Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump and global warming

As we know, because of Trump’s unique psychological makeup, he’s immune to the forces of persuasion that cause everyone else to believe in the mass propaganda of the times. And that includes global warming* (now called “climate change” by the warmists). Belief in global warming has spread like a new religion, even though there have been no actual discoveries in physics that would change our understanding of how heat is transmitted through gasses since the 1970s when no one believed in global warming and some people even believed that another ice age was soon coming. (Given that the real scientific understanding of climate is that ice ages are the norm and we are in an interglacial warm period which began 11,700 years ago, imminent catastrophic global cooling is a lot more likely than imminent catastrophic global warming).

Because global warming is a religion, and people take their religions very seriously—in the Muslim world they still have the death penalty for heresy—it is expected that the reaction to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord is going to be very nasty and very outraged.

Even if global warming were true, which it’s not, the minor reductions in carbon emissions envisioned by the Paris accord wouldn’t stop it, and the most logical way to fight global warming would be to increase the reflectivity of the planet through engineering projects.

* * *

*Global warming is the belief that catastrophic climate upheavals, caused by global warming, in turn caused by carbon emissions, are going to happen within the next century.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 2, 2017 at EST am

Posted in Uncategorized

126 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Even if global warming were true, which it’s not, the minor reductions in carbon emissions envisioned by the Paris accord wouldn’t stop it

    In fact, the Paris accord was designed to only stop it “a leeeeetle bit” as Trump hilariously pointed out with his fingers during his speech. Classic Trump and another internet meme that will live on forever to the benefit of the right.

    Andrew E.

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Meanwhile, China and India are exempted.

      And Euros getto sell carbon credits.

      map

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

  2. I applaud Trump for pulling out of Paris climate deal.Very smart move. Let the liberal environmental nazis choke on this 🙂

    If Trump keeps at this rate, even I who hated him just a few months back, will forgive him even if he actually leaks state secrets to Russians as opposed to all the alleged ones as claimed by dems.

    wt

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

  3. “because of Trump’s unique psychological makeup, he’s immune to the forces of persuasion that cause everyone else to believe in the mass propaganda of the times”

    I guess I share President Trump’s unique psychological makeup because I also never bought into global climate warming weather chaos disruption change.

    Oh, wait, no: I never bought into it because CO2 doesn’t act like a greenhouse when it comprises an infinitesimal .04% of the atmosphere. Perhaps President Trump has rationally examined the AWG hypothesis and found it similarly lacking any scientific basis.

    AWG isn’t science. Evolution isn’t science. Bing-Bangerism isn’t science. People believe in these things because their livelihoods depend on it or through bogus appeals to authority.

    hard9bf

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Trump has NOT rationally examined anything. He’s relying on his gut.

      • His ample gut that doesn’t allow him to button his loosely-cut suit coat!

        Anthony

        June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Evolution isn’t science? Aaaaaaand….there goes your point.

      gailmargolis76

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

      • Evolution is science. Creationism and global warming are religion.

      • Sure evolution is science. That doesn’t mean it is completely true, or even true at all. It’s just the best guess of what happened that scientists have.

        CamelCaseRob

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • It’s the best guess that excludes supernatural agents.

      • Modern evolutionary science assumes away non-material reality leaving, voila!, only a material explanation. Your metaphysics, which are always chosen and can never be proven, frames your worldview. Including for scientists like anyone else.

        Andrew E.

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Evolution isnt science because it isnt a testable theory or one with verifiable results. Natural selection is.

        Even under fancifully favorable laboratory conditions abiogenesis experiments have been underwhelming in trying to even create precursors to animo acid combinations. People are just filling in the huge gaps with their guess work and hopes.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Andrew E, one finds it difficult to know what ”non-material” might mean. Photons and neutrinos have no mass. Does that make them non-material? Certainly physics does not assume those away.

        Greg Pandatshang

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Andrew E, one finds it difficult to know what ”non-material” might mean. Photons and neutrinos have no mass. Does that make them non-material? Certainly physics does not assume those away.

        Yep, it gets squirrely when you try to follow the rabbit hole all the way down. It’s a wave, but also sometimes a particle. It’s there, but not if you look at it. Sometimes it’s here, sometimes there, sometimes it’s in both places simultaneously. Frankly, it starts to sound like someone describing magic.

        Are our thoughts material? If not, are they real in any objective, universal sense. If you assume yes, then you will draw very different conclusions about the world then if you assume no. Your (metaphysical) assumptions frame everything else, including what you’re going to count as valid evidence for whatever.

        Andrew E.

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

      • Andrew E,

        Interesting answer. Personally, I suspect that thoughts are very much physical. However, people seem to have a very strong intuition that they are not physical. In other words, that they are physical is imperceptible to introspection. This creates the desire for a theory that includes some other special kind of substance for thoughts, i.e. a “dualism”. Conversely, since most types of atheists or rationalists believe that everything must be physical, and thoughts appear to be non-physical, this motivates a few to claim bizarrely that thoughts, consciousness, etc. do not exist.

        Greg Pandatshang

        June 5, 2017 at EST am

    • The forcing provided by incrased CH4, CO2 and NOx concentration since the start of the industrial era is 1-2 W/m^2 which is about 1/1000 of the energy that hits the Earth. it is perfectly capable of raising the global temeperature by 1-2-3°C.

      The direct mechanism that is behind the forcing is increased water content in the air. Under normal circumstances the evaporation is balanced by rain, due to stauration of air by water. However the greenhouse gasses increase the baseline temperature, which leads to increased water content in the air.

      It also causes melting of ice on sea and on ground, ice is white, water is black/blue and earth is green/black so this causes further increases in absorbed energy.

      Evolution is very solid science, Big-Bang is very soldi science, IQ is very solid science, HBD is very solid sceince.

      Attacking science is demented, since you’re goign to be wrong 99 % of the time. Why is the left wrong on IQ, HBD? Well, it goes against soldi science.

      AGW isn’t the real issue here. The issues are green-energy scams and demented treaties, like the Paris one.

      bombexpert

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

      • The whole “forcing” theory is based on the assumption that global warming is real.

      • HBD is science? Aaaaaaand….there goes your point.

        It’s science that behavior and personality traits have a significant genetic component and it’s science that different ethnic groups have different genes. But it’s just a bunch of wannabes who think that means that it’s established that differences between ethnic groups are substantially caused by genes.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • What? Like height, skin, hair, eyes and many other feautures as differences in survival rates for sex-hormone related cancers and other things?

        bombexpert

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • *such as

        bombexpert

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • @Magnavox

        I mostly agree with your comment. I might be ignorant here, but when it comes to personality traits, I’m unaware of any tests for traits besides intelligence that have the predictive validity of IQ tests. Intelligence seems like a much easier trait to define and measure than, say, empathy. And even when it comes to intelligence, it’s unlikely that there will ever be a consensus as to exactly how it’s defined even once IQ becomes a factor in embryo selection.

        There’s a study coming out in July that uses educational achievement as a proxy for IQ and it identifies over 600 SNPs:

        http://programme.exordo.com/bga17/delegates/presentation/214/

        In the near future, we will have solid answers on this and we’ll know if Arthur Jensen was mostly right or mostly wrong. IMO, the smart money is on Jensen being mostly right and I wish there was a way to bet lots of money on this.

        Horace Pinker

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • “But it’s just a bunch of wannabes who think that means that it’s established that differences between ethnic groups are substantially caused by genes.”

