, enforced by massively intrusive government authority. Is this what the Democrats want, the supreme government control that comes with a wartime effort?

To begin, there was widespread government rationing of essential products. For most families, driving was limited to just three gallons of gas a week. If the Democrat’s war on climate is designed to curtail fossil fuel use then will gasoline again be rationed, in spite of longer commutes due to massive post-war suburbanization? What about natural gas and coal-fired electric power? Meat and clothing were also rationed. Will this be repeated?

Even worse, many consumer products were simply not produced; their production prohibited in favor of war materials. These included most appliances, including refrigerators, plus cars, of course. Today’s banned appliance list might well include computers, smart phones and televisions, and again cars, as well as air conditioners and refrigerators. Will all these technologies be stopped in favor of building climate war materials like windmills, batteries and solar panels?

Not only is mobilization horrendous, there is no scientific justification for it. It is now clear that what is called “lukewarming” is probably the correct scientific view. Human activity may be causing a modest global warming that is actually beneficial. Beyond that climate change is natural and so beyond human control.

The only purpose for which a war on climate makes sense is justifying a massive increase in government power. Mobilization means controlling both production and consumption, as well as wage and price controls, all of which require detailed central planning of economic activity. This in turn requires a host of new agencies, programs, boards, etc. We have seen it all before.

Of course we have had so-called “war” policies before, such as the war on drugs. But these were mostly metaphorical policy names, typically just a shift in focus with a modest budget increase. The Democratic platform is very different because it specifies that the scale of the war on climate will be comparable to the Second World War mobilization, which entailed wrenching lifestyle changes.

If the Democrats are in fact serious, then we are talking about central economic planning on a massive scale, imposing great sacrifices on Americans, all in the futile name of stopping climate change. Sacrifice is harmful in its own right so this raises a host of moral issues. Which immediate harms will be deemed less harmful than speculative future climate change? Medical care is now a major sector of the economy, will it be curtailed? Will poverty be left to languish, or even encouraged via wage controls? Will travel be forbidden? Unfortunately the platform gives no clue, so this should be a major election issue.

In fact the specter of a WWII-scale mobilization to fight climate change dwarfs everything else proposed in the Democrats’ platform combined. It is also contrary to most of these other proposals, given the widespread restrictions that mobilization requires. Perhaps they do not understand what they are calling for, but if they do then they need to tell us what it is. Clarifying and justifying this outrageous mobilization declaration is essential to the election process.

Voting for mobilization without knowing what it means would be incredibly foolish.

Biosketch:  David Wojick is a former consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. He has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Tech. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon and the staffs of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.

Moderation note:  As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.

 

307 responses to “The Democrats’ foolish War on Climate

  1. The primary Democrat motivators are its war on free enterprise capitalism and its hatred America’s Judeo-Christian heritage which justifies in their minds the use any means to accomplish their liberal Utopian ends.

    • No, actually it is all about buying votes, which leads to winning elections, which leads to power and money. The Clinton “Mafia” has perfected the art.

      The vast sums of money collected for the “climate Jihad” from the middle class and rich is redistributed to academia and select companies (“crony capitalism”) to enrich these folks who will, in turn, provide money (and votes) to democratic politicians, thereby enabling them to buy electrians. The poor believe they are getting “free money” and will go along with the scheme. In reality, their lot in life will not improve and they will be forever serfs to the democratic Barron’s. The inner cities provide an excellent example.

      The planet’s climate will continue on it course, unaffected by the dopey “Jihad”, but most of its inhabitants will be economically worse off. California provides an excellent example of the process in action.

      Will the democrats succeed? Probably.

      • As a follow-up, academia (including techer’s unions) is a vital cog in the democratic machine because it is the mechanism used to indoctrinate the youth who then become essentially mindless followers. Pretty much any college campus displays the end product. Large numbers of intolerant left wing zealots who physically attack anyone who does not “toe-the-party-line”.

      • kellermfk,

        But the naked greed and quest for power and control has to be papered over by some noble cause.

        Andrew M. Lobaczewski, who lived six years under Nazism and more than 30 years under Communism, put it this way:

        It is a common phenomenon for a ponerogenic association or group to contain a particular ideology which always justifies its activities and furnishes motivatinal propaganda. Even a small-time gang of hoodlums has its own melodramatic ideology and pathological romanticism. Human nature demands that vile matters be haloed over by an over-compensatory mystique in order to silence one’s conscience and to deceive consciousness and critical faculties, whether one’s own or those of others.

        If such a ponerogenic union could be stripped of its ideology, nothing would remain except psychological and moral pathology, naked and unattractive.

        — ANDREW M. LOBACZEWSKI, Poltical Ponerology

      • The phenomenon was described with disarming frankness by Cortes’s devoted companion, the historian Bernal Diaz del Castillo: “We came here to serve God and the king, and also to get rich.”

      • David Wojick

        Demonizing your opponent tends to cloud your judgement, making you less effective. It is very important that these people largely believe what they are saying. It would be a lot easier to overcome them if they did not.

  2. Will they bring back the draft?

  3. catweazle666

    “Is this what the Democrats want, the supreme government control that comes with a wartime effort?”

    Of course it is.

    That is the wet dream of the Left, always has been and always will be.

    • David Wojick

      Demonizing your opponent tends to cloud your judgement, making you less effective. It is very important that these people largely believe what they are saying. It would be a lot easier to overcome them if they did not.

  4. Turbulent Eddy on a previous thread said that there is a case that mitigation already started a decade ago and we are doing fine with reductions in emissions. It didn’t collapse the economy as Steyn predicted. In fact the economy has been improving as emissions in major western countries have been decreasing at a pace consistent with what Paris requested.

    • Yep, emissions decrease as the economies go down the tubes.

      Really sick stuff.

    • You were not watching as the UK got out of the EU because of what CO2 alarmism was doing to damage their economy.

      • More to do with immigrants and austerity. At least the Conservatives dumped austerity. The other part, they can’t help with.

      • When does the UK actually leave the EU? Except for the value of the Pound going down a little I see nothing has changed.

      • A major issue in the UK (from which I’ve just returned) was the loss of sovereignty, the surrender of the UK’s future to faceless, unelected, anti-democratic bureaucrats. Brendan O’Neill (in a talk in Brisbane last night) said it was also a rejection of the self-serving ruling class who neither know nor address the needs and interests of those in the community outside the RC. The first reaction of the latter was that the people had got it wrong, Brexit must be overturned – rather proving O’Neill’s point. People were prepared to bear economic costs to have freedom and a democratic UK, though I suspect that in the medium to longer term the UK will do much better economically out of the moribund, low-to-no growth EU with its massive regulatory burden. Not to mention its emissions policies, which seem to be being reconsidered in the UK, which has in practice had some of the most costly and extreme anti-emissions policies, leading to the loss of energy-intensive industries. The UK has always been an innovative, outward-looking trading nation, the EU shackles will be off once Brexit matters are concluded. O’Neill remarked that the first indication of the scale of public support for Brexit on referendum day came with the results from the North East, where I spent most of the time. “Howay, th’ Geordies!” I said. Of course, uncontrolled migration was also an issue, exacerbated by the fact that the UK has allowed the growth of Muslim ghetto towns which do not accept the mores and standards of their host country, something which has been encouraged by the RC. Revised immigration laws are likely to encourage non-EU immigration of those who meet the country’s needs and are likely to assimilate.

      • Michael Cunningham,

        Welcome back. i hope you keep posting. Your comments are excellent.

        I agree with your comment, and emphasis this:

        I suspect that in the medium to longer term the UK will do much better economically out of the moribund, low-to-no growth EU with its massive regulatory burden. Not to mention its emissions policies, which seem to be being reconsidered in the UK, which has in practice had some of the most costly and extreme anti-emissions policies, leading to the loss of energy-intensive industries. The UK has always been an innovative, outward-looking trading nation, the EU shackles will be off once Brexit matters are concluded.

        It all goes to show that voters at large are wiser than the ruling classes.

      • @michael cunningham

        “the surrender of the UK’s future to faceless, unelected, anti-democratic bureaucrats. ”

        This thing of the “unelected” bureaucrats hits my nerves!… the European parliament sits people who have been elected, via open and democratic elections, in all member countries.
        Let’s stop this nonsense, please.

        I could agree that European elections invariably drive the smalles turnaround of voters, as compared to national elections, but that doesn’t mean they are not democratic… if people don’t show up to cast their ballots it’s the people’s fault, not lack of democracy.

      • Michael Cunningham,

        The democratic deficit seems to be a feature of neoliberal goverance.

        And perhaps nowhere is the democratic deficit more acute than in the United States. Here, for instance, is a poll from 2010.

        Poll: Most dissatisfied with how democracy works in U.S.
        http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/25/public.officials.poll/

        Nearly six in 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States, according to a new national poll.

        Forty percent of people questioned in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll say they are satisfied with the way democracy is working in this country, with 59 percent saying they are dissatisfied.

        This is the most recent poll I could find, but I suspect the democratic deficit in the US is even more acute now than it was in 2010.

      • The gross incompetence (or corruption) of election officials running elections in the United States, combined with the Obama administration’s and the Democratic Party’s campaign to gut the laws which are designed to minimize voter fraud, have also done their part to destroy the legitimacy of our electoral system, and democracy, in the US:

        New York Primary: Chaos at Polling Sites, Broken Scanners & Whole Blocks Purged from Voter Rolls
        http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/20/new_york_primary_chaos_at_polling

      • robertok06, my impression is that neither the EU Parliament nor national parliaments have much impact on policy, and that it is most often developed by supranational bodies in which bureaucrats dominate. I could be wrong, but that’s my observation over many years. There is certainly great frustration in the UK at the impact of EU directives and regulation, as well as court decisions, which seem to be uninfluenced by the UK and are not in its interests. The EU Parliament seems to be a talking shop for second-raters.

      • Roberto

        You have a fine cv and I sincerely hope you will turn up here again to debate matters.

        However, Michael is entirely right about the reasons for the Brexit vote, of which the largest factor was the undemocratic nature of the eu.

        The European parliament is a toothless tiger that shuttles between two countries wasting time and money, as you know.

        Mep’s are anonymous people who promote ideas little related to the tiny number of people who voted for them. Our mep covers a vast area of the southwest of England and also Gibraltar. Gibraltar!

        I have never seen or heard anything from him or her other than at election time.

        The European parliament has a Considerable democratic deficit. This document was produced for the British parliament who were actively involved in trying to democratise it

        http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP14-25/RP14-25.pdf

        Section 2 .3 is the most relevant section. Power of course currently resides in the European commission which has few democratic pretensions. Commissioners, are generally washed up and failed politicians, bureaucrats or technocrats.

        The eu is sluggish, protectionist, over bureaucratic and has the millstone of the Euro hanging round it’s necks which has caused such misery and unemployment problems for so many countries.

        I look forward to the UK once again being a sovereign independent country outside of the EU but with close ties to our many friend in European countries. Europe we love. The EU we do not

        Tonyb

      • Michael

        Your Australian article is pay walled. I think this version is the one you wanted us to read

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/postbrexit-we-arent-the-world-as-antiglobalisation-grows/news-story/01d54c4ca27743c4c9f532709ba72541

        I would liken the state of the eu to the last years of the roman empire. Everyone can see it is finished except for the elite at the top. The only way it can be saved is to dismantle the euro and bring policies closer to the people by reducing the power of the commission and increasing the power of the sovereign countries

        Tonyb

      • @robertok06 is very deceptive. There is a European Parliament made up of MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) who are elected. It’s just a talking shop. MEPs have no say on European laws beyond approving or rejecting. They can’t write new legislation, rescind bad laws, nor modify existing law. This is all by design. European policy is oriented towards railroading political unity :- making the European super-state. Eurocrats correctly understood that proper democracy would be a huge hindrance to unity. So they spiked democracy every step of the way. From the beginning in the 1950s, right through to today. The Brexit demand for democracy could never be accommodated. It goes against every Eurocrat policy. It is antithetical to the EC (European Commission, who really run things and make all law).

      • I agree with Roberrto here….it likewise drives me crazy this not on of the EU being undemocratic. The EU is no more or less democratic than then the member states it comprises. The member states outsource their regulation making to a body who does it on their behalf in such a way as to make it consistent across all the member nations which actuall reduces beauracracy and facilitates trade.

        The EU structure is as follows;
        – The council of ministers, who are the democratically elected representatives of a specific portfolio related to the an area of common interest, meet and agree policy objective.
        – They then instruct the EU commission to draw up legislation. These guys are just civil servants, the like which can be found in any democratic government beauracracy. They have representatives from each country but only they assigned portfolios by the EU president. These are the guys that people think of when they talk about the EU being undemocratic.
        – once the legislation is drawn up, it goes before the EU parliament who are directly elected representatives and their various subcomittees, and also the council of ministers. They vote on whether to pass it as law, make amendments and generally throw in their two bob.