        The evidence collected from twin studies is very compelling, You just don’t want to accept it because it goes against your feelings that everyone should be equal and have the same outcomes. Well, they won’t because they’re not. Stupid liberal.

        destructure

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  4. The return of Gaianism!

    IHTG

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

  5. “Global warming is the belief that catastrophic climate upheavals, caused by global warming, in turn caused by carbon emissions, are going to happen within the next century.”

    As I have said many times, warmists’ definition of “global warming” or “climate change” is flexible depending on the situation. When they are on defense, it’s merely the claim that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause some degree of increase in global surface temperatures. When they are on offense, it also includes the claim that warming will cause catastrophic climate upheavals.

    Most warmists don’t even realize that the two claims are very different.

    fortaleza84

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

  6. AGW was predicted since the 50s, the 70s cold scare was due to possible projections of soot carbon due to coal powerplants – which has been solved (and wouldn’t happen anyhow).

    AGW is very real and it is caused by humans.

    The withdrawal is awesome, though. The US produced only 20 % of greenhouse emissions and is under no obligation to do anythign about it.

    Green energy is a real scam. I don’t know why are you so obsessed with the delusional idea that AGW doesn’t exist.

    bombexpert

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Someone here is delusional, alright.

      CamelCaseRob

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • 20% seems like a lot for under 5% of the world’s population. And of course the US is responsible for much more but it imports like crazy and those emissions occur in other countries.

      Magnavox

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • I agree that AGW is real. I personally am more worried about environmental things like estrogen in the water and endocrine disruptors in the food supply.

      Yup

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  7. Before discussing abstruse climate science topics with anyone of either political persuasion, I ask my potential interlocutor to briefly explain how rainbows are formed. This obviates 99% of the possible discussions.

    Heyoka

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Rainbows are formed by sunlight refracting on water droplets, usually rain, but not always.
      Now say, is AGW real or not? And what is your evidence?

      trap-n-skeet

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Rainbows aren’t just one color.

        JW Bell

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • It’s real. My evidence is thermometers. Otoh it’s not worth worrying about.

        Heyoka

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

  8. The best, unbiased research I can find on this topic is that the data is too chaotic: no one knows what’s really happening, and no one can even gauge the relative importance of man-made and natural factors. But I think there’s a consensus that man-made factors at this time are more likely to increase temperature than to decrease it. So I consider myself an agnostic in this particular religious debate.

    It’s a known fact that when the NWS states the chance of rainfall is 50%, local TV stations will flip a coin and either say the chance of rain is 60% or 40%. They know that human beings hate uncertainty and nuance.

    So we naturally settle into two camps. We either believe it’s definitely real and it’s going to kill us all without drastic action, or it’s invented propaganda designed to destroy our freedom. And funny enough, people align on these scientific questions in a way that corresponds to their previous political biases and what industry they happen to work in.

    But in any case, what anyone with sense can see is that this issue pales next to dysgenics. If the worst predictions of the climate alarmists were true — in fact, if they were understated by half — dysgenics would still be the bigger concern. The scientific evidence of heredity and racial differences is overwhelming next to that of climate change.

    An intelligent, high-trust population can manage to solve a whole lot of problems, especially slow-moving problems. Without dysgenics, the country that put a man on the moon 50 years ago could surely come up with a way to solve any climate catastrophes in the next 50 years.

    But a low-IQ, low-trust population is lucky if it can keep the electricity on for 6 hours a day. The Ostrogoths built no aqueducts.

    Wency

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • Even higher IQ, low trust, high corruption populations are very screwed up, like Russia and China.

      Rosenmops

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • What is dysgenics? Like, bio-genetic warfare, you mean?

      trap-n-skeet

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Assuming they are 100% correct that temps are rising, it doesn’t seem that anything they propose will reduce it. That is the thing that makes me scratch my head.

      no too late

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • No mystery. They are pushing BS. That’s it. And enough people believe that BS.

        Vincent

        June 6, 2017 at EST pm

  9. How are you so sure climate change isn’t real? How can so many people be wrong? Even ‘pragmatic’, illiberal countries like China buy into it. Climate change isn’t like race- or HBD-denialism, a religion followed only in the West. Countries the world over all seem to buy into climate change. Hate to keep harping on it but, again, China !! If there’s one country that doesn’t buy into liberal bullshit, it’s China, yet the official policy there is that climate change is real. I honestly don’t know if it’s real or not (too lazy to do the research), but your level of confidence about it’s non-existence seems unwarranted

    gailmargolis76

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • China’s air quality is absolutely atrocious: just breathing it in over the course of a day is the equivalent of smoking five packs of cigarettes. They have a good reason to have wind and solar energy, even at extremely​ high prices.

      Historically speaking, the times when the temperature was higher (Egyptian Old Kingdom, Medieval Warm Period, etc.) was when human life was better than when the world cooled (such as the 8.2, 5.9, 4.2 kiloyear events). So all in all, I think a modest increase in global temperatures is better for the world than the reverse.

      Sid

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • I am not sure that the people who run China are aware of HBD. If so then they would be more into Eugenics, which they actually have the power to do but have not. They had a one child policy for everyone, but poor peasants were exempted. If they were aware of HBD they would have also exempted high IQ people. As for climate change, they probably see it as a competitive advantage to pay lip service to it whilst still pumping out as much carbon as they want, and getting green fund money from Western countries. Trump’s tweet about global warming being a Chinese conspiracy was perhaps only half wrong.

      DataExplorer

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

      • I’m quite aware of HBD, but I personally think the idea of the government attempting to shape the genetic profile of each race is horrific and likely to backfire. In any case, I’d expect the government to try to select for “support for our political party” and “willingness to accept government propaganda” over things like intelligence and health.

        The Chinese believe it’s good that China is Chinese and not a diverse melting pot of Nigerians and Pakistanis. In this sense, they believe in HBD, and I think that’s enough.

        Wency

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • See Stephen Hsu’s blog, Chinese are well-aware of eugenics and are pouring tons of money into cognitive genomics (see CGI) and designer babies

        gailmargolis76

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • China doesn’t have to do anything until 2030. While all the first world countries were voluntarily shooting themselves in the foot, China would be grabbing even more market share. If I were China, I’d sign on to it whether I believed it or not. Same with all the 3rd world countries for whom this would merely be a big wealth redistribution scheme. Basically, lefties are running around telling them that the developed world is responsible for all their problems. Sound familiar? It should, It’s just welfare on a global scale. I swear, leftists are always singing the same tune.

      destructure

      June 2, 2017 at EST am

      • Yeah China is so lucky to “steal” all of Europe’s high pollution industries.

        Pop

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Pop — You probably don’t like those industries because you don’t personally work in one. Which just shows how dumb you liberals are. Because you don’t have to work in one to be adversely affected by their loss. If 20% of the population is underemployed because the country lost it’s manufacturing base then you will definitely be adversely affected. The effects will just be indirect so dumb liberals such as yourself won’t notice it.

        Regardless, pollution in the US was perfectly manageable in the 70’s 80’s and 90s before so much industry was outsourced. In fact, it was much better and cleaner than the 50’s and 60’s. There’s a reason for that. When people are underemployed they only care about jobs ad increasing their income. But as employment prospects and incomes improve that no longer becomes the priority, And they start to focus on quality of life such as reducing pollution and improving worker safety.