        Since it has to be ratified in various degrees of strength by the parliament and ministers representing each member country, it can hardly be described as undemocratic.

        I think this misconception that the EU is “undemocratic” is on a parr with the exaggeration we all deplore regarding anthropogenic global warming. It’s most frustrating to hear it parroted by erstwhile discerning and intelligent skeptics.

      • agnostic2015, More specious, mendacious propaganda, tell it to the Greeks.

        For the third time in a century, Great Britain has thwarted the German attempt to impose its hegemony over the whole of Europe, this time without a shot being fired or a drop of blood being spilt.

        The Fourth Reich is doomed, and we British have sealed that doom.

        You lot lost. Your utterly undemocratic Fascist kleptocracy is on the skids, and we British have kicked the foundation stone out from under it.

        Live with it.

        And stop whining.

      • @ catweazle666: “More specious, mendacious propaganda, tell it to the Greeks.”

        Errr….what? What I described is fact not propaganda to which you respond with actual propaganda. That’s how it is structured for good or bad. You are welcome to describe it’s flaws of which there are many, but this is how the EU works. It was really never that controversial until the referendum.

        Here is a really good overview which was published well before this had turned into the farcical and divisive : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23488006

        If you are interested I can recommend other interesting articles. It’s a complex and unique body, but it can’t be said to be undemocratic relative to other democratic governments around the world.

    • Mitigation like, issuing life preservers to polar bears? About the only global warming mitigation required is to get rid of the land-based record as it is corrupted by UHI effect.

    • The decrease in the USA was mostly due to free enterprise (and opposed by the DemocRats): FRACKING giving us cheap natural gas which displaced coal.

      • David Wojick

        There is more to it than that. Because of the 20 year war on coal over 200,000 MW of gas fired generating capacity has been built since 2000 and virtually no new coal fired plants. This has created a tremendous demand for gas, driving the fracking revolution, while more regs hammered the existing coal fired fleet. It is just like what happened to nuclear power.

    • Jim D you are (here and on the previous thread) conflating “reducing emissions” with “the current measures applied to try to reduce emissions”. The first does not necessarily mean damaging/collapsing the economy, the second one definitely does, if continued the current way.

      Reducing emissions can be achieved in all kinds of ways, not tanking the economy.
      The current futility of installing heaps of non-dispatchable wind and solar renewables without economy scale energy storage or dispatchable backup will threaten the electrical energy supply of a modern western economy.

      • The quicker we get to wind/solar backed up by natural gas, the longer we save the limited supply of natural gas for. This should be a common-sense goal until storage methods improve within a couple of decades. Otherwise natural gas just runs out that much quicker, which would be regarded as poor long-term planning.

      • I agree with Jim D, the natural gas resources need to be managed so they last into the next century. I’m not sure there’s a need to rush, it’s better to let solar wind and nuclear mature and apply what’s truly cost effective.

      • @wijnand2015 said: “The current futility of installing heaps of non-dispatchable wind and solar renewables without economy scale energy storage”

        There will be no “economy scale energy storage” for wind. Energy storage must pay for its capital cost by continuous use. It only makes money selling electricity. This can be done with solar on a daily basis; even though it will be expensive folly to try it [note]. It can’t be done for wind because storage can’t sell electricity on a regular basis; so will never repay its capital cost.

        note: “Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation”, by Ferroni & Hopkirk; doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.034 https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf

      • ” wind/solar backed up by natural gas”

        That’s my new friend Jim D folks and we’re finding common ground.

        I like Solar/Nat Gas. This is not a bad plan, and I wouldn’t even mind government fostering this to some extent.

        However, it is not the only plan, now or when conditions and technology change in the future.

        Government could certainly:
        * help share plans for such plants.
        * sponsor conferences for exchange and facilitate knowledge
        * develop consortia of private industry.
        * maybe even sponsor research, though such research can be wasted

        I get off the boat at taxes and mandates, however.

        We’d also agree that Nat Gas is better than coal ( me because it’s cheaper, you because it’s lower CO2 ).

        Would we also agree that solar is better than wind?

        I like photovoltaics but not so sure about the bird vaporizing thermal plants.

      • I like Solar/Nat Gas. This is not a bad plan, and I wouldn’t even mind government fostering this to some extent.

        Just remember that with parallel capacity gas will account for most of the energy. Solar capacity factor is around 15-25% depending on weather, not demand

        OTOH every WHour of solar is so much gas not burned or paid for. When you measure the cost/benefit of solar as an add-on to existing gas CCGT, the results are pretty encouraging.

        Would we also agree that solar is better than wind?

        I’m pretty sure wind is inherently unscaleable. That much interference in the boundary layer would probably have a bigger effect on climate than the equivalent in GHG’s.

        I like photovoltaics but not so sure about the bird vaporizing thermal plants.

        PV is still on the early side of the learning curve. While thermal is based on steam turbines, which are mature technology. Much less opportunity for costs to decrease.

        Within a decade delivered utility-grade PV capacity should be somewhere around 30¢/watt. (Delivered means everything, not just the panels.)

        At that price, it would make sense to build solar PV for direct conversion to gas, and feed it into the current infrastructure in place of fossil gas. Projected round trip efficiencies are typically given as around 30%, from PV bus to output generator bus from CCGT.

      • Thanks for the interesting link Mark!

    • Jim D wrote, “In fact the economy has been improving as emissions in major western countries have been decreasing at a pace consistent with what Paris requested.”

      So why the need for a great mobilization to decrease emissions? And why do we need zero interest rates and suicidal deficit spending to boost the major western economies’ growth rate?

    • Jim D: “The quicker we get to wind/solar backed up by natural gas, the longer we save the limited supply of natural gas…”

      Wind and solar energy do not save natural gas, when this is used to combat the large renewable power variations on the grid. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland found this by simple calculation. http://www.clepair.net/Udo20150831-e.html

    • Any time someone claims climate policies have achieved this or that, show him this graph.

      PS: TE didn’t actually say the emissions reduction was due to climate policies, iirc, but it seems to be what you’re implying. In fact whatever policies have been enacted since Kyoto have utterly failed to move the needle – emissions have kept essentially the same trajectory as before, in terms of CO2 intensity of GDP.

      • That means, yes, we do need Paris. Don’t be fooled by emission reductions already going on around you.

  5. “The only purpose for which a war on climate makes sense is justifying a massive increase in government power.”

    Or to extort trillions more readily than the war economy can.

  6. About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was the Little Ice Age. When Oceans are warm, Polar Oceans thaw, snowfall increases and rebuilds ice on Greenland, Antarctic and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds, spreads and makes earth cold again. Polar Oceans freeze, snowfall decreases and then the Sun removes ice every year until it gets warm again.

    It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm now.

    It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.

    CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

    The alarmists scare us so they can tax and control us.

  7. Wojick ==> Well stated. The Dem’s plank should be considered in light of “Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability”” by
    M.J. Kelly (2016).

    If they mean a massive push to develop real energy breakthroughs — then OK, but I fear they intend to waste trillions on low-density power sources that are not yet ready for prime time.

    • David Wojick

      I think Clinton has mentioned $80 billion or some such, but that is nowhere near the scale of WWII mobilization.

      • David Wojick

        Indeed Tony, the hubris is incredible. Hence my question what it means? Note that they go on to promise to create a group to plan the mobilization.

      • Not seen since WW2 is not the same thing as equal to WW2. A more comparable but smaller effort may be the interstate effort or the Moon shot effort. These are the ones to compare with.

      • How is not seen since WWII not the same as equal to WWII? Semantically they are identical.

      • I could say that for the US the Vietnam War was the biggest one since WW2. That would not be wrong.

  8. Pingback: The Democrat’s foolish War on Climate | budbromley

  9. From the breathless prose of the convention document;

    ‘We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.’

    The days when America could mobilise scores of nations to do its bidding are long gone as, over the last 8 years, America has shown little desire to be the leader of the western world, let alone retain any influence on all those countries neutral or hostile to us. Countries already emitting some 65% of todays co2 (such as China and India) will ignore the call completely as they have already been given a get out of jail card. Why on earth would they want to participate?

    After years of austerity in many countries already, I can’t see man nations gladly following this absurd war cry and bearing down on their economies and peoples even further. In Britain we know what a war time footing was like and there is zero appetite for a return to those days except by the activists from the dwindling readership of the Guardian.

    Pretentious twaddle from the Democrats.

    tonyb

    • > …I can’t see man nations gladly following this absurd war cry…

      tonyb,

      I think you meant “manly nations”. ;)

    • David Wojick

      (This got misplaced above) Indeed Tony, the hubris is incredible. Hence my question what it means? Note that they go on to promise to create a group to plan the mobilization.

  10. October 14, 2015

    Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s top theoretical physicists and a self-described “100% Democrat,” criticized President Barack Obama for his views on climate change, stating that he was on the “wrong side” of the issue and that Republicans were on the “right side” of the topic.

    “I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side,” Dyson told The Register last week.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mairead-mcardle/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-took-wrong-side-climate-change

  11. Pingback: The Democrat’s foolish War on Climate | Climate Etc. | jamesbbkk

  12. It’s like the goose that lays golden eggs. The Dems think they have an endless supply of eggs and they will keep demanding them until they kill the goose!

  13. “massively intrusive government authority.”
    is that what they are really after?

    The UN is pushing for a similar movement with the credible sounding claim that it is a planetary issue and and that therefore it must be addressed on a planetary scale by a planetary body such as the UN particularly since the UN has shown that it can solve planetary environmental issues when it solved the ozone crisis.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

  14. Government already spends over 35 cents of every dollar produced in the US so we would be talking about doubling that?

  15. Danny Thomas

    David,

    Ugh. I wish the title had been chosen differently.

    And a broader definition of Lukewarmer is offered here by Tasmin Edwards: “Lukewarmers have much more mainstream views than the easy stereotype of the denier. They agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that the world is warming, and that a significant fraction of this is down to humans. In terms of policy, they typically support adaptation to climate change. But they differ from mainstream views because they’re not convinced there’s a substantial risk that future warming could be large or its impacts severe, or that strong mitigation policies are desirable.”
    leaves room for some middle ground and ‘risk management’ for ‘light’ mitigation which can be incentivized and not necessarily punitive.
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers:

    As a side bar only offering the following as reference.
    For full evaluation, Republican’s platform is here. Discussion on CC begins page 17, but really 19 which discusses energy and page 22 the final 3 paragraphs are specific to the topic: https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf

    And in a nutshell (’cause that’s how they kinda put it out there) here’s the Libertarian version:

    “2.2 Environment

    Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

    2.3 Energy and Resources

    While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

    Probably should include this also:
    “4.0 Omissions

    Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.”
    https://www.lp.org/platform#2.3

    But frankly, most platforms are not implemented. Suggest the candidates are a more primary resource for information.

    Regards,

    • khal spencer

      A pdf downloadable version of the Libertarian Party platform is here:
      http://www.lp.org/files/2016%20LP%20Platform%20.pdf
      Thanks for the post, Mr. Thomas!

    • Danny, Sorry but I do not understand what your comment has to do with my post. I am (1) pointing out the extreme nature of the Democrat’s platform and (2) asking for an explanation. I see nothing in your lengthy comment related to either (1) or (2).

      • (2) asking for an explanation.

        Political promises are like prostitutes: all things to all men people.

        Those who support her, or want to, will read her promises in terms of what they’re hoping for.

        Those who oppose her will, to some extent, read her promises in more threatening ways.

        I doubt even she really knows what she means by those words. They’re boilerplate: intended to push buttons in the minds of voters.

      • AK, +

        #choosenottodecide

      • David,

        For some reason I didn’t see your response.

        We (you and I) can agree that the Dem’s platform on this topic is a bit excessive.

        I’ve suggested that the platform’s don’t matter in that while it is a party oriented statement the candidates are not held to it in any fashion.

        While I appreciate your effort in putting together your post and sharing, the question is, is it ‘useful’. I suggest it is not. Reasoning being that the candidates positions vary from the platform and the candidates would be in the position of implementation. Secondarily, berating the platform is just more of the same. It will not lead to solutions. Now of course this presumes a need for solutions. So other than ‘beating a dead horse’ with much angst, what is the purpose of the post? I see it as only creating (or just further embedding) division which is less than beneficial.

        So what is one to do? If one has sufficient evidence to support the contention that platforms do matter then the next logical step is to compare the alternatives which is why they were posted.

        And if one believes as I do that platforms don’t matter that much the choice then boils down to looking at candidates. I’ve provided the link to Clinton’s website. Trump’s is easy as he states specifically that ‘climate change’ is a hoax. I’ll venture to say that almost no one agrees that is a true statement. Climate always changes.