        So if you were really concerned about those things then the last thing you’d want to do is to outsource jobs and import foreign workers. Because that’s going to increase pollution and reduce worker safety at home. Too bad you’re a liberal. Otherwise, you’d understand things like this. Stupid liberal.

        destructure

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Why wouldn’t China buy into liberal BS? Aren’t they still considered Communist?

      Jay Fink

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Even ‘pragmatic’, illiberal countries like China buy into it.”

      Of course they do. A major part of the scam is sending money from rich countries, aka white countries, to “poor” countries, aka non-white countries. China is simply positioning itself to get its share of the grifting. Chinese are very, very good at sniffing out free money from suckers. When that free money is in the many many billions, even more so. They don’t “believe” in a damn thing, other than reaching out for money when someone (aka the United States) is stupid enough to offer it.

      peterike

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • If you take everything the Chinese government says literally, then I’d love to have you at my poker table.

      If China thought global warming was real but it wasn’t in its strategic interests to deal with it, it would absolutely refrain from contributing anything to the cause. No one country’s contribution would be enough to make or break the fate of humanity. It would defect, knowing that democratic countries’ populations wouldn’t allow their leaders to make the choice.

      By claiming to believe in global warming, China can join with Europe and the U.S. Left against the U.S. Right, i.e., the U.S. military and its supporters, which are its chief strategic adversary. It also discourages the Left from attacking China for human rights abuses. Win-win.

      Further, investments in renewable energy and energy conservation often make sense regardless of AGW. And China usually ends up paying less than its fair share into these agreements. So the economics work in its favor.

      Wency

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • It also provides fake leverage to the Chinese. They can “negotiate” for considerations in agreements just like they did with the Paris accords. Everyone is happy the Chinese signed on, and the Chinese are happy that they signed onto an agreement that hobbles every industrialized country in the world and doesn’t effect them until 2030. That’s a pretty big win for the Chinese.

        Mike Street Station

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

      • Which is why we need Putin to help trump. So we can finally put the deranged leftist vermin into death camps.

        These people are traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        June 4, 2017 at EST pm

    • How are you so sure climate change isn’t real?

      Climate model projections overstated actual world temperatures. Actual measurements (not “simulations”) indicate either human caused carbon emissions weakly affect temperatures, or had no impact.

      How can climate models be right if their predictions are wrong?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Climate model projections overstated actual world temperatures. Actual measurements (not “simulations”) indicate either human caused carbon emissions weakly affect temperatures, or had no impact.

        How does that work?

        How can climate models be right if their predictions are wrong?

        I don’t trust the models. The climate is just too complex. Although its not like economic models which are both modeling something too complex and dealing with incredibly high levels of corruption in the profession. But not understanding the climate goes both ways: it means we shouldn’t trust computer models but also that we shouldn’t be voluntarily effecting profound change on it. This is especially true because reducing greenhouse gases would all involve reforms that are desirable away, and would help altright style politics by forcing people closer together and making it prohibitively expensive to run away from and deny many of the most pressing social problems.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • The climate is just too complex. Although its not like economic models which are both modeling something too complex and dealing with incredibly high levels of corruption in the profession. But not understanding the climate goes both ways: it means we shouldn’t trust computer models but also that we shouldn’t be voluntarily effecting profound change on it.

        Without a theory that has enough predictive power, no one knows if we are having an effect, what degree the effect (if any) is

        We don’t even know what is the major causal factor we need to change: Is carbon what we should cut back on, or helium?

        This is especially true because reducing greenhouse gases would all involve reforms that are desirable away, and would help altright style politics by forcing people closer together and making it prohibitively expensive to run away from and deny many of the most pressing social problems.

        You reduce your living standards first by abandoning whatever devices and sources of electricity you use that are not “Green”.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • We’re well past the point where absolute standard of living don’t matter and relative ones do. We could all live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, etc. and it would if anything improve our overall quality of life. One of the most important tests of the quality of someones mind is if they see an issue like this and think in terms of what would happen if they alone stopped doing something and multiplying it by 350 million or if they’re smart enough to think in terms of what would happen if everyone did it together.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • You also completely sidestepped my question of how actual measurements are able to determine natural vs man made causation. For some reason I thought you were capable of having an intelligent discussion on this issue.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • We could all live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, etc. and it would if anything improve our overall quality of life.

        Then lead by example and cut your standard of living before anyone else.

        One of the most important tests of the quality of someones mind is if they see an issue like this and think in terms of what would happen if they alone stopped doing something and multiplying it by 350 million

        I did and found whatever the 350 million do is going be offset by the refusal of 1.3 billion Chinese to “think in terms of what would happen if those billion plus people stopped doing something”.

        Idiot.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

      • You also completely sidestepped my question of how actual measurements are able to determine natural vs man made causation.

        It’s obvious why “man made causation” is false if the theory’s predictions don’t match actual results.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

    • If there’s one country that doesn’t buy into liberal bullshit, it’s China, yet the official policy there is that climate change is real.

      China never acts on AGW. If they believe warming is real, they don’t act on it to improve their very polluted environment. If they don’t believe in it they will certainly not take any real action to stop it.

      Either way the treaty will not work because the world’s number 1 polluter, China, will skirt the rules.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • If Trump were actually serious about trade, than the China thing would solve itself. And China still has vastly lower rates of per capita emissions.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • If Trump were actually serious about trade, than the China thing would solve itself.

        If you were serious about your argument you would know the “China thing” will not “solve itself” because China will keep polluting regardless of what Trump does.

        And China still has vastly lower rates of per capita emissions.

        Their per capita rate is lower only because they still have many undeveloped regions in a nation of over 1 billion.

        Even the distorted “climate models” don’t use per capita emission rates by country.

        The models are based on absolute carbon emissions in the atmosphere, and the greatest emitter in absolute terms is still China.

        If China cheats on the rules, the Paris accord is worthless at stopping warming even if we fully implemented it.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Actually a major component of China’s pollution has to do with their massive levels of exports. If Trump hadn’t cucked out on that issue they would be polluting a lot less.

        Your comment about the models is as far as I can tell completely nonsensical. They have nothing to do with the moral way to reduce emissions. I’m pretty sure even you’re not stupid enough to suggest that each country should just get a certain amount of carbon emissions and that’s that.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Actually a major component of China’s pollution has to do with their massive levels of exports. If Trump hadn’t cucked out on that issue they would be polluting a lot less.

        You are the cuck because you also want America to reduce its carbon emissions; but we can’t reduce emissions if we expand native export production and cut our industrial dependence on China at the same time – We’re well past the point where absolute standard of living don’t matter and relative ones do. We could all live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, etc. and it would if anything improve our overall quality of life.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

      • They have nothing to do with the moral way to reduce emissions. I’m pretty sure even you’re not stupid enough to suggest that each country should just get a certain amount of carbon emissions and that’s that.

        There should be no restrictions on carbon emissions because global warming is either not caused by man made carbon emissions or whatever warming trend exists is only weakly affected by carbon emissions.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

      • Global warming/Climate change are just SWPL code words to tell proles to stop polluting the planet with their soot.

        Here’s the problem with Americans, who are made up of morons on both side of the spectrum, and not many rational racists are found among them.

        1) Proles who believe in HBD, but are too stupid to believe in their own well being.

        2) Liberals who don’t believe in HBD, but are in denial that non-whites are ill-fitted for Western Civilization.