    • The libertarian view is quite uncomfortably the European view of landownership going to the elite at the expense of an outdoors life of the common man. Throughout the 20th century the US pursued a path of maintaining access to the outdoors by all citizens as a shared common resource. Teddy Roosevelt described it as a necessary element for a healthy and robust population. The BLM and the forest services may make a lot of major errors but in my view they pale to the error of moving to a closure of public lands for the sole benefit of the aristocracy.

  16.  The EPA concedes that following the proposed rules would have no more than a negligible effect at most on climate change and the amount of atmospheric CO2. But, the compliance costs and disruption to the economy could be huge. Will global warming continue to be a plank in the Democrat platform when it’s obvious AGW isn’t about CO2 and the climate but really about the Left’s belief capitalism is a disease?

  17. The Democrat ‘party platform’ has been a stoke of genius at making us and the EU more dependent on foreign oil and buddying up with fascists commies like Castro and Chavez and leaders in places like Russia and Iran.

  18. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Not only is mobilization horrendous, there is no scientific justification for it. It is now clear that what is called “lukewarming” is probably the correct scientific view. Human activity may be causing a modest global warming that is actually beneficial. Beyond that climate change is natural and so beyond human control.

    “The only purpose for which a war on climate makes sense is justifying a massive increase in government power.

    “If the Democrats are in fact serious, then we are talking about central economic planning on a massive scale, imposing great sacrifices on Americans, all in the futile name of stopping climate change. Sacrifice is harmful in its own right so this raises a host of moral issues. Which immediate harms will be deemed less harmful than speculative future climate change? Medical care is now a major sector of the economy, will it be curtailed? Will poverty be left to languish, or even encouraged via wage controls? Will travel be forbidden? Unfortunately the platform gives no clue, so this should be a major election issue.”

    Important read. Thanks Judith and David.

  19. Steven Mosher

    Is this what the Democrats want, the supreme government control that comes with a wartime effort?

    No.
    Meat and clothing were also rationed. Will this be repeated?

    No.

    Will all these technologies be stopped in favor of building climate war materials like windmills, batteries and solar panels?
    No

    Medical care is now a major sector of the economy, will it be curtailed?

    No.

    Will poverty be left to languish, or even encouraged via wage controls?

    No

    Will travel be forbidden?

    No.

    any more questions?

    you realize platforms are meaningless.
    and questions about them fatuous

    • ‘We will never have to deal with something as stupid as same sex bathrooms you moron.’ Ask Bella Abzug, she would tell you all about it the next time you get the opportunity, she was so smart. You did good enough in English, yet nothing useful was learned about recent world history, maybe not? A least you are able to communicate with each other, by posting your comments on blogs. Know what I am saying?

      • Steven Mosher

        “Know what I am saying?”

        Ya, you love me and can’t stop following me around.
        I get that a lot.

    • Thank God for that, Mosher. Therefore, clearly Trump should be your preferred next President because Republican policies are far superior to the Democrat policies.

      • Steven Mosher

        never hillary.

      • That’s a relief hear you say there’ll be no Hillary. I hope you’re right, not that I want Trump either. This new guy up the middle might be better bet than either of them

      • Feel the Johnson! He’s the new best choice.

      • Thank you. Either Hillary or Trump would be a bloody disaster for the world. I really hope we can have some one who is sane, has relevant knowledge and experience, and not a loony Left ideologue, unions controlled, useless, gutless wimp (like Obama and Hillary).

      • #choosenottodecide

    • Curious George

      Where did you buy your crystal ball?

    • Platforms are meaningless? So are you.

      I take the platform seriously and merely ask what it means.

      • David,
        Mosher won’t like this as he’s adverse to questions but instead of my unhelpful restatement that platforms likely don’t matter it’s better to gain your perspective, so here goes.

        What evidence do you have that platforms matter?

      • Steven Mosher

        You didnt merely ask what it means.

        you asked specific questions. most of them bizzare.

        I hope you understood the answers I gave. they were all one word

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘What evidence do you have that platforms matter?”

        That is a open honest request for information. Nothing wrong with that

      • It looks like there are some political scientists who take platforms seriously too:

        We asked 8 political scientists if party platforms matter. Here’s what we learned.
        http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12060358/political-science-of-platforms

      • Steven Mosher

        really Glenn.

        read hopkins

      • Steven Mosher

        david the document pretty much speaks for itself

        The promises.

        1.Within 100 days convene a summit of experts from all fields
        to mobiilize everyone.

        Yes there is a war metaphor.. dont take metaphors literally. you’ll look silly

        2. Push other countries to make bigger cuts.

        3. make bigger cuts ourselves in C02

        4. Dont drill in the arctic.

        Actually that is a good thing. Can you imagine what a disaster it will be to try to get all the countries agreeing to bigger cuts.

      • Steven Mosher,

        So you now not only envision yourself as arbiter of science, but of politics too?

      • There is no metaphor, Mosh. WWII mobilization had a certain scale and the platform is calling for a similar scale of effort. We can and should discuss how that scale is measured, but however measured the degree of disruption is such that the effects I ask about are at least plausible, probably likely. The Democrats must explain themselves.

      • Steven Mosher

        “There is no metaphor, Mosh. ”

        Technically they used a Simile.

        You have zero understanding of rhetorical devices

        When people say things like

        “war on drugs’

        or

        A mobilization Like WWII

        you have a CHOICE as a reader

        you can, as you do, take it literally and make all manner of silly comments
        ( in the form of bad faith sham questions)
        OR
        you can, as you should, take it as a piece of rhetoric. A simile in this case.

    • Why do you insist on giving everybody so much ammunition?

      Too funny?

  20. khal spencer

    The document states the Donks will try to mobilize nations on a scale not seen since WW II. But even a grand mobilization does not guarantee that some or all of the specific steps that Dr. Wojick mentions (which are his own conjecture) will be on the table.

    Party platforms, especially this one, throw the kitchen sink at problems, including climate change. Reality is far different. Especially if the GOP holds one or both houses of Congress. Sadly, the GOP has proffered a presidential candidate who doesn’t deserve to be a dog catcher. Hence the need to concentrate on other races and some sanity in the climate policy debate among other issues.

    • Danny Thomas

      “Hence the need to concentrate on other races and some sanity in the climate policy debate among other issues.”

      Agreed. But quite obviously first there must be a desire to foster ‘some sanity’ and neither side is apparently willing to do so.

      Trump calls ‘climate change’ a ‘hoax’. No one ‘sane’ denies that climate changes. Always has and will. (Just as stupid as gearing up like it’s WWIII by the left).

      The only way for there to be a ‘win’ which Trump promises is for adults from both sides to enter the room. If ‘lukewarmer’s’ are closest to correct (and confirmationally biased I perceive that ‘we’ are, based on evidence at hand) then ‘common sense’ approaches should apply. Drastic actions (or inactions) by either party will soon be replaced by the next regime (administration) change and the pendulum will continue to swing wildly. And maybe the worst will be further deepening of divisions (us vs. them) in lieu of a ‘we/us’ based compromise.

      But all in all, platforms are almost meaningless.

    • Khal, what steps do you think are on the table if there is such a grand mobilization? The scale is based on the amount of disruption, is it not?

      • Just to clarify, the steps I list are not conjecture; they are history. I am asking what comparable steps the called for climate mobilization includes? The greens have long said that fighting climate change will require “wrenching lifestyle changes” and mobilization fits that description. So what exactly are we talking about? It is a simple question, one the Democrats need to answer. It is their platform to explain.

      • It is a simple question, one the Democrats need to answer. It is their platform to explain.

        Nope.

        You don’t understand how dialectic works.

        Now that they’ve gone on record, and before they go on record with clarifications, is Trump’s opportunity to interpret their BS in whatever way makes the look worse, and go viral with well-designed videos.

        He can bypass the media, and get everybody’s attention through viral links. Not only that, but if Facebook, Twitter, or Google try to shuffle his stuff to the bottom of the deck, he can yell about their leftist sympathies.

      • Pgs. 17-19 was more useful reading and had some specific steps such as building a bazillion solar panels, ending fossil subsidies, and effectively taxing carbon (do not have that stuff at my fingertips right now). I see these as proposals. To make a proposal into policy would require cooperation between the various branches of government as well as foreign entities.

        Mind you, I read the climate section of the Donk platform and am as distressed as you are, but do not agree that the magnitude of the steps we took when we faced an actual war would be probable in this scenerio. But we are now both in the land of conjecture.

        I do agree with you that using the kitchen sink approach at the climate problem when we realistically cannot pin down climate sensitivities and predictive capabilities very well seems…well…premature. If the public were asked to buy a house when one could not tell them the cost of the house within a factor of say, three, who would write a check?

  21. Well, the US lost about 400,000 men and women in combat during WWII. So if we scale that for the population of the US today are we expecting over one million fatalities in this “War on Climate” ?

    What complete nonsense, what fool really believes they can control the climate…… Heck (I’m being polite) they can’t even figure out what the “perfect climate” should be.

    Can’t win a war against an imaginary enemy, but you sure can waste blood and treasure, lots and lots of treasure…

    And, if I might ask, what exactly is our “exit strategy” from this “war on climate” ? Armchair Generals always tell us that “we” didn’t have an exit strategy before we started any war that became unpopular.

    What is the “exit strategy” for the “war on poverty” anyway ? That democrat “war” has been going on for 50 years and victory seems to be further away than when the democrats started. But the “body count” keeps on coming, see Chicago any weekend…

    Cheers, KevinK

  22. The DemocRats seem to think that evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. It would be nice if they showed us such evidence before ruining the economy and impoverishing people.

  23. Many Americans have the option to emigrate to another country. Unfortunately, Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem to have adopted similar illusions about risks associated with climate change.

    Emigration does not mean giving up US citizenship.

    • But they’ll need a visa. This means they need to have some sort of skill, or excuse, or guaranteed income, and in some cases medical coverage. I’m an amateur expert in this area, I help Venezuelan engineers and other professionals emigrate.

      The best option to escape climate change may be the Madives. They are getting a lot of bad press but I think the islands tend to grow as sea level rises, and the fishing is great.

  24. It is NOT “foolish” (that is a ridiculously incompetent description). It is CRIMINAL.

    Also this comment, on “19 US senators trying to muzzle climate change sceptics”, a tallbloke post.

    Mosher’s comment above is particularly obnoxious, defending the evil being embraced by the Democrats now. Fellow-travelers similarly defended both Hitler and Stalin (and every one of the tyrants of history).

  25. This was all to placate the Bernie Bros, so I don’t take it too seriously.

    It appears as if Hillary’s got the presidency, but the Rs keep Congress, so I think we’re all safe from too much stupidity – for now.

  26. Curious George

    Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, said “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection…One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    It has Bernie Sanders written all over it.

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/16/cop21-developing-countries/#comment-804406

  27. If you look at Hillary’s promises, they are empty. She is recycling the infrastructure fix that Obama peddled and supposedly implemented. Where are all those repaired roads and bridges. Hillary’s program will end the same way – hot air expended and money gone. It’s the same with her climate change spiel, she’s just blown it up and made it real dramatic sounding. If elected, she will implement some high sounding plan that does nothing. It’s just the way old-school politicians like her work. She’s appealing to the environmental base because clueless millennials will buy it.

  28. David Wojick

    The question is, what is Clinton’s position on this mobilization? Does she refute it? If not then what is the plan? Someone should ask her. Why haven’t they?

  29. Also, in case anybody is interested; the USA during the mobilization for WWII produced amazing amounts of airplanes (500k plus), trucks/tanks (1M plus), ships (3 dozen aircraft carriers, many Battleships, dozens of destroyers, 100’s of transport craft, 1000’s of landing craft) ALL produced using prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and the USA produced nearly all of the fossil fuels to operate them….

    As soon as the “climate” launches a sneak attack (like Pearl Harbor) or actually declares war against the USA (like Adolf did, FYI, the only country Adolf Hitler ever formally declared “war” against was the USA, I bet he wishes he could “reconsider” that….) then I think those SANE persons in this discussion would all be in favor of a “Mobilization on the scale of WWII”.

    Until then I think all those folks that have some mad delusions about “controlling the climate” should just shut up and stop all their SILLY “War Against Climate Change” talk.

    In retrospect, I would wager that old Adolf wishes he stopped his “war” right after he got Czechoslovakia without a fight. It all seemed to go “downhill” from there….

    Cheers, KevinK

  30. Dems don’t get it.

    All we need is a wall to prevent warming from terrorizing us.

    I’m gonna make the IPCC pay for it.

    Thank you.

    • With this platform, the Dems are just shamelessly pandering to the general public, who want alternative energy and reduced emissions by almost 2 to 1 in the polling. The Republicans want to be the party that ignores the public on these issues, and that is a fine strategy too.

      • I would focus on good paying jobs. This requires sophisticated approaches, one of which is reducing the flow of illegal immigrants, illegals lower wages for the unskilled labor pool. This in turn makes it hard to have good paying jobs for the lower strata.

        A partial solution is to build a border barrier. A wall isn’t really the best answer in some settings. Those who claim the borders can’t be defended need to attend engineering school and serve a three year stint in the us army.

        Other approaches to providing better paying jobs would be a program to streamline nuclear plant construction, beefing up grids, and providing for stable higher oil prices by regulating the industry to produce resources intelligently. Right now the approach is wasteful. For example, we do need pipelines to bring Canadian heavy oil, blend it with light oils from fracking. This implies capping North Dakota to say 800,000 BOPD and encouraging Canadians to ship about 3 million BOPD of heavy blend.

      • Yes, I think Trump has those people almost convinced by now. They just have to ignore his conman reputation, his past opposite statements, regular gaffes, and all those other Republicans saying he is unsuitable for the position.

      • …providing for stable higher oil prices by regulating the industry to produce resources intelligently.

        Yikes!

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “the Dems are just shamelessly pandering to the general public, who want alternative energy and reduced emissions by almost 2 to 1 in the polling.”

        Unfortunately, they are unprepared to pay for it…

        Funny how you omitted to mention that.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “Technology has advanced more than you can imagine since 1992”

        I’m well aware of that. And it’s not just technology – the whole world has changed utterly since 1992. That’s why the Convention’s Annex I / non-Annex I bifurcation no longer makes any sense. But China, supported by India and other newly powerful countries, adamantly refuses to amend it. And there’s nothing the West (including you, Jim) can do about it. That’s because another change since 1992 is the declining power of the West. Trade embargoes? The EU tried that re aviation emissions. China only had to threaten to cancel its orders for new Airbus aircraft and the EU backed off. That’s today’s world. Get used to it.

        My preferred solution? I produced a note on this over two years ago – although some of the references etc. are inevitably outdated, it still hold good:https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uk-climate-policies-are-pointless2.pdf

      • OK, so it looks like your preferred solution is to just give up to climate change. However, I agree that some of the arrangement into Annexes is out of date and certain countries should not count as Developing when their per capita emission is high by some measure. They need to be part of the reduction commitments, even if it is at a lower rate than the Developed countries. Meanwhile, others have put a lot of thought into solutions, and I could point to the DDPP (Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project) as one example (Google ddpp) that looks at pathways customized for each major emitter country, or at this expert view from Carbon Tracker on the US-China agreement.
        http://www.carbontracker.org/what-does-the-us-china-climate-change-agreement-mean-in-practice-analytical-insights/
        It is not as hopeless as you think, and people have ideas. The main issue is political, and for any countries to embark on these plans they need a global framework for leverage, because unlike most national policy, this one has to be part of a global agreement and cannot work without it.

      • Robin Guenier

        Above posted in the wrong place – see below.

      • And all those thousands of acres of windmills in Texas could be replaced by 11 nuclear power plants that would put out 13,900,000,000 watts 24/7. Not just for 14 hours.

      • > [C]ertain countries should not count as Developing when their per capita emission is high by some measure.

        The development of a country is defined by its GDP per capita, Jim D. Your initial intuition was the correct one. No wonder it was dismissed as dreamland.

        The best a critic could argue is that India and China are “newly industrialized.” Then you’d need to adjust the concept of GDP with something like purchasing power parity. You’d obtain something like the G7+5 or G20, the latter representing 80% of the GDP and of GHG emissions.

        Even then you’re still stuck with obvious socio-economic and historical inequalities, both between the countries and between the industries. One way to seek more fairness while addressing climate change otherwise than hammering “but 65%” would be to push for something like this:

        Leaders should acknowledge that fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks cost an estimated $550 billion per year globally and encourage inefficient investments in further fossil fuel exploration and production, discouraging energy innovation and efficiency. They also come at huge cost to the subsidizing governments — often more than is spent domestically on health or on education, as is the case in Indonesia and was previously the case in Mexico.

        http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/08/will-g20-spur-post-paris-climate-action-3-signs-look

        The Paris Agreement may indicate that we’re moving to a more responsible international community. The approach was bottom-up, and there is no imperialist bouncer anymore.

      • Even some countries with high GDP per capita come into the Developing class. These include most of the Arab oil states, for example. These also appear near the top in emissions per capita. E.g. see here
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

      • GDP per capita is only an aspect of the Human Development Index, JimD. If you read that Wiki page, you’ll see that the developing/development division was first a statistical convenience. The UN and the IMF don’t share the same classification.

        The case of Middle East illustrates why looking at emissions per country (or even region) doesn’t really work. Most of their emissions come from their export sectors. Their oil-addicted clients are also responsible for these than they themselves are. Only Drumpfian reasoning would justify penalizing a country while sucking up all its natural resources.

        In any case, the 65%-disaster. argument is an extension to the good ol’ “What’s the point, China builds coal plant.”

      • I also mentioned earlier that a lot of China’s emission must be related to exports. There needs to be a way to account for that. While they profit from their emissions, the per capita level does not always relate to the profligacy of the people in the country. Every country has its own characteristics and a few numbers like GDP or emissions per capita don’t capture how developed they are and how easy it is to reduce emissions. Countries with low emissions per capita can be exempt, but others have to make their case for the necessity of their various emissions, like China. Within the sectors of power generation, transportation, and buildings, they will have choices they can make.

      • Jim D,

        If you follow the Wiki’s breadcrumbs, you should stumble upon this:

        The main criteria used by the WEO to classify the world into advanced economies and emerging market and developing economies are (1) per capita income level, (2) export diversification—so oil exporters that have high per capita GDP would not make the advanced classification because around 70% of its exports are oil, and (3) degree of integration into the global financial system. In the first criteria, we look at an average over a number of years given that volatility (due to say oil production) can have a marked year-to-year effect.

        http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/faq.htm#q4b

        I forgot to mention that World Bank also has its own classification system.

        What you’re suggesting seems to require a market system to account for the cost of dumping CO2 in the atmosphere. China already is implementing something like a cap-and-trade. It could be through taxation for all I care. If all this could bring more justice, that’d be great, but I’m not holding my breath.

        In any event, what I think we should bear in mind is that a dynamic system, be it a car or a CO2-dumping machine, needs to slow before it stops, and needs to be brought to a halt before going in reverse.

      • Thanks for those criteria. Good that they account for oil exports. Also I agree that as long as China looks like it is making a good-faith effort, its emission growth can be tolerated especially as they are aiming to reduce carbon intensity by 65%. Countries such as this with a high GDP growth rate, a sign of development, should be spared from being compared to the Developed class.

      • Jim D, where will China be in a hundred years time when you look at the curve, watch out!

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1638833/china-building-cruise-missiles-powered-by-killer-artificial-intelligence/

        .The last thing you want is a dragon bite.

      • Ping-Pong… So this is the reason Dr. K, was interested in trying out the idea of nation building. First we receive cheap beads and our money then sends them to the moon all in less than fifty years, what a profit. Political science at work.

      • Steven Mosher

        Too funny.

        Nature bats last guys.
        She doesnt calculate GDPs or per capita emissions.
        She doesnt know anything about fairness
        And she certainly has no time for a bunch of amateurs with
        D-K trying to suggest solutions to the mess or stumbling their
        way through internet links to prove a point to YADKV

        Go back to your barracks.
        Cut your personal emmissions
        and let the pros from dover handle this.

      • Thanks for your input.

      • catweazle666

        “And she certainly has no time for a bunch of amateurs with
        D-K trying to suggest solutions to the mess or stumbling their
        way through internet links to prove a point to YADKV”

        I don’t think she’s got much time for prolix second hand temperature database salesmen who can’t spell ’emissions’ either.

      • I agree, Moshpit.

        Let the pros from Dover handle this wicked problem.

        Anyone who doesn’t see AGW as a wicked problem is part of the problem. No, not the AGW wicked problem. Another one, the CAGW wicked problem.

        Wicked problems, billions upon billions of wicked problems.

        We need everyone on board. Everyone I tell you, except all those who know anything about the AGW problem. For what we need is those who can see AGW not as a problem – they’re too arrogant. We need those who, like my collaborators, can honestly broker lukewarm breakthroughs.

        Unless we finally see AGW as a wicked problem, it’ll be a disaster.

        Thank you.

  31. Reminds of William James idea of declaring a “war on nature” for lack of real wars.

    Since the world is bankrupt and after the experiences of the last few years I don’t believe they will let the market sort it out the climate issue may make a great additional pretext for total economic control.

  32. Robin Guenier

    From the Democratic Party Platform:

    … we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement.

    But that’s the agreement that exempted the developing economies (responsible for over 65% of global GHG emissions) from any obligation – moral or legal – to reduce those emissions: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/16/cop21-developing-countries/

    Hmm … surely a failure of US leadership? Why applaud that?

    • You still seem bitter that they wanted to allow the developing economies to have special exemptions. Isn’t this just the humane part of the agreement? Would you prefer India and Brazil, emitting at 1/3 of the global average rate already, to immediately reduce emissions? Spell out what you want for those types of countries, if not exemption from immediate reductions.

      • Robin Guenier

        Are you unable to read? On the previous thread I made my personal position clear:

        “… the Paris outcome was wholly understandable and, given the pre Paris negotiations, should not be a surprise. I am neither happy nor unhappy about that outcome and personally don’t regard it as a disaster.”

        Far from being bitter, as I’ve explained in some detail, I sympathise with the UNFCCC’s Article 4.7 that permits developing countries to prioritise poverty elimination: over a billion people on our planet subsist on less that $1.9 per day – why should their hopes of a better future be sacrificed because some powerful Western leaders believe that GHG emissions must be reduced urgently and substantially if the threat of climate change is to be avoided?

        No, the problem – not for me, but for the Democratic Party (and most Western leaders) – is that the developing country exemption means that economies already emitting nearly 70% of global GHG emissions are certain to increase those emissions – China and India have said as much. And that’s terrible news for a political party that believes that “Climate change poses an urgent and severe threat to our national security …“A party that “recognizes” the “catastrophic consequences facing our country, our planet, and civilisation.” that would result from failing to take urgent action.

      • It turns out that it is a multi-decadal solution. In the early decades, developing countries will increase emissions, and the more developed of them, like China, already near Europe’s per capita level and above the global average, will have to turn the curve and start reducing. While India emits at less than 2 tonnes per person, growth with development would be expected until technology permits them to turn the curve, but realistically that may be after more time. The IPCC recognizes all this. The UN is very sensitive to poverty which is at least as high a priority as climate stabilization. If you find that these people exist who think developing economies like India and Brazil should immediately cut emissions, I would support your view, but I am not sure that there are such people because it goes completely against the UN priorities for such countries. They do know how to deal both with climate stabilization and poverty, and how to balance these goals.

      • Jim D, we all have seen scientists as they explain the many dangers resulting from AGW. First you have to fly to the polar bears in your helicopter, next you have to shoot & drug them, then hang them from a scale to estimate their weight, examine their mouth and anus don’t forget the eyes, ears and nose before finally taking a few blood samples for your selfie just before you fly the drugged bear to a safe place. You will not have to do all that work and we will not have to pay you all to do it…when you finally leave everybody alone we will see a real change, lower rates of clinical depression, world wide.

      • The whole idea of “emission reduction targets” is silly. Not going to happen. Not necessary. Just grow the right technology, like planting the right trees.

        The targets don’t matter. As long as somebody is nurturing the right technology, when the developing nations are ready to use it, it’ll be there, and much cheaper by then.

      • Cheapness can conflict. What if someone decides that methane hydrates are the next great new energy source. They’re just sitting there in coastal zones. Having targets means just saying no, don’t go there, and don’t even think about it.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “What if someone decides that methane hydrates are the next great new energy source.”

        They already have.

        The Japanese completed a successful pilot a couple of years ago and are now building a full scale extraction rig, as are the South Koreans.

        Nor are they the only nations involved in such projects.

        Just think, there is more methane hydrate than all other reserves of fossil fuels put together, possibly by orders of magnitude.

        That’s our energy problem solved for several centuries, perhaps more!

      • One benefit of Paris is that if these countries want to use it, they have to figure out how to burn it cleanly.

      • One benefit of Paris is that if these countries want to use it, they have to figure out how to burn it cleanly.

        No they don’t. They can ignore Paris. Nobody really cares that much.

        If people who care want them to exploit sea-floor methane hydrate clathrate in a fossil-neutral manner, people who care are going to have to take steps contributing to the technology costs being lower for such approaches (relative to simple dig&burn).

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D:

        You said:

        In the early decades … China, already near Europe’s per capita level and above the global average, will have to turn the curve and start reducing.

        Two observations: (1) two years ago, China’s per capita emissions exceed those of the EU; (2) China has made it clear that it expects its emissions, already nearly 30% of the global total – more than the US and EU combined, to increase until a “peak” around 2030 – no mention of reduction.

        You said:

        If you find that these people exist who think developing economies like India and Brazil should immediately cut emissions, I would support your view, but I am not sure that there are such people because it goes completely against the UN priorities for such countries.