        JS

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

  10. The climate is changing and human activity is certainly contributing to an accelerated warming of the planet. This actually was all fairly well understood even in the 1970s and nothing since has disproved it.

    https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

    The real issue is what to do about it. The problem for the left is that what we really need to is invest in nuclear power but that makes leftist brains explode. The other problem is massive deforestation in the tropics. A serious effort to stop global warming would require a responsible colonial power to take over Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia – anathema to the left, and a massive effort to reduce overpopulation, especially in Africa – anathema to both the left and the fundamentalist Christian right.

    As usual Trump seems to be playing to the media. Much like his supposed “Muslim ban”, withdrawing from the Paris accord is good for inflaming the left and getting cheers on the right but is really more about image than substance. The Paris accord is pretty much a joke, as Lion points out, but also didn’t really impose any actual burdens on the US. Whether this is Trump being the master manipulator or just a guy who pays more attention to media than actual policy remains to be seen as far as I am concerned.

    Peter Akuleyev

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • It has been pointed out that the left will indeed use the Accord to impose “actual burdens” on the US through the courts. So withdrawal is certainly called for and more than just a poke in the eye to the left by Trump.

      As for the massive deforestation worry, studies show that CO2 emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. Apparently, if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. The map of this greening effect shows that it dwarfs the deforestation effect.

      “The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.”http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

      gda

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • > invest in nuclear power

      There is a common misconception that we have a lot of fissile uranium and can ramp up nuclear power. The uranium is half gone and will be used up with current nuclear power generation.

      Breeder reactors didn’t work, and only marginally improve the situation. Economical thorium reactors and fusion are still pipe dreams.

      The future is not going to be nuclear. People really do not understand the scale of our current fossil fuel consumption. To compensate for the projected declines in oil and coal, we’d have to start building dozens of nuclear power plants per year. This is impossible.

      bobbybobbob

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • plenty of realtively cheap uranium in sea water

        bombexpert

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  11. The other religion is that we are not rapidly run out of affordable energy. Confront most people with the reality that in 20 years few people will be driving cars and you’re a heretic.

    Both pro and and anti warmists adhere to the religion that the fossil fuel run lifestyle and social arrangements we have now will continue indefinitely. Carbon emissions are practically a moot concern because the viable fossil fuels are just about gone.

    bobbybobbob

    June 2, 2017 at EST am

    • @ bobbybobbob

      I’ve noticed your comments on this subject on this blog and a couple others. Is there a blog or website that discusses this issue?

      How are you so sure that we cannot economically reach a lot of the shale oil? Are you really sure that it’s going to become infeasible in our lifetimes?

      Are you certain that nuclear isn’t a good alternative? I understand you can’t put Uranium in a car, so our lifestyles would have to change… but otherwise nuclear has always seemed like our destiny. Aren’t there fissile materials waiting to be mined out of the earth? Or even gathered from asteroids or other planets, in the distant future?

      My impression is you genuinely think oil is going to become scarce quickly, not gradually, and that we will be left with no workable alternatives. I’m curious why you think this, and whether there are any source materials you recommend.

      Lowe

      June 3, 2017 at EST pm

      • Nuclear energy could get a lot better. It’s pretty stupid to think that solar and wind energy will magically get a lot better in the future, but think that nuclear energy is stuck in the 1950s and can never be improved.

        The site you’re linking to is just a fake-news leftist conspiracy website.

        Uranium from seawater + breeder reactors opens the possibility of nearly infinite electricity in the future.

      • Why would wind and solar get a lot better? They’re pretty much at their theoretical maximums in terms of EROEI, which are piss poor in comparison to fossil fuels.

        What can we anticipate will get better about nuclear? When the first uranium power plants were spun up it was well understood to be a bridge technology that would only work for a while on a limited scale before transition to fusion reactors. Fusion never happened and there’s no reason to think it will. Fission reactors haven’t fundamentally changed in 50 years and the uranium is now about half gone, and the massive costs of decommissioning plants and disposing of nuclear waste have not been dealt with. It’s quite possible that on net nuclear power will ultimately have burned more energy than it ever yielded, due to the cost of accidents and decommissioning and waste storage.

        bobbybobbob

        June 4, 2017 at EST pm

      • Also, I don’t think you understand what a breeder reactor does in terms of additional efficiency, or how mind boggling expensive it would be to extract uranium from sea water. There’s no way it would yield net energy. In no way does uranium fission pencil out as a long term replacement for fossil fuels. “Renewables” don’t either. Sometimes there is no solution.

        bobbybobbob

        June 4, 2017 at EST pm

    • Nuclear power is too dangerous. The vast majority of nuclear reactors around the US are located in white neighborhoods.

      map

      June 6, 2017 at EST pm

  12. Global warming is basically an attempt at the biggest value transferance heist in history. It’s a way to tax Midwestern heavy industry, that everyone involved in a US lifestyle benefits from, and send the funds back to DC. It’s a way to finance sea walls and insurance scams. Value transferers get free insurance and sea walls around their second homes on risky beach properties, because they deserve free protection from global warming. We’re supposed to ignore the fact that they built there in the first place.

    Global warming always was BS. No evidence of its existence has ever been put forth. Only “sciencey” propaganda that has no scientific basis. Global warming is, as libtards would put it, “junk science.”

    India and China won’t be contributing. So we know “global agreements” are charades anyway.

    Libtard’s Twitter meltdowns = lol

    Planet of the apes

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  13. no actual discoveries in physics […] since the 1970s

    My understanding is that researchers use supercomputers to run elaborate simulations to project earthly weather far into the future, with all the currently known relevant factors plugged in — ocean currents, cloud coverage, forest coverage, ice at the poles, CO2, H2O, and methane in the atmosphere, solar radiation, weather-station data, wind, rain, etc., etc. Both the availability of supercomputers and our understanding of how those factors interact is relatively new.

    The flaw in this approach to predicting climate change many decades from now is what? Can someone briefly articulate it?

    Is it because our understanding of how the relevant factors interact is still too primitive? There are still too many unknowns? The simulations are not fine-grain enough (owing to too few weather stations and insufficient computer power)? Chaos theory — an infinitesimal change in initial conditions or in data precision will result in huge variations in simulation results? Or what?

    Mark Caplan

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • The simulations are surprisingly *not* elaborate. They are more like big spreadsheets that spit out what your inputs and equations work out to. There is no measurement of uncertainty in the input parameters or the results. Elaborate approaches would use monte-carlo methods or stochastic differential calculus to produce answers with measures of statistical confidence. As it is, we are presented with a big spreadsheet where you have to believe the claim that all the cells are set at the most correct value, when really a large number are wide open for debate.

      bobbybobbob

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • “My understanding is that researchers use supercomputers to run elaborate simulations to project earthly weather far into the future, with all the currently known relevant factors plugged in — ocean currents, cloud coverage, forest coverage, ice at the poles, CO2, H2O, and methane in the atmosphere, solar radiation, weather-station data, wind, rain, etc., etc. Both the availability of supercomputers and our understanding of how those factors interact is relatively new.
      The flaw in this approach to predicting climate change many decades from now is what? Can someone briefly articulate it?”

      The computers are new, and the inputs are newly understood. How would one check whether the predictions are accurate-other than waiting several decades to see if the predictions are right?

      There’s the flaw in the approach to predicting climate change many decades from now (or more properly: we can always predict climate change many decades from now. But we can’t know if those predictions are accurate without simply waiting several decades and seeing if the predictions panned out).

      bingbongbaloo

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Is it because our understanding of how the relevant factors interact is still too primitive?