        First, see the examples (from the UK DECC and from Greenpeace) that I cited for Willard in the last thread. And here’s Kofi Annan (past UN Secretary General): “Governments have to conclude a fair, universal and binding climate agreement, by which every country commits to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. … It is important that developed and developing countries cut emissions.

        As for the IPCC, see this report: https://www.carbonbrief.org/no-time-for-delay-in-cutting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-say-ipcc-scientists. No suggestion there that it would be OK if countries responsible for over 65% of emissions defer any cuts for a few decades.

      • So here it comes down to the time scale. Should developing countries cut emissions starting immediately or later when they can do it practically. The long-term goal would be for everyone to cut to a very low per capita emission rate, otherwise the 2 C target would not be met, so these statements are true of long-term goals, and by long-term I would hope everyone is reducing emissions after 2050 because the targets won’t be met otherwise. Paris goes into effect when 55 countries accounting for 55% of emissions ratify it. This necessarily includes China.

      • > China has made it clear that it expects its emissions, already nearly 30% of the global total – more than the US and EU combined, to increase until a “peak” around 2030 – no mention of reduction.

        Right on:

        On 30 June 2015, China submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), including the target to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total primary energy supply to around 20% by that time, and increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic metres, compared to 2005 levels.

        http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

        But 65%.

      • Yes, cuts are often expressed in terms of carbon intensity to allow for GDP growth. China has one of the fastest growing renewable energy industries in the world. They are trying.

      • Perhaps, Jim D, but 65%.

        65%, I tell you.

        We must force the 65%, otherwise disaster.

        DISASTER, I tell you.

        65%.

        Disaster.

        Thank you.

      • What if someone decides that methane hydrates are the next great new energy source. They’re just sitting there in coastal zones.

        Already happening

        Having targets means just saying no, don’t go there, and don’t even think about it.

        Useless. Silly.

        A better option would be strong support for research into extracting CO2 from the surface water, and using it to replace the methane. And perhaps looking into offering “Homesteading” for companies that want to “prove out their claim” with technology that swaps ambient CO2 for methane.

        This could not only strongly encourage the development of fossil-neutral sea-floor methane, it would also foster much larger deployment of ambient CO2 extracting technology, allowing Wright’s “law”/”learning curve” to bring down the cost much faster.

      • What you are suggesting implies that you would only exploit it if it was carbon neutral. This is an add-on you would not have done if there were no need for restricting CO2, because surely it is cheaper without that add-on.

      • India-Led Joint Expedition Finds Large Gas Hydrate Deposit in Bay of Bengal

        The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported Monday that it has assisted India in discovering a large, highly enriched accumulations of natural gas hydrate in the Bay of Bengal — the first of its kind in the Indian Ocean that has the potential to be producible — with Japan’s Chikyu deepwater drilling vessel during the Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 (INGHPR-02).

        According to USGS, the find is the result of the most comprehensive gas hydrate field venture in the world to date, with participation of scientists from India, Japan and the U.S. The expedition conducted ocean drilling, conventional sediment coring, pressure coring, downhole logging and analytical activities to assess the geologic occurrence, regional context and characteristics of gas hydrate deposits in offshore India.

        “Advances like the Bay of Bengal discovery will help unlock the global energy resource potential of gas hydrates as well help define the technology needed to safely produce them … The USGS is proud to have played a key role on this project in collaboration with our international partner, the Indian Government,” USGS Energy Resources Program coordinator Walter Guidroz said in a press release.

      • What you are suggesting implies that you would only exploit it if it was carbon neutral.

        Nope. I’m suggesting that it would be better for everybody if a mature, high-volume sea-floor methane hydrate industry was fossil-neutral rather than otherwise.

        This is an add-on you would not have done if there were no need for restricting CO2, […]

        It’s an add-on something that the governments who participated in Paris aren’t talking about. I wouldn’t call it an “add-on”. There are many potential technologies for removing methane from the hydrate. Replacing it with CO2 to create CO2 hydrate clathrate is one option. It would probably be cheaper in some respects than other methods of separation, while more expensive in others.

        I’m talking about it because I’m worried about fossil carbon. I don’t care about the fantasy limits from Paris.

        [… B]ecause surely it is cheaper without that add-on.

        Go back and read up on Wright’s “Law”.

      • You personally may be worried about being CO2 neutral, even without Paris, but others only look at the bottom-line dollar and would see the same resource in a completely different way without Paris.

      • Robin Guenier

        I’m a lawyer – and have no idea how long we’re supposed to have before emissions have to be cut to meet the 2ºC target. I believe some “experts” say it’s considerably sooner than you suggest. But, in any case, as (a) China with 30% of emissions has made no reduction promises (and anyway probably isn’t convinced that CO2 emissions are a problem), (b) India (7% of global emissions) has said it expects to increase its emissions (substantially) for the foreseeable future and (c) new coal-fired power stations are being commissioned throughout (in particular) SE Asia, your hoped for cuts may never materialise.

      • Yes, while it is fair to exempt low per-capita emission countries, the rest have a lot of work to do to make an impact. Including China, the countries above the global average per capita rate account for 75% of emissions, and it is from these that the bulk of the initial reductions have to come.

      • > I’m a lawyer.

        Don’t sell yourself short, RobinG:

        Guenier is a writer, speaker and business consultant – now retired. He has an MA from Oxford and is a barrister. After twenty years as CEO of various high-tech companies, he founded (1995) an independent business consultancy, Guenier Ltd, specialising most recently in project risk; an early assignment was as CEO of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the Cabinet Office. He was founder chair of the medical online research company, Medix UK. He has
        been a regular contributor to TV and radio and has had speaking engagements throughout the world.

        https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “Including China, the countries above the global average per capita rate account for 75% of emissions, and it is from these that the bulk of the initial reductions have to come.” Maybe – and the biggest emitter, by far, is China. So what happens if China – as seems quite likely – refuses to make a contribution to those initial reductions?

      • There has been substantial pressure on China, and if they did not have such large solar and hydro efforts clearly going on, they would be under a lot more criticism. But the UN operates through “trust but verify”, which is why they will have 5-year updates, and naming and shaming. Without penalties, theirs is a peer-pressure effort. I can imagine blatant stragglers being penalized by some individual countries through trade, because they would be identified as selfish.

      • Robin Guenier

        Yes Willard, a 60% to 65% reduction would seem to be an aggressive carbon efficiency target. Although, given China’s remarkable record of improved carbon intensity over the years and noting they’ve got 25 years to achieve their target, it’s probably not so remarkable as it seems. But the real story – the one you failed to highlight – is their aim to target peak emissions by 2030 at the latest. In other words, they expect to continue to increase their (already massive) emissions for up to another 14 years. And what happens then? No indication – but a “peak” is not a reduction.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D: peer pressure is unlikely to have much impact on China. Note how they simply ignore worldwide criticism of their human rights record. Perhaps even more telling is the way they swept aside the International Court of Justice ruling against their claim to the South China Sea.

      • The rapid increase of their renewable effort is evidence that it has had an effect, and trade is important to them, but continual monitoring is key.

      • As far as I can tell, China is on track to meet its emission targets. Of course, they already had a plan, they just documented targets the fit with it.

        AFAIK, their plan wasn’t based on any sort of emission reduction targets.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D: the rapid increase of China’s renewable effort is a result, not of peer pressure, but of their desperate need to reduce dreadful urban pollution – plus some marketing of their renewable products. But climate change? As I’ve said, the indications are that China is unconvinced that emissions have much to do with it.

        AK: it’s not so difficult to be on track to meet emission targets when, in terms of absolute emissions, all you’ve targeted is a “peak” by about 2030.

      • China can derail Paris single-handedly, and if they do, they can’t hide it.

      • > In other words, they expect to continue to increase their (already massive) emissions for up to another 14 years. And what happens then? No indication […]

        Less than ten seconds suffices to find at least some indication:

        Probably the most noticeable element of the Obama-Xi joint statement was China’s announcement that it would implement an emissions trading system in 2017. This announcement is the culmination of experience gained from pilot emissions trading schemes in seven Chinese cities over the last couple of years. The decision by China to introduce a national cap-and-trade system stands in increasingly stark contrast to the absence in the U.S. at the federal level of a national program (or even a serious political debate) on pricing carbon.

        That said, how China’s mitigation efforts stack up still needs to be determined. Currently, there is a commitment by China to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but the level at which China’s emissions will peak has yet to be announced. Knowing what level China plans to cap emissions for those sectors under its proposed emissions trading system will help clarify this.

        ***

        > [A] “peak” is not a reduction.

        Tell that to a Poker site who commits to cap the gambling tab of its players.

      • Robin Guenier

        at least some indication

        I’ve read the extract you cite, Willard. Not very helpful: it contains no indication of what will happen re China’s emissions after they peak around 2030. Will they be reduced or will they stay the same – and, if so, for how long? No one can answer these questions – except perhaps the Chinese, and they’re keeping quiet. And worse still, as the paper says, they haven’t even announced the level at which emissions will peak.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “China can derail Paris single-handedly

        It won’t. Paris suits it perfectly – placing embarrassing obligations on the West while ensuring the developing world is free to do much as it wishes. After all, China, supported by India, was largely instrumental in bringing this about. Why derail it?

      • I am agreeing, and with China the developed emitters control 75% of global emissions, so their agreements can have a substantial effect even allowing for developing countries to be exempt from reductions.

      • > Will they be reduced or will they stay the same – and, if so, for how long? No one can answer these questions […]

        Here’s someone who can:

        There’s no realistic prospect that the 2030 “reevaluation” will effect any significant change: look up the Chinese and Indian rhetoric in the months leading up to Paris.

        Meanwhile, here are some indication that China will be cutting emissions of major pollutants in the power sector by 60% by 2020 and annual carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power generation by 180m tonnes by 2020.

      • If you follow climate change on Google Scholar, there are a lot of scientists from China who are publishing papers on climate change. Not saying there aren’t any, but I’ve never read one I would classify as skeptical. I suspect the Chinese welcome the Australian misstep on CSIRO, a major regional opening to exploit.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “with China the developed emitters control 75% of global emissions”

        No they don’t. In 2014, developed countries emitted 36% of the global total and China 30%. But, in any case, as China is a developing country and therefore exempt (and has said it will increase its emissions for about 14 years), your point makes no sense.

      • I take the 2014 numbers and add up the countries, with EU as a bloc, with greater than the global average 5 tonnes per capita, and these total about 75% of the global total. These are the countries most on the hook for reductions. It is very generous to still consider China as a developing country. Some of these should have a special category of “recently developed”, because they are not like India or African countries, and they already exceed the global average emissions per capita.

      • Robin Guenier

        Willard: that Guardian extract is about China’s desperate need to reduce the scourge of urban pollution. Unlike man-made climate change (about which China seems sceptical) it’s a problem that really concerns them.

        It’s interesting that you omitted the second part of the extract. It reads:

        It did not give comparison figures or elaborate how it would achieve the result.

        And that’s the problem with China’s “promises” – it’s rarely possible to pin them down. See this article (much more recent than yours): http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/12/china-doesnt-need-any-more-coal-plants/ An extract:

        Last year, 64 GW of new coal-fired generation capacity was installed, with an additional 13.63 GW installed in the first quarter of 2016 – the highest figure for the same period in recent years.

        Note that: a massive 13.63 GW of coal-fired generation installed since the announcement you cited.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, focusing on the countries with greater than the global average 5 tonnes per capita is an interesting concept. But in reality these discussions are about reducing overall emissions – and, if you exclude China, those countries account for only 36% (the 2014 figure) of global emissions. In practice it’s worse than that as Russia and Japan (responsible between them for 9%) show little interest in emission reduction. That puts the onus on the US and EU. And, to make a useful impact, they would have to eliminate entirely the 25% for which they are responsible. That obviously isn’t going to happen.

        As for big per capita emitters such as China, South Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia, perhaps – in an ideal world – they would be in a special category. But they’re not. Over recent years the US and EU have tried to change that, but China has adamantly refused to consider it. And, in the final analysis, it seems that China calls the shots.

      • What I support is exempting those countries that are not emitting much to start with. However, that implies that the high emitters have the burden, and they should act on it. You may be pessimistic now at the start of the process perhaps considering those countries to be too selfish to even try, but it has to play out, and with the background of technology advances incentivized by exactly this issue and inspired by this accord, I am more optimistic that these goals are possible.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said that I “may be pessimistic now at the start of the process …”

        But this isn’t the start of the process. The US and EU have been trying for years to amend the 1992 Convention’s categorisation of developed and developing countries. But China and other developing countries simply refuse even to contemplate it. And now it’s enshrined in the “historic” Paris agreement, the prospects of change are hopelessly dim. You’re going to have to come to terms with this, I’m afraid.