      Yes. That’s why weather forecasts are not (Note: If “weather is not climate”, weather gives information about climate. If climate modellers think they can predict the climate 100 years out they should also be able to predict weather. That they cannot predict weather is indicative they also cannot predict warming trends).

      The simulations are not fine-grain enough (owing to too few weather stations and insufficient computer power)?

      The simulations have been inaccurate.

      In normal statistics, inaccurate models with low predictive power – as “climate models” are – are supposed to be discarded.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Yon climate “scientists” were always pretty poor at statistics. (See Mann; Hockey Stick; The Breaking Of). Of course it doesn’t help their cause that statistical analysis is crucial to climate science.

        gda

        June 4, 2017 at EST pm

    • Mark Caplan,

      As a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If you cannot build a machine, or a simple physical object, or even make an accurate prediction, then, chances are, the underlying scientific principles are wrong.

      That is the state of climate science: the inability to make accurate predictions, predictions that are both significant and non-obvious.

      No appeals to “supercomputers” or ” modeling” or “good intentions” alters the fact that the lack of an engineering level understanding of climate science is the reason why it should be ignored.

      The level of credibility given to climate science is completely at odds with its actual predictive track record. We’re supposed to be impressed by credentialism or institutional support instead of asking to be shown why something is true.

      Or, do you like the idea of someone using a political ideology to enslave and impoverish you?

      map

      June 6, 2017 at EST pm

  14. So far I’ve found the discussion about climate change and possible policy paths to address it quite unsatisfactory. Even though I’ve read a fair amount about it, I’m always left with many questions that are left unanswered…. especially by the proaction camp, which I do see as having the burden of proof to explain why we need to change course and how any change of course will be a worthwhile expenditure of effort.
    n
    It seems that both sides of the debate had already decided their desired course of action even before looking at the evidence. I’m suspicious of a deep-ecology movement using this latest theory as a justification for its fundamentally anti-industrial, anti-science and anti-humanity dogma. They’ve always hated industry and the production of economic goods and services that have made human life richer, safer, longer and more satisfying. Instead of seeing the oil-men and the coal-miners as heroic individuals risking their lives in the most difficult and dangerous conditions… just so we soft civilians can enjoy wonderful modern pleasures and conveniences like hot showers and year-round imported fresh tropical fruits… We can mourn the impact of Deepwater Horizon on the environment, but while the Gulf of Mexico has recovered and showed nature’s resilience, 11 men were killed and many others injured in the accident… a loss that can not have been recovered. We consumers should honor the risk and sacrifice that the energy industry makes for our sakes rather than making them a scapegoat for the wonderful things we demand and consume. Instead of demanding that industry “sacrifice” we need to look in the mirror and see where the guilt really is and realize that the energy industry is only doing the bidding of us consumers.

    Additionally the climate change rhetoric has been taken up by many who would use it to tie down and punish the economically strong nations and those nations with growing economies and populations… much like the Liliputians tried to tie down the Giant Gulliver. The terms of the various negotiated international treaties have been patently unfair in their construction. The failed Kyoto Protocol for example fixed the base year for CO2 emissions target at 1990, which made Europe look unrealistically better than it should have. A collapsing post-socialist industrial base and restructuring of the economy from inefficient energy intensive industry of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases at the cost of a very painful disruption of economic activity and deindustrialization. The consequences of “turning off the lights” economically and industrially were clear… much hardship, unemployment and poverty. Furthermore, Europe’s shrinking populations and sclerotic economies compared to America’s expanding population and more dynamic economy should put the regions relative “achievements” in further perspective. Finally America’s embrace of fracking technology has actually meant that America’s total greenhous gas emissions have actually declined while Europe’s have increased (in spite of earnest European eco-homilies) as America has transitioned from coal-fired to natural gas electricity generation. Finally there’s the absurdity of exempting the world’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases from any international treaty agreement, because China is still growing and emerging as an economy…

    So if the eco-pious are just using climate change as a kind of a “marxist” revoultionary trick to put a yoke on the strong and vital economies, does this mean the other side is right? Well they too look like they’ve decided their course of desired action even before looking at any evidence. The stay on course business as usual may be not be bad, but they have not provided a case that there might be a better approach in the face of the uncertainty. Uncertainty isn’t a case for inaction.

    From my perspective the climate change question is more one of math than science. If all the doom-sayers and panic-mongers are right, that the consequences of the new climate are dire and horrible, than nothing short of a major economic and energy revolution will suffice. The minor adjustments and sacrifices being proposed will not even be close to being enough to prevent or minimize the impact. If reducing our emissions at the margins by a little bit, say 10% for example, then we can still look forward to 90% of the catastrophe. The arguments that the consequences of climate change are non-linear to the causes are not persuasive. That we can move carbon from underground into the atmospheric carbon dioxide with relative impunity until a particular tragic threshold after which the consequences are dire and that scicentists know this threshold with confidence…. My bullshit meter is beeping….

    If the climate change mongers are right… then it’s certainly too late to stop any change. The new climate is coming… like it or not… Even if we collectively commit suicide tomorrow… Turn out the lights… Voluntary human extinction… The new climate is coming thanks to the past centuries of economic and industrial activity that have moved massive quantities of carbon from sequestration underground into the atmosphere. So if we are not to commit voluntary human extinction, we need to concern ourselves to adapting to the new climate (if we accept the assumptions of the climate-change believers). Sure we can try to reduce emissions. But since it won’t stop the new climate from coming, we should focus first and foremost on adapting and indeed keep using the energy of fossil fuels to so as not to fight the war on climate catastrophe with one hand behind our backs.

    One final question that I have never seen adequetely addressed by the pro-climate change action camp is their peculiar belief in a safe climate equilibrium. Their favoritism of a particulary arbitrary climate status quo makes them the real conservatives, the real anti-science fantasy dreamers. If we examine climate history over a geological scale, we will see very large gyrations and fluctuations of a scale that make anthropogenic climate change pale by comparison. This is not to diminish the impact of anthropogenic climate change, but to put it into perspective. To expect the climate to stand still for the comfort and conveniencef of humanity is ridiculous. The climate is always changing and the science isn’t really mature or certain enough to explain why or predict which direction we are trending on the natural background oscillation. If the background oscillation is already warming, our anthropogenic contributions with greenhouse gases will compound it. We needn’t assign guilt and “punish” the producers any more than the mindlesss Carboniferous era plants that changed the climate eons ago when they produced so much lignin that eventually was buried and sequestered underground before microbes evolved to decompose the cellulose to return it to the atmosphere and the carbon cycle. Instead we might just need to redouble our efforts out of optimistic pragmatism. On the other hand if the natural background oscillation is a cooling earth climate, then our accidental anthropogenic climate intervention might actually be more benign… indeed beneficial by counteracting an underlying trend that might have led us toward the next ice age.

    Furthermore the advocates of substantial action to combat climate change have not adequetely accounted for an honest calculation of net costs and benefits of the new climate. No doubt there will be discomforts, disruptions and inconveniences, but there will also be genuine positive dividends from the new climate. Perhaps bounteous banana plantations in Saskatchewan will be more than enough to compensate for other terretories that become hotter and drier. Maybe unexpected new patterns will emerge, like an unanticipated new seasonal monsoon that brings the Sahara to bloom?
    No doubt there will be negatives but the panic-mongers ignore the positives undermining their credibility. Perhaps an open mind and a willingness to accept change, whether natural or man-made (what is the difference actually?) may mean that we learn to love the new climate and that we find it so beneficial that we find it worthwhile to even subsidize fossil fuel combustion to hasten and expand its effect. Indeed if all life is carbon-based, then unlocking all that good life giving element that was so long accidentally secreted away underground and making it once again available to life by putting it back in the atmosphere where it once was may be sacred work. More atmosphere carbon means more biomass and more life. Sounds like it might be G*d’s work after all!

    So based on everything I’ve read and understood, I’m still plagued by uncertainty and unanswered questions. I still have an opinion on policy recommendations. If we are travelling down a foggy road and the radio says there’s an accident ahead. One passenger says turn around. Another says that traffic is still moving. As driver I find it prudent to slow down but continue towards the desired destination but start considering detours and other routes. If the fog lifts and there is no blockage, we can resume travel with no problem and little lost time. Turning around prematurely is impossible. The best we can do is prepare the next route and exit the motorway at the next opportunity. There isn’t really any going back. Likewise for energy policy I’d rather see the tax burden reallocated from labor to the consumpmtion of our natural energy patrimony. We don’t need to say its consumption is an eco-sin or anything, but we do need to recognize that its exhaustion is irreverrsible and prudent conservation and efficient use of finite resources is responisble and wise… no matter what the new climate brings. So even if combustion of fossil fuels is benign or beneficial, we’ve thoughtfully left some so the grandkids can have hot showers too, rather than burning it wastefully, perhaps in absurdly massive rolling expressions automotive vanity made heavy glass, tin and rubber. By reducing income and payroll taxes, consumers can decide how much energy taxes they want to pay. Indeed efficient living and consumption might mean they can give themselves a tax-cut, which with payroll and income taxes could only be achieved by working and producing less or adding less value to the economy. Why do we prefer a tax system that prefers to burden and penalize people for getting up early in the morning or working those extra hours to one that recognizes that the natural energy patrimony is finite and provides for more of a stern incentive to be mindful of its exhaustion? Indeed incentives matter. Perhaps to achieve better mindfulness among consumers about energy consumption, we needn’t even raise taxes on it, but rather implement it in a way that makes the consumer even more conscious of it. For example instead of charging fuel taxes at the pump, add a machine to every vehicle that requires the driver to feed it quarters depending on fuel consumption which is dependent on many things, not just the vehicle choice but also distance travelled and driving style. All the self-righeous Prius drivers who commute solo hundreds of miles a week are more wasteful than a goliath truck that car that just travels short distances or fully loaded with passengers (perhaps kids).

    Finally I find the inherent pessimism and panic of the climate change activists distasteful. Even if their predictions about climate doom are accurate, their anti-industry, anti-engineering, anti-economy and anti-consumer sentiment turns me off. If the new climate is a challenge, we can rise to the challenge in a constructive way harnessing all our human imagination and the spirit of progress and innovation. Indeed I’m very excited about the new renewable energies that could liberate us from depending on men doing the dangerous and unpleasant work of working in the mines and on the oil wells as well as making us independent of some very unsavory peoples who sell us the energy. I would love nothing more than to be able to tell the terrorist financing oil sheiks and the corrupt Russkie mafioskis where they can shove their dirty greasy go-juice if we can rely on nothing more than the wind blowing and the sun shining to power our economies. Indeed a more substantial energy tax would encourage more innovation in these alternatives and hasten the transition to a post-carbon energy based economy. It’s closer than we can imagine! But this impulse is techno-optimism that is anti-thetical to the almost religious deep-ecology notion of mistrusting humanity and the belief in original environmental sin that nothing good came from human imagination and science and everything human from chemistry to industry is inherently risky and destructive and as a result always a toxic plague on nature. Perhaps we can have an optimistic engagement of the new climate, one that embraces optimism and harnesses the energy and imagination of humanity? Perhaps we can learn to accept change, whether it’s natural or man-made? Climates change. People adapt. Humanit has already survived an ice-age and managed to migrate from once fertile major centers of population that were flooded by the rising sea-levels. Nobody mourns the loss of Doggerland… Indeed the inherent conservatism and unrealistic obsession with climate stasis makes the desire to halt any change to the climate a futile religious crusade. We can’t stop the climate from changing. Our energies and endeavors would be better spent on more fruitful and promising investments.

    Whatever we decide, our decendents will judge us. They may judge us harshly for inaction or inappropriate action. But even if we get it wrong, they should judge us most harshly for our fear and pessimism and an unrealistic obsession with maintaining an impossible climate stasis.
    We can’t return to the pre-industrial past; we might as well be trying to “Make Doggerland Great Again!”

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

    Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • This post was a good read. Just wanted to note my appreciation, since a lot of effort went into it.

      Rogal Dorn

      June 3, 2017 at EST am

    • Thin-skinned,

      There is no time for this speculative uncertainty. The battle has already been joined. Climate science is a political movement designed to gain power through fear…a power they will use to make you and yours extinct. It is nothing but utter weakness, of utter ceding the territory to the enemy, to give credence to their lies.

      Ask yourself a simple question: if greenhouse gasses are solely or primarily anthropegenic, then how do you explain the periodic ice ages that emerged before human industrialization?

      And by “Ice Age” I mean, literally Ice Age: Chicago used to be under 2,000 feet of ice.

      Now, please explain to me: what caused the climate to drop in temperature so much that the location of one of our major cities was literally 2,000 feet of ice. And, then, what caused the temperature to rise far enough to melt that same sheet of ice?

      Finally, do you think that such physical forces don’t exist today? You think they ceased to be in operation? You don’t think that those forces completely swamp whatever it is man is doing? How do you tease out the man-made component of climate change from the natural component?

      map

      June 6, 2017 at EST pm

  15. I thought we were all supposed to be aware of the idea that happiness comes from relative status and levels of consumption rather than any absolute standard. So why should it matter if everyone just consumes fewer greenhouse gases. Almost every change it causes is something that we should be doing anyway (stop driving so much, stop heating and cooling such ridiculously large houses to such ridiculous temperatures, etc.). European countries are very sophisticated pleasant places to live and we it’s absurd to be so terrified of doing anything that makes us more like them (and before people chime in about Europe’s current immigration problems, remember they learned that from the US).

    Magnavox

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • I live in Europe. Most european countries are quite shitty and it’s only getting worse, due to EU and lefty politics. We’re talking enclaves in the west, some parts of the Czech rep., Austria, Switzerland. The rest is mostly dead for various reasons. If it wasn’t for blacks than the US would likely win as far as quality of life is concerned.

      bombexpert

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Yeah but there are blacks (and Hispanics) in the US, in ever increasing numbers. And one of the bad things about blacks is that they undermine social cohesion and prevent the US from adopting euro style collectivist solutions where they’re needed (such as health care). And the reason we have blacks and hispanics is that we can’t stand up to rich people, which is yet another area where Europe is way ahead.

        I don’t know what your background is but it is so insane for US conservatives to criticize european countries for the states of their cities and ethnic enclaves within them. Those problems are many many times worse in the US. And like I said Europe largely learned all this diversity nonsense from the US.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • Yeah, blame White Americans, who are soulless money maggots. This is the gist of the problem.