      • Technology has advanced more than you can imagine since 1992, and now alternatives are starting to become viable. Adding efficient energy storage, and there are many contending methods, and, yes, nuclear options. 2040 is as far from 2016 as 1992 was. You advocate just giving up on targets, perhaps? What is your preferred solution? Maybe the other extreme with tougher penalties on rogue emitting countries, which can be carried out through trade embargoes?

      • Robin Guenier

        Apologies, this response was posted in the wrong place. Here it is again.

        Jim D, you said: “Technology has advanced more than you can imagine since 1992

        I’m well aware of that. And it’s not just technology – the whole world has changed utterly since 1992. That’s why the Convention’s Annex I / non-Annex I bifurcation no longer makes any sense. But China, supported by India and other newly powerful countries, adamantly refuses to amend it. And there’s nothing the West (including you, Jim) can do about it. That’s because another change since 1992 is the declining power of the West. Trade embargoes? The EU tried that re aviation emissions. China only had to threaten to cancel its orders for new Airbus aircraft and the EU backed off. That’s today’s world. Get used to it.

        My preferred solution? I produced a note on this over two years ago – although some of the references etc. are inevitably outdated, it still hold good:https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uk-climate-policies-are-pointless2.pdf

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “The main issue is political, and … has to be part of a global agreement and cannot work without it.

        True. A question:

        How would you propose to persuade the UN hierarchy to start the process of dismantling the Paris Agreement (something that was the product of many years of hard-fought, detailed and boring negotiation and now regarded as a “historic” success) and replacing it with a new agreement based on new categories of responsibility and new types of commitment – especially as your new categories and types of commitment would almost certainly be completely unacceptable to major and newly-powerful emerging economies?

      • The Paris agreement was designed as something to return to for evaluation every five years. It has that flexibility, and it needs to because we all know how quickly the world is changing.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “we all know how quickly the world is changing

        True. But, if the parties negotiating the Paris Agreement had been interested in taking account of that, they wouldn’t have left the Convention (over 20 years old) virtually unchanged. But that’s what they did. They’re most unlikely to have a change of attitude over only 5 years.

      • If, by the Convention, you mean how they classify the countries, I would agree that that needs to be flexible too. If a country is not increasing its emissions to improve development, which I believe should be the only excuse, it needs to be looked at as a candidate for reclassification and require restrictions. I am not saying this is easy, but there is monitoring to at least keep track.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “If a country is not increasing its emissions to improve development … it needs to be looked at as a candidate for reclassification and require restrictions.

        You haven’t been paying attention. What you say may be true. But the developing countries have made it crystal clear that they won’t agree to such reclassification. And, unless they agree, it won’t happen. There’s nothing the West (including you) can do to change that. Get used to it.

      • I have accounted for that. If a country really is developing, its GDP will be rising too. This means they can stay exempt, but in many cases emissions should grow much more slowly than GDP, as with the deal China has.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said:”I have accounted for that.

        No you haven’t. You seem to believe that it’s possible that some new system can somehow be introduced whereby some countries stay exempt and other don’t. But that’s simply not going to happen unless the developing countries agree that it should. And they won’t: the Paris Agreement suits them fine as it is – they have no interest in changing it.

        Get it now?

      • So you want to abandon it at the outset because of this hypothetical situation that you imagine: namely that some rapidly developing country remains free to emit all it wants with no restrictions ever. I think they can take care of that situation if it arises.

      • Jim D,

        You just don’t get it.

        Paris was a disaster for anyone who believes in CAGW. The reason is simple, and doesn’t even require a sentence – 65%.

        Now, 65% is a big number. Not as big as 70%, but big enough to wonder what th 35% can do about it. Why the 35% would bother to do anything if the 65% won’t do anything?

        It’s a disaster, I tell you.

        Now, I hear you say that the 65% might eventually commit. But do we have any real commitment about real reduction? No, siree.

        Hence the 65% will never do anything like a real reduction. Why would they anyway? It’s not like dumping coal had any adverse effect on anything, or that coal companies could ever lose money, right?

        We’d need a stick to make the 65% commit to real reduction. A stick, I tell you. Just like in the good ol’ days, when we won Hong Kong.

        We got no stick, it’s a disaster, but not for me, only for those who believe in CAGW.

        Thank you.

      • Robin Guenier

        Jim D, you said: “So you want to abandon it at the outset …

        No – what I may want is irrelevant. It’s conceivable that you’re right and those rapidly developing countries will take care of things. I doubt it – we’ll have to wait and see.

        PS: Willard’s waffling gets increasingly incoherent.

  33. I would take this seriously. The Democrats always try to implement their stupid ideas. It’s the reason they get up in the morning.

    Andrew

    • Moreover, it is a central theme among the greens, who are among the Democrats most loyal supporters. This is not going away after the election. But the point is to challenge the Democrats over this. Make them say what it means.

  34. I think some of you are dismissing this because you think Democrats would be crazy to try and actually do some of the crazy things in this platform.

    But that’s the point. You aren’t grasping the level of devotion these people have to their insanity.

    Andrew

  35. Public polling tends to favor all of these Dem platform positions, whether on emissions, healthcare, guns, education costs, immigration, minimum wage, infrastructure building, environment protection, equal rights, etc. It is hard to find a position there that won’t poll well.

  36. New article in Vox that is worth reading
    http://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12507810/climate-change-world-war

    Is it useful to think of climate change as a “world war”?

    • It’s people like Bill McKibben who demonstrate the truth of Trump’s accusation that “global warming” is a hoax.

      • Curious George

        “A global war [is] being waged on us by physics.” When a famous physicist of Bill McKibben’s format says it, it must be true.

        These people see enemies everywhere.

    • War:

      Video of Dazed Aleppo Boy Reverberates Amid Horrors of Syria
      Image of 5-year-old boy is the latest of the searing photos that document the horrors of Syria’s war

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/photo-of-dazed-boy-emerges-from-syria-fighting-1471512207

      Not War:

      In the Pacific this spring, the enemy staged a daring breakout across thousands of miles of ocean, waging a full-scale assault on the region’s coral reefs. In a matter of months, long stretches of formations like the Great Barrier Reef—dating back past the start of human civilization and visible from space—were reduced to white bone-yards.
      — Bill McKibben

    • The last world war was ended by nuclear power. If “global warming” is the equivalent of a “world war” then nuclear power should be used to end it.

    • IMHO, it will be impossible to cut America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050 without a strong commitment to nuclear power. And yet, California has decided to shutter Diablo Canyon.

      Full disclosure: I’ve worked in the nuclear industry for thirty-five years in construction and operations. My Internet handle ‘Beta Blocker’ reflects the situation that my lifetime occupational radiation exposure comes mostly from beta-gamma sources.

      My California relatives, citing studies like those produced by Mark Jabcobson, are convinced the Renewable Revolution is a completely doable thing, and that closing Diablo Canyon is the best thing for California and for the nation.

      As far as they are concerned, it’s only a matter of giving the technology wizards of Silicon Valley enough financial incentive to develop home solar systems which are affordable for everyone to own, and to build a renewable-friendly electric grid which incorporates large-scale wind and solar generation backed by grid-scale energy storage systems. No need anymore for either natural gas or for nuclear.

      A majority of Californians seem to be likewise convinced that the renewables, wind and solar backed by grid-scale energy storage, can do the whole job economically and without reliance on any of the traditional energy resources — coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear.

      What I’ve said to my California relatives is this: the economic studies you are citing as justification for your opinions aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

      If you want a defensible economic analysis for what it will take to eliminate both nuclear and natural gas from California’s energy mix, here’s what you need to do. You must pick a specific engineering design for California’s renewable-friendly grid architecture as the basis for your cost estimation studies. You must decide upon a specific time frame for its implementation — ten years, twenty years, thirty years, whatever. You must then perform a highly-detailed in-depth cost analysis covering each and every cost element of that engineered grid design — land, labor, materials & equipment, management overhead, environmental compliance, regulatory oversight, civil infrastructure, and the cost of money.

      The response I’ve gotten so far is that, “The experts already know as much as they need to know to predict that a 100% renewable grid will cost less than what exists today and will be just as reliable.”

      By all means, Diablo Canyon advocates, do what you can to keep the facility on line past 2025. But recognize that a majority of Californians are opposed to nuclear power; they think wind and solar are the future; and any California politician who bucks the trend will pay a steep price for their pro-nuclear position.

      • The innumerate are blind to their innumeracy.

      • And who are the ones to blame for this amazing brainwashing of the population, making them believe that some windmills, solar panels and chemical batteries can cost-effectively and reliably power an economy?

        I blame the lying NGO’s such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

    • David Roberts: “The Democratic platform, to put it bluntly, doesn’t matter — it has no legal status and in no way constrains Democrats once they are in office. It’s more of an internal document, a series of signals among left interest groups about who has influence and who doesn’t.”

      Dr. Curry: ” Is it useful to think of climate change as a “world war”?”

      Yes and no.

      Roberts goes further: “In the end, though, I think climate change is too big and unwieldy to be captured by any single metaphor or narrative. It’s wicked like that.

      It’s an environmental problem, an energy transition, a national security threat, a market failure, an economic opportunity, an obligation to our children, a political dispute, a question of justice. Everyone has their climate thing, their way of approaching it, like the proverbial blind men around the elephant. But no metaphor really captures it all.

      More importantly, there’s no way to short-circuit politics. Actual wars don’t even short-circuit partisan politics anymore. There’s no skeleton key, no framing so dire that it will part the political waters. The hard boards must be bored.

      I love the idea of mobilization behind a common national purpose. But if it’s a war, surely, while we wait for the cavalry to arrive, we should take every little inch of ground we can.”

    • McKibben is a major player so this cannot simply be dismissed.

  37. Here’s another article i just spotted
    https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/scientist-calls-for-wartime-mobilization-vs-climate-change/71252

    Scientist calls for wartime mobilization vs climate change

    • This video may have been adjusted but when you already dig Kali, WHO knows?

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/chilling-satanic-human-sacrifice-video-8655022

      Just another day at the office…

    • Science and Technology in the Second World War – Canada

      An extensive listing of accomplishments made by the mobilized scientists and engineers of Canada during WW2…

    • One good idea from wartime was War Bonds. The idea has been floated for Climate Bonds, where the public basically lends the government money for climate-related infrastructure and gets it back with guaranteed interest. In times of low interest or market volatility, bonds sell well. It’s a win-win.

      • Jim D, What asset class has been liquidated around the world to pay for all these bonds sold by our government,… gold, silver, real estate, cash under the mattress, jewelry, surplus tax revenue, you name it…and now you want us to take your ‘someday’ C bonds, for all our cash today? Where has all this bond money come from, I can’t explain it; could you?

      • Bonds are commonly used by governments to provide them near-term capital with a long-term payment plan. This is not something new. It is the government borrowing from their people rather than from other countries.

      • My Mom bought war bonds with the money they saved from Dad’s combat pay.

      • That is nice, you see the problem we have seeing the big picture today? She was a member of the collateral used to secure her bond and the guarantee of the same bond to herself. It was war.

      • In the banking world you must always keep in mind that the Assets, are their liabilities and that the Liabilities, are the banks real asset.

        H/t CG

    • David Wojick

      Good find, Dr, Curry. This is definitely not a metaphor. Here is the key quote:

      “Why the WWII comparison? It will take the same level of commitment and effort, to retool factories and put a massive labour force behind this – not to build weapons, planes and tanks this time, but instead to churn out solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles.”

      My point is that this level of economic commitment is hugely disruptive and painful. For example this “massive labor force” has to be pulled out of the existing labor force, leaving many real jobs undone (farming?). Retooling factories (by force?) means shortages in what those factories would otherwise make (consumer goods, medical equipment?) as well as shortages in essential materials that then ripple through the system.

      This is a classic “those who forget history…” fiasco in the making. These folks are deadly serious. How will this be done and who is going to pay for it? What will the disruptive impacts be? We must push these questions.

  38. I am positively 100% certain that we will absolutely never use the nuclear weapons we are spending 35 billion dollars a year to build. Nuclear war is a hoax just like man-made climate change. It will never happen.

  39. ‘It is now clear that what is called “lukewarming” is probably the correct scientific view. Human activity may be causing a modest global warming…’
    Admirer that I am of Nic Lewis’s contribution to the science, it seems to me that this is way premature.

  40. Professor Brian Cox undoubtedly has the prettiest lips in the world of celebrity physics. That – together with his cute, knowing little half-smile; his Charlatans-style haircut; and his early incarnation as keyboard player with New Labour’s favourite one-hit-wonder band D:Ream – explains why he has become the BBC’s go-to popular science presenter.
    If you believe his Wikipedia entry, indeed, he is the natural successor to the BBC’s most treasured grand dame, the whispery-voiced gorilla-hugging Malthusian Sir David Attenborough.

    Whatever, in terms of UK science TV and radio programme, Cox is undoubtedly a big deal: like a better-looking, better qualified version of America’s Bill Nye the Science Guy.