        Every conscientious Non-Anglo, Euro nationality not looking to dig gold, hates them and finds them lacking in class, manners and intellect.

        JS

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  16. Trump decided to announce he is pulling out of Paris accords now as a way of giving the finger to European leaders who made fun of him on his recent trip.

    Trump cannot build his wall because the funding is blocked in Congress.

    Trump cannot repeal Obamacare because it is stalled in Congress.

    Trump’s Tax Cuts are stalled in Congress too.

    Trump is now begging the Supreme Court to let him ban Muslims.

    The press and European leaders made fun of trump on his trip to NATO and G7.

    Then there is the whole Russia thing.

    Trump is frustrated and angry. Announcing he was pulling US out of Paris agreement was something he could do without Congress or Court approval.

    mikeca

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • was something he could do without Congress or Court approval.

      Duh, the fact that the decision rested solely upon Trump who knew he would be the focal point of globalist opprobrium (since borne out) on behalf of his base if he exited the deal is exactly what makes it such an impressive move. And you prove the point that the deal was only a starting point and designed specifically to only ratchet up over time meaning exiting it in fact does have great value to American industry.

      Trump in his historic Palm Beach globalism speech on 10/12/16: “I gladly absorb these slings and arrows on behalf of this great country and the American people.”

      Andrew E.

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Even if you believe something urgently needs to be done about climate change, the accord was a poorly negotiated joke. The US would have to help fund a 100 billion dollar annual payoff to other countries, and the largest carbon emitter in the world, China, doesn’t have to reduce emissions. Have you considered our budget deficits and debt? There are good reasons to reject the accord besides just giving the finger to European leaders.

      Stilicho

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • The accord was a step in the right direction. The repeal is a step in the wrong direction. The same way that Obamacare as a travesty, but still a step in the right direction.

        Magnavox

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • “The US would have to help fund a 100 billion dollar annual payoff to other countries,”

        Trump said something about 100 billion dollar fund when talking about the green fund but he either misspoke or lied about the green fund. In total 43 countries pleged in the Paris accords to donate a total of $10.3 billion over a number of years, not one year. The USA pledged to donate $3 billion. So far it has donated $1 billion.

        Trump in his speech implied the $1 billion was taken from defense spending, but it was taken from a State Depratment fund.

        mikeca

        June 3, 2017 at EST am

      • “The accord was a step in the right direction. The repeal is a step in the wrong direction. The same way that Obamacare as a travesty, but still a step in the right direction.”

        You are doing a poor job of making your point with a terrible comparison like that. The Paris Accords are the moral equivalent of Obamacare? Proof enough that Trump was right to exit the treaty,

        Mike Street Station

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

    • Sure, as if he didn’t tell us on the campaign trail again and again that the Paris deal was bad, bad, bad. Oh, but then, you *want* to believe your bullshit.

      erin

      June 3, 2017 at EST pm

    • The text of the accord specifies $100 billion per year. It is not a made up figure.

      “Further decides that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement,
      developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through
      2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation;
      prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris
      Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per
      year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;”

      Stilicho

      June 3, 2017 at EST pm

  17. “[Trump is] immune to the forces of persuasion that cause everyone else to believe in the mass propaganda of the times.”

    Well, he believed in all the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories and is a big fan of Info Wars, so I think Trump is just poorly informed and willfully ignorant.

    “Because global warming is a religion,…”

    I think denial of global warming is a religion.

    “Even if global warming were true, which it’s not, the minor reductions in carbon emissions envisioned by the Paris accord wouldn’t stop it,”

    The Paris accord only ran through 2030 and was intended to be the first step. The expectation was that once started on the path of increased renewable energy, the rate of reduction would be increased after 2030. As the Chinese say, a journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.

    “and the most logical way to fight global warming would be to increase the reflectivity of the planet through engineering projects”.

    Who would be in charge of this engineer project? What country or countries would be allowed allowed to undertake it?

    mikeca

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Lol, Lion would probably say Trump was right about obama’s birth certificate, he really wan’t born here and what he showed was a forgery. Lion would also say InfoWars is right some of the time. Sometimes I think the belief that Trump is this super-intelligent 50-dimensional Chess playing, master manipulator is the real religion here.

      gailmargolis76

      June 3, 2017 at EST am

  18. Global warming/cooling/climate change is made up WHOLE CLOTH; never doubt it.

    Anyone with any serious desire to maintain ecological beauty would condone:
    a) nuclear energy
    b) closed borders
    c) population control of the 3rd world
    d) sensible regulations on corporations holding them accountable for their environmental externalities

    fakeemail

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  19. The religious nature of the climate debate also always comes out on the Lion’s climate posts. Which makes the comments, for me, very tedious. But good for you Lion to keep pushing out reality checks on this contentious topic.

    peterike

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  20. American President has to put America first and Trump is doing that. Anything else is treason regardless of weather global warming is real or not. Trump did a good thing and the market likes it.

    Yakov

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  21. Climate change is real, but the Paris agreement is nothing but a bunch of feel good bullshit of the type Obama specialized in. I’m glad we’re getting out. Besides, most of our emissions are going to nat gas anyway.

    Two in the Bush

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • Climate change even if real does not mean we have to sacrifice our lifestyle to worry about something that *might* happen 100 years from now.

      wt

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

  22. Bad argument by Lion: “Belief in global warming has spread like a new religion, even though there have been no actual discoveries in physics that would change our understanding of how heat is transmitted through gasses since the 1970s when no one believed in global warming and some people even believed that another ice age was soon coming.”

    Atomic/particle Physics are the same, but our understanding of complex mathematical systems has developed enormously since the ’70s, specially with the advantage that computers have provided to Montecarlo simulation, Bayesian statistics, and partial differential equation solution techniques.

    Even if one does not believe in AGW, withdrawing from the Paris agreement is a bad idea on at least two accounts: It alienates the US from our international allies, and it signals to the world that Trump is easily manipulated by private interests (whether true or not).

    trap-n-skeet

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • we should be glad IF he is “manipulated” by (hopefully) we deplorable nationalist private interests- as he promised before the election. nationalism is on the rise everywhere, and nobody here at home gives a rats hind end about the rest of the world. and neither should trump, except to defend us against enemies foreign and domestic.

      barnyardboss

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • “but our understanding of complex mathematical systems has developed enormously since the ’70s”

      Perhaps, but not enough to accurately predict the climate. Warmists are great at post-dicting, i.e. tweaking their models to make them compatible with historical data. Just like some TV psychic who claims after the fact to have predicted stuff.

      Let’s see the warmists produce a consensus model which makes actual predictions which are interesting and verified.Let’s see them put their credibility on the line: “We predict that X, Y, and Z will happen in the next 5 years and if it does not happen, it means that we are wrong.”

      ” It alienates the US from our international allies,”

      Who cares? Seriously, why should the US care about that? It’s not like the whole world is going to put the US under a trade embargo. If alienation is the price of declining to join the march of the lemmings, it’s a modest price to pay.

      ” and it signals to the world that Trump is easily manipulated by private interests (whether true or not).”

      If by “private interests” you mean “national interests,” that’s great. Let the world understand that American policy puts America first. And in this case, pretending to believe in this catastrophic global warming nonsense is not in America’s interests.

      fortaleza84

      June 3, 2017 at EST am

      • just because the current climate models are not perfect nobody should instead take their lead from a bunch of talking heads with conflicts of interest caused by receiving money from big oil.