    […Oh wait isn’t that the guy who taught us about CO2:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/bill-nye-thescienceguy-and-al-gore-not-even-wrong-on-co2-climate-101-experiment-accoding-to-paper-published-in-aip-journal/%5D

    So even if – as I do – you think he’s a bit irritating, it does really matter what he says about scientific issues because he has a wide, loyal audience who not only worship him as if he were a member One Direction but who revere him as a serious intellect with his proper actual doctorate in high energy particle physics and his associations with the CERN project in Geneva.
    That’s why it’s important we take a look at his recent appearance on Q & A – Australia’s answer to Question Time – and examine how well he comported himself when speaking out on science’s most fraught, contested and expensive issue: climate change.
    You can watch the video by following the Q & A link above or here at Watts Up With That? Here are my thoughts:
    This was a classic progressive Establishment stitch up
    Australia’s ABC is so nakedly biased it makes the BBC look like Fox News. Presenter Tony Jones doesn’t even pretend to be neutral, as he showed in his handling of a question on climate change, which had clearly been set up in advance in order to make a fool of the only climate sceptic on the panel – Federal Senator Malcolm Roberts. We know it was a set up because Brian Cox had come armed with a sheaf of relevant papers – graphs and data – which he could pull out with a flourish at the appropriate moment to create a “gotcha!” scenario for Roberts. Roberts clearly hadn’t been expecting this underhand trick (I’ll explain why it is underhand in a moment) but recovered well and did about as well as you could possibly do in a situation where the presenter, all four of fellow panelists and the entire audience have drunk the Kool-Aid. (Memo to all the smartarses in the comments
    section of Watts Up With That who think you could have done better: no actually you couldn’t – try doing live TV sometime instead of bloviating from the comfort of your armchairs)
    Richard Feynman was a real scientist. Brian Cox isn’t.
    As Eric Worrall has rightly noted, this was Roberts’s most telling point. Cox began his spiel with the usual weary arrogance we have come to expect of the climate establishment: the tired old line that the vast majority of the world’s top scientists all agree etc. To which Roberts replied: “I’m absolutely stunned that someone [Brian Cox] who is inspired by Richard Feynman, a fantastic scientist who believes in empirical evidence, is quoting Consensus.” Well, indeed. Cox’s entire case rested on his lazy and unscientific assumption that the case for man-made global warming is proven and that even to question it puts you on the maverick fringe. As Feyman could have told Cox, this is a quintessentially unscientific position: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
    Brian Cox is a low-down dirty cheat
    When Cox whipped out a graph marked Global Land Temperature Index apparently demonstrating a spectacular upward trend in global warming, the parti-pris Q & A audience whooped their approval. Why? How could they be sure that the chart was trustworthy? How could Cox, either, given that climate change is not his field and that he quite clearly isn’t abreast of the nuances of the climate debate? The reason that this gesture was underhand is that Cox provided no supporting information as to its provenance or its reliability. As Roberts was absolutely right to point out, there are many question marks over the Global Land Temperature index, whose raw data has been the subject of unexplained revisions by the politicised climate gatekeepers at institutions like NASA and which has been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect. Had he been forewarned, Roberts could easily have come up with a chart showing more accurate satellite data which would have refuted Cox’s chart. It was extremely dodgy – and quite against the spirit of ABC’s supposed obligations towards neutrality – that Q & A should have encouraged Cox to pull this stunt. But what’s even more dishonourable is that Cox, who as a reputable scientist ought to be above such knavish trickery, should have acceded to participating in it.
    Brian Cox is a bully
    I’ve encountered this behaviour all too often myself from Cox’s pals – the ex-Royal-Society president, ex-Socialist-Worker salesman Sir Paul Nurse; the ‘comedian’ Robin Ince with whom Cox presents a radio show; etc – and it stinks. If, as they appear to imagine, the case for man-made global warming theory is such a slam dunk, well fine: just go ahead and demonstrate it, chaps, as proper scientists have done for centuries, through the medium of falsifiable evidence. I happen to think all three of the above are talentless, overrated, low-grade, lefty-activist tossers. But I’m sufficiently well versed in the rules of rhetoric to know that this is merely ad hom – a gratuitous playground cheapshot which though fun to toss into the mix contributes absolutely nothing to the scientific and political issues at stake. What disturbs me about Cox and his alarmist cronies – most of them heavily bigged up by the BBC, which treats them as unimpeachable authorities – is that they have become too grand to bother with the science any more and seek merely to belittle and marginalise their opponents. The worst example of this on the Q & A show was when Cox cynically and crassly sought to ridicule Malcolm Roberts by giving the impression that his arguments were so absurd as not to be worth debating. This ugly technique – the demagogue playing to the mob – is what Jo Nova calls Argument from Incredulity. Here’s what Cox said in response to Roberts’s – correct – suggestion that NASA’s data had been manipulated:
    By who? NASA? The people the… Hang on a minute. No, no, see this is quite serious. But can I just – just one thing. NASA, NASA… The people that landed men on the moon?
    Even more disgustingly Cox went on to suggest that Roberts probably didn’t believe in the moon landings either.
    Brian Cox doesn’t understand some of the most basic principles of science
    Certainly not the entry-level one that correlation is not causation. Which puts into perspective his wanky little speechette – which, naturally, his fanbois in the Q & A audience and on the panel found terribly impressive – on the subject of why current
    Brian Cox is a bully
    I’ve encountered this behaviour all too often myself from Cox’s pals – the ex-Royal-Society president, ex-Socialist-Worker salesman Sir Paul Nurse; the ‘comedian’ Robin Ince with whom Cox presents a radio show; etc – and it stinks. If, as they appear to imagine, the case for man-made global warming theory is such a slam dunk, well fine: just go ahead and demonstrate it, chaps, as proper scientists have done for centuries, through the medium of falsifiable evidence. I happen to think all three of the above are talentless, overrated, low-grade, lefty-activist tossers. But I’m sufficiently well versed in the rules of rhetoric to know that this is merely ad hom – a gratuitous playground cheapshot which though fun to toss into the mix contributes absolutely nothing to the scientific and political issues at stake. What disturbs me about Cox and his alarmist cronies – most of them heavily bigged up by the BBC, which treats them as unimpeachable authorities – is that they have become too grand to bother with the science any more and seek merely to belittle and marginalise their opponents. The worst example of this on the Q & A show was when Cox cynically and crassly sought to ridicule Malcolm Roberts by giving the impression that his arguments were so absurd as not to be worth debating. This ugly technique – the demagogue playing to the mob – is what Jo Nova calls Argument from Incredulity. Here’s what Cox said in response to Roberts’s – correct – suggestion that NASA’s data had been manipulated:
    By who? NASA? The people the… Hang on a minute. No, no, see this is quite serious. But can I just – just one thing. NASA, NASA… The people that landed men on the moon?
    Even more disgustingly Cox went on to suggest that Roberts probably didn’t believe in the moon landings either.
    Brian Cox doesn’t understand some of the most basic principles of science
    Certainly not the entry-level one that correlation is not causation. Which puts into perspective his wanky little speechette – which, naturally, his fanbois in the Q & A audience and on the panel found terribly impressive – on the subject of why current climate science is, like, totally accurate and amazing and unimpeachable.
    Brian Cox doesn’t understand some of the most basic principles of science
    Certainly not the entry-level one that correlation is not causation. Which puts into perspective his wanky little speechette – which, naturally, his fanbois in the Q & A audience and on the panel found terribly impressive – on the subject of why current climate science is, like, totally accurate and amazing and unimpeachable.
    Here, courtesy of Jo Nova, is what Cox said – in an exasperated “really! climate deniers are such idiots!” tone:
    “Let me just – all right, I’ll just give you one snapshot. So, I took a snapshot of the different bits of evidence for 2015. So global ocean heat content highest on record in 2015; global sea level highest on record in 2015, 70 millimetres higher than that observed in 1993; global surface temperature highest on record, El Nino something like 10 to 40% contribution to that; tropical cyclones well above average overall, as you said and even the anecdotal data. …
    …. So the point is you go evidence, evidence, evidence, arctic continue warm, sea ice extent low, artic land surface temperature in 2015, 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit above 1981’s 210 average.
    To which the only credible scientific response is: Yeah? And??
    Or, as Jo Nova puts it:
    All of that would happen no matter what caused the warming. Cox hasn’t even thought this one through at a baby basic level. If the solar wind changed clouds and warmed the world, the seas also rise, the ice also melts, blah blah blah. Same for magnetic fields changing cloud nucleation. Same for UV solar cycle changes shifting jet streams and altering cloud formation.
    Brian Cox’s half-baked opinions on climate science are less than worthless
    Yup. Nothing wrong with Cox looking pretty and pouty in front of a screen showing molten bubblings on the surface of Mercury – or whatever – he’s good at that and he’s found his metier. But history will not judge him and his ilk kindly for the disservice he has done to the scientific method in general and climate science in particular. He has used rhetorical trickery to promulgate a massive lie and perpetrate a giant con against a credulous public who really deserve better than to be misled in this way by Cox and his employers at the ABC and the BBC.

  41. David Wojick, thank you for the essay.

    • David Wojick

      You are welcome, Matthew. I think it is very important to challenge the Democrats on this mobilization fantasy.

  42. “But no metaphor really captures it all.”

    ‘Hoax’ does. And I’m not even a Trump supporter.

    Andrew

  43. Beta Blocker

    As I’ve said in past comments over the last month or so, nothing now stands in the way of Hillary Clinton becoming President, most probably in a landslide election of epic proportions.

    The Republicans are running like scared rabbits from a California wildfire, and the November election is also likely to give control of Congress back to the Democrats. With their forthcoming victory in November, the Democrats will have a powerful mandate for pressing forward with their climate action agenda, just as far and as fast as they want to take it.

    If the Democrats don’t put a price on carbon; if they don’t enforce a mandated program of strict energy conservation measures; if they don’t use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in regulating all of America’s carbon emissions; and if they don’t adopt a strong commitment to nuclear power; then their policy platform is merely words on paper written solely for the purpose of attracting environmentally conscious voters.

    The Big Question:

    The big question remaining to be answered is just how committed the Democrats are to actually achieving the steep emission reductions they say they want. Talk is cheap, but actions which are highly effective in reducing America’s GHG emissions will also be very expensive and will demand substantial economic and personal sacrifice on the part of the American people.

    If the Democrats take control of Congress, will they do anything more than enact massive subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy projects? Will they reject a carbon tax and will they refuse to enact a ban on fracking?

    Once Hillary Clinton is president, will she put pressure on the EPA to go well beyond the Clean Power Plan and to use the full authority of the agency to force across-the-board reductions in all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal-fired power plants?

    Will the environmental activist groups continue to make a lot of noise about climate change while putting little or no pressure on the Executive Branch to broaden the EPA’s regulatory agenda to cover every major source of America’s carbon emissions? If the nominal target is an 80% reduction in our carbon emissions by 2050, Will the environmental NGO’s continue to ignore the only carbon reduction approach which has any chance of succeeding?

    Using the EPA to its Maximum Legal Authority:

    President Obama has committed the United States to a 28% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, a 32% reduction by 2030, and an 80% reduction by 2050. But it is impossible to reach his targets through technology innovation alone. The federal government must take aggressive action to raise the price of all carbon fuels and to directly restrict their supply and availability.

    Even a Congress controlled by Democrats will not legislate a tax on carbon or directly interfere with the production and distribution of carbon fuels. However, there is another way to force a substantial reduction in our GHG emissions which is fully constitutional and fully legal and under current environmental law.

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate all of America’s carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The court has also upheld the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon. That finding identifies GHG emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act and has the effect of making the climate science contained in IPCC 2007 AR4 the law of the land for purposes of supporting anti-carbon regulation. More recently, the Supreme Court has now upheld the EPA’s approach to estimating the social cost of carbon.

    The Supreme Court rulings in 2007, 2010, and 2016 were a major victory for climate activists and for the environmental activist groups. But they’ve chosen not to pursue their victory to its fullest advantage. The EPA is limiting its carbon regulation efforts mainly to the coal-fired power plants. It is not targeting the vast array of carbon emission sources which are ubiquitous throughout the American economy.

    There is no reason to believe that a broad-scope application of the Clean Air Act to all GHG emission sources wouldn’t survive the inevitable lawsuits, as long as the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations were being applied fairly and equitably. If carbon regulation is to be done at all, it must be done across the board, not just against a few selected targets.

    The EPA is a quasi-independent government agency and can make its own decisions independent of the Congress and the Executive Branch. It has laid a robust foundation for enforcing across-the-board anti-carbon regulations. And so America’s climate change activists have a clear pathway towards achieving the steep emission reductions they claim are necessary. Nothing short of repealing the Clean Air Act or shutting down the EPA altogether could prevent climate activists from imposing highly effective anti-carbon regulation on the American economy, if they chose to do so.