        I assume you are not a scientist, so let me show you some basic facts: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature\
        Even from a skeptical position, this data is ‘unsettling’ to say the least. At least all parties should agree that more research is needed, and possibly the creation of some serious contingency plans.

        You should care about the US alienating its allies: having good international neighbors makes it cheaper for the us to secure its borders, promote us economic interests abroad, and promote geopolitical security. Advocating for isolationism is a naive, and very likely detrimental approach to international politics.

        By private I mean big oil:
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations
        I am sorry, butting is not clear that Trump was following the will of the majority American people in this decision. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
        If you have sources to support your point, let’s see them.

        Remington700

        June 4, 2017 at EST am

      • How about conflicts of interests caused from receiving money from Big Climate?

        The basic facts are that “climate” scientists = political scientists. The basis facts are the same as explained by H L Mencken 60+ years ago. It’s that “the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule”.

        The basic facts are that the progressives are saying “you folk invented the Industrial Revolution and brought billions out of poverty as a result. Now we’re going to penalize you folks for doing that by hobbling your economies and forcing you to give all the stupid folk money while they keep on polluting for as long as they like”.

        Somehow that seems unappealing to me.

        gda

        June 4, 2017 at EST pm

      • Remington700,

        It’s not about perfection.

        Making accurate predictions consistently is the fundamental truth demonstrating that you understand the underlying system you are investigating. The inability to make accurate predictions shows that you do not fundamentally understand what you are studying.

        And, based on these demonstrably lacking understandings, public policy is supposed to upend an entire nation’s way of life…to the benefit of other nations.

        And, no, I don’t care about NASA. NASA is a government organization whose budget depends on generating studies politicians want to hear. They are no more credible than any Democrat NGO.

        And here we go again with Big Oil.

        Let’s assume for the sake of argument that all of the Big Oil companies disappeared. What changes? Do you stop using your car? Stop Heating your home? Oil does not exist to make someone billionaire rich, like a solar plant. It exists because it is genuinely useful and it is woven into our lives. Removing oil usage would literally kill people.

        I say if leftists are so concerned about climate then they should simply off themselves. That would lower carbon footprint.

        map

        June 6, 2017 at EST pm

  23. yes. this shows superior social intelligence on trumps part. at the same time those who lack such will claim he’s a narcissist or sociopath precisely because he is superior to them in this way.

    the real kicker is even if everything the warmests say is true it will just be inconvenient/a huge headache. it’s not an “existential threat” to humanity. the earth is currently in an ice age. for most of earth’s history glaciers have existed only atop the highest mountains, not at the poles. not too long ago geologically speaking there were forests at 80 degrees south in antarctica.

    it really is a tell when someone goes on the rag about climate change. they may score high on an IQ test, but they’re dumb.

    i think the real social purpose of climate change, lgbtq, racism, blah, blah, blah is to keep the so-called “left” occupied with trivia rather than with real issues. so you can see how some “old left”-ists might’ve voted for trump. i did.

    the new left is as phony as a three dollar bill. this is why hildebeest lost.

    silly little man

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • “if everything the warmests say is true it will just be inconvenient/a huge headache”
      Tell that to Floridians, ha, ha: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

      Pray, do tell what other problem, real or imaginary, is more important? And what is Supreme Leader Trump doing to make it better?

      The fanboism is strong in this one.

      trap-n-skeet

      June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • the warmists have been crying wolf for 30 years.

        tell me when it happens silly man. y’all said it would be a disaster by now in the 80s. it isn’t. y’all have ZERO credibility. capiche?

        wolf and crying wolf are two different things.

        you know that…don’t you?

        i forgot. you don’t. 99% of scientists are diaper wearing autists. if you knew any, you’d know that.

        sad!

        silly little man

        June 2, 2017 at EST pm

      • no-one in the global warming comunity said that, that has been said about the ozone hole, an issue solved by industry change and treaties

        The predicted sea level rise by 2050 is about ~ 20 cm and ~ under 1 m in 2100, current sea level rise is 3 mm/year, historic high, it has been ~ 2 mm/year in the 1900s, one of undeniable proofs of global warming

        bombexpert

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

      • and also undeniable proof of alarmism on the part of warmists.

        as of NOW…it’s nothing serious…AT ALL.

        on this issue there will be no “too late”. on real issues that the phony left should be addressing the too late stage has already passed. it passed 30 years ago.

        the phony left chants…”global warming, transphobia, racism!”

        the sincere left chants…”single payer, free tuition, taxes on value transference!”

        the phony left is what’s called “controlled opposition”.

        american politics is professional wrestling and un-surprisingly the social retardates who occupy america’s commanding heights think it’s real.

        if trump hadn’t been born rich, he’d never have been rich. the autists would’ve stopped him.

        lion has blamed declining IQ for the greater cost of infrastructure despite the fact that IQ scores are much higher than they were in the 30s. he must be referring to genetic true score IQ. but how does he have any means of measuring this?

        if true it would explain how dumb people have come to have such power and wealth in the US and discriminate against their cognitive betters.

        silly little man

        June 3, 2017 at EST pm

  24. Lion,
    I think the best “skeptic” on global warming is Bjorn Lomborg. He’s not even a skeptic really. He believes in global warming and that human activity is having an impact. He’s just not a catastrophist. Essentially, there are just much bigger problems out there that we should be concerned about and we can deal with the negative impacts of global warming by spending relatively small amounts of money. Go to this “Copenhagen Consensus” website. Smart guy. Very sensible.

    Michael Crichton has very similar views. I recommend reading State of Fear. It was one of his last books before he passed away. Great read.

    Yes, global warming catastrophism is a scam.

    JerseyGuy

    June 2, 2017 at EST pm

    • I read State of Fear. Pretty good, a nice break from my usual diet of crime novels and baseball books. The next time some lefty starts babbling about “consensus,” the obvious rejoinder is, “are you familiar with the Copenhagen consensus”?

      Explainer 21

      June 3, 2017 at EST pm

  25. An interesting fact is that if earth had no warming blanket of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the earth’s average temperature would plunge to 34 degrees F, as compared to its actual temperature of around 58 degrees F.

    Mark Caplan

    June 3, 2017 at EST am

  26. My problem with GW or climate change is that for some reason, the only way to solve this alleged problem is to loot the working class of more money. I guess its horrible a peon doing a modest job can have stuff like air conditioning and small car to drive for low cost. It is just another way to tax the population into oblivion on top of all the made up regulations.

    I’ve lived not far from the Texas coast for a long time. The way GW wackos talk and Al Gore, Padre Island should have been the world’s longest sandbar by now. I’m still waiting for all those hurricanes, wild fires, and sea level rises that was predicted two decades ago.

    Someone

    June 3, 2017 at EST am

  27. Here’s an interesting tidbit on the Paris treaty that is somehow never reported.

    “Press coverage throughout the world has assumed that the U.S. is a party to that treaty, and that President Trump may personally abrogate it. That, the reverse of the truth, depicts one man as standing in the way of what has become the euro-American ruling class’s environmental religion. Truth is that the U.S. is not party to that treaty because although President Obama signed it, he never submitted it to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution, and that he did not submit it because of the absolute certainty that the Senate would have rejected it. President Trump could have effectively withdrawn from the treaty simply by submitting it to the Senate. Instead, he effectively ratified Obama’s unconstitutional adherence to it by continuing to abide to its terms during its specified three-year withdrawal