    Here’s the strategy I’ve offered previously for how to use the full legal authority of the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in forcing substantial reductions in America’s carbon emissions:

    (1) Make full use of the Clean Air Act to its maximum legal authority. After she assumes office. President Clinton can start the process by issuing an Executive Order declaring a Carbon Pollution Emergency and instructing all agencies of the federal government to work with the EPA in creating a fully comprehensive carbon reduction plan.

    (2) Using 2009’s Section 202 Endangerment Finding for carbon pollution as a starting point, write an equivalent Section 108 Endangerment Finding. Set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution at either 400 ppm CO2 equivalent, or else at a somewhat higher concentration which is consistent with some specified acceptable rise in global mean temperature.

    (3) Develop a Clean Air Act regulatory framework for carbon pollution which operates under CAA Sections 108, 111, and 202; one which directly constrains emissions of GHG’s and which imposes a corresponding system of EPA-administered carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.

    (4) Design the EPA’s regulatory framework so as to equitably distribute the economic and social burdens of making the necessary GHG reductions as evenly and as fairly as possible among all classes of GHG emitters.

    (5) Assign all revenues collected through the EPA’s system of carbon pollution fines to the individual states, thus giving each state a strong incentive to voluntarily adopt the EPA’s standardized GHG regulatory framework.

    A centralized system of carbon pollution fines designed and administered by the EPA, a system whose revenues are assigned exclusively to the states, a system which has the effect of levying a carbon tax at the state and local level on all consumers of fossil fuels — is also a system which is far and away the simplest and most effective anti-carbon regulatory program to design and to administer on a nationwide basis.

    The Predictable Fallout from an Effective Carbon Reduction Plan:

    As things stand today, the public policy debate over what to do about climate change is mostly an abstraction to the average American voter. Asking the American people to make serious personal and economic sacrifices would alter the political dynamics considerably.

    If serious sacrifice was ever demanded of the American people in the name of fighting climate change, the political and scientific fallout would be immediate.

    The environmental activists who are demanding quick reductions in America’s carbon emissions would have to engage much more aggressively in their dealings with the general public than they have in the past. The obscure and arcane scientific debates concerning the validity of today’s climate science would quickly reach a critical mass and would quickly become a topic of considerable interest to the voters.

    If we ever started fighting climate change ‘for real’, it would be the 21st-Century Black Swan Event to end all 21st Century black swan events.

    • @Beta Blocker said : “If the nominal target is an 80% reduction in our carbon emissions by 2050, Will the environmental NGO’s continue to ignore the only carbon reduction approach which has any chance of succeeding?”

      Yes. The environmental NGOs opposing nuclear power are zombies. They don’t originate the policy. Their funding bodies do. There are over 1700 funding bodies, some regular some intermittent. Many of them are non tax paying foundations. Some very big. At least 2 have assets under management of $6 billion or more. Namely: David & Lucile Packard and MacArthur foundations. https://www.activistfacts.com/foundations/ The club of Rome was formed in 1968 with an express goal of stopping economic growth. Since then the character and meaning of environmentalism has entirely changed. A 1960s Sierra Club supported nuclear power. This change in outlook is determined by funding. Big wigs at major environmental groups told Jim Hansen they could not stop opposition to nuclear power otherwise their funds would be cut off.

    • Carbon pricing won’t work. It’s the wrong approach. Its a command and control approach that will raise the cost of energy. That cannot succeed over the long term. You will not get the level of international buy in that would be essential for success. This explains: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

  44. I do find the Democrats priorities confusing. The depletion of the Social Security Trust fund is a looming crisis that we fully understand. Current law demands across-the-board cuts benefits by about 25% to bring revenue and expenditures into balance when the trust fund goes is gone around 2030. Cutting current benefits to current retirees is almost inconceivable, and cutting future benefits to future retirees starting NOW. A stronger or weaker economy might change the 2030 date by a few years, but trust fund depletion – like AGW – is coming.

    By way of comparison, there is a much more uncertainty about climate change. Most of the cost of emission reduction will be paid this century and the benefits (if any) will arrive next century. The 70% confidence interval for the key parameter ECS is 1.5-4.5 K is ridiculously wide. Nevertheless, climate is an immediate crisis and the Democratic platform endorses expanding social security – ignoring the obvious current problem – and making climate change a high priority.

    Therefore, IMO, the Democratic agenda is not driven by respect for what scientists and economist are telling them (pro-science vs anti-science). That agenda is driven by politics.

  45. A sensible essay, from an objective and other-worldly perspective.

    In terms of hard politics, this is unrealistic. Wojick and skeptics might consider the Democrat’s “war on climate” to be foolish. But it is an expression of long and deeply held policy goals on the Left — goals will also support their larger objectives of increased government regulatory authority and more tax revenue. They have slowly built a broad and powerful alliance of institutional support for their climate goals. A decisive win (a “realignment election”) in 2016 would give them the power to enact much of it.

    The “alarmists” (or whatever label you prefer) have patiently organized, accumulating massive funding plus domination in the “high ground” of US government agencies, NGOs, journalism, and academia — all the things skeptics did not do (or even attempt in systematic fashion). After this long march, on the possible brink of victory is an odd time to criticize the logic of the winners.

    For more about this see Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate.

  46. Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  47. I’m told by Dems, who seem to be in the know, that Hillary and Obama are both supporters of nuclear power. It’s the rest of the Dems holding them back! So the story goes. Hillary’s reign may see regulatory changes to help advanced nuclear such as molten salt reactor and liquid metal fast breeders. There are up to 20 U.S. ventures, mostly startups, pursuing these. Most people think it will take 15 to 20 years before we see this technology provide us with cheaper, ultra-safe electricity.

    All the indications are Dems will continue their love in with solar PV. Hillary adores solar PV. She wants to spend $500 bn, or more, on it. Yet, over its entire lifecycle, solar PV, barely makes enough energy to pay back the energy spent on manufacture, installation, maintenance, etc. In Germany the ERoEI of solar PV = 0.83. For every 100 units of energy spent on solar PV, only 83 are returned. There’s only been one rigorous ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) study that examined all costs associated with solar PV. Just published by Ferroni & Hopkirk, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.034 pdf: https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf How come? Why has no one really looked critically at solar PV? Blame that on climate alarmists. For the alarmist: “the price does not matter if it’s ‘non carbon’ we must build it now”. That’s their usual extortionist line. I think a lot of people think climate “solutions” will be a huge disruption to U.S. citizen’s lives. Agreed. Yet you all probably think after you’ve made the transition to non-CO2 energy systems things will settle down. What’s really proposed for solar PV is an immense liquidation of capital to build useless solar panels that must have fossil fuel backup at night anyhow. Proposals coming from the green movement for an energy transition are Keystone Cops proposals. Expect it to be more like Energiewende, where German CO2 per capita emissions have not fallen since 2009.

  48. If I believed a word Hillary said, I’d seriously think about voting for Trump.

    If I bother voting, I’ll vote for Johnson.

    #choosenottodecide
    #CNTD

  49. I agree, David, the war by the Democratic Party on climate is irrational (foolish). Fortunately for them, a new awakening to reality will benefit the foolish most:

    http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/view/409/386

    • Jim2,

      That’s a great photo. It has implications for carbon pricing policies. Consider the following:

      To tax or trade a commodity (like CO2-eq) you have to be able to measure it. If the measurements aren’t accurate, there will inevitably be cheating and disputation. The compliance cost of measuring and monitoring global GHG emissions would be come horrendous. If less than 100% of GHG emissions are included in the pricing scheme, the cost for those who are in carries an enormous penalty (to achieve a given global reduction). All this is explained here: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/

      Therefore, the world has to achieve nearly 100% of global GHG emisisons included in a pricing scheme for it to be viable and politically sustaibable.

      Now, getting back to the cow, to measure all GHG emissions, every business (including every farmer) whose business emits GHG emissions will have to monitor the emissions from every domestic animal. That’s every person who owns an animal in every country: e.g. Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mogadishu.

      Please tell me the compliance cost per tonne of CO2?

      By the way, here’s an intersting comment by a chemical engineer who used to work in a paint factory and was required to estimate the GHG emisisons form the processes. It’s funny, but also informative:

      Estimates of emissions from the combustion of individual fuel types are made by multiplying a (physical) quantity of fuel combusted … and a fuel-specific emission factor

      I’ve retired from all that estimation but was involved when it started in NSW when I worked for a paint Company making some resins. The short answer is that we didn’t know what specific fuel types or amounts were combusted in our after burner (to reduce all emissions to CO2 and some nitrogen oxides).
      Firstly, a portion of the resin ingredients were chemically changed during reaction, and a mixture of the reactants and the changed substances went straight to the oil fired after burner. It was a complex and variable mixture, and analysing each reaction would have been a nightmare of complexity.
      Also into the afterburner went volatiles from the paint production. As there were over 6,000 products and hundreds of volatile ingredients it was impossible to calculate emissions.
      The 4 “methods” put forward by the public servants ranged from idiotic to bizarre. (No-one in the paint industry could supply the answer, but were threatened with fines if they didn’t).
      I moved on, thankfully, and my successor was a practical (unscrupulous) fellow who responded by generating a vast spread sheet of over 600MB. 16 pages of calculations, I’ve forgotten how many pages of information on composition, tonnage produced, batch sizes and frequency of manufacture. All in 10 point Arial font with no graphics. Factors were assumed and buried in obscure corners with no explanations.

      One resin might be spread over 200 products. And with 6000 rows and 120 columns on a page, try following through that, esp. with references from page to page to another page. It looked impressive, but trying to check it was nigh on impossible, but the public servants were pleased and even recommended that other paint companies consult him! His view was that he retired in 5 years and they wouldn’t figure it out in that time.His comment was “Brains baffle b*llsh*t”.
      This I add happened more than 5 years ago.
      Posted by Graeme No.3, Thursday, 10 May 2012 5:54:18 PM

      He made a few more comments after this; see here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578

    • Jim2, That’s a great photo. It has implications for carbon pricing policies.

      [the full comment is moderation]

    • rogercaiazza

      The more you think about this the more interesting the possibilities.

      This technology looks labor intensive. Think of all the green jobs that could be created by sending the acolytes of McKibben et al to the countryside as part of Hillary’s great sustainability revolution war-time footing response to global warming. They could all be put to work maintaining these backpacks!

      Then of course there is the bull in the china shop scenario. It does not look bull-proof to me. One spark and coitus interruptus with a bang.

    • Jim2,

      Did you see my comment and the quote from Graeme No3’s comment? My comment was held in moderation so I don’t know if your comment was in response to mine or not.

      • Just read it. Something similar happened with Obamacare. The number of diagnosis codes were multiplied, making the Doctor’s life more complicated and adding little to healthcare.

        But the EPA’s measurement requirements WRT “greenhouse” gasses are ridiculous.

  50. Harry Twinotter

    Talk about a misrepresentation.

  51. It does seem rather absurd for the Democratic party to be calling for things like “mobilization” and
    “In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis”
    given that the President has been a democrat for the last 8 years.

  52. Gallup regularly does surveys asking people what the most important issue facing the country is.

    Currently, pollution/environment is rating 2%.

  53. What’s the cost of climate policies? GWPF has just released a report
    ENERGY-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES
    Climate policy casualties

    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/08/Industry-1.pdf

    • They also detail how the government hid the true (high) costs in their public analyses and estimates.

  54. If Clinton wins. she would order dropping atomic bombs on forests to induce firestorms and a nuclear winter. Democrats wildly cheer – nuke that global warming!!

  55. David Wojick

    scorching green rhetoric: http://planetark.org/wen/74737
    Seems global temperatures have been “scorching”.
    Stupid hype.

  56. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #237 | Watts Up With That?

  57. Pingback: “The Democrat’s Foolish War on Climate” | The Drinking Water Advisor

  58. I’m shocked that so few of the responders challenge, and so many seem to accept, Mr. Wojick’s assertion: “Not only is mobilization horrendous, there is no scientific justification for it. It is now clear that what is called “lukewarming” is probably the correct scientific view. Human activity may be causing a modest global warming that is actually beneficial. Beyond that climate change is natural and so beyond human control.”

    These statements are not at all “clear” or obvious or accepted by the scientific community. To me, they border on the ridiculous. I don’t have time to go back and read everybody’s comments, so I apologize to those whose rebuttals I may be overlooking.

    I’m not defending the Democratic platform, either. I don’t advocate a mobilization on the scale of WWII. However, just look at where we are today. Just in the past five years, renewable energy has gained an unshakeable foothold in the mix of global power generation. Yes, it’s attributable to years of government subsidies, but as a result, we are now in a position where the costs of manufacturing and deploying renewables are approaching on-par with conventional power generation. We in fact don’t need the mobilization mentioned, and we just need to solve the problems of intermittent generation and distribution from uncontrolled resources. We need good, cheap batteries, then we can expect renewable power to hold its own. And we need smart engineers to be apolitical, and look at the data without bias – either way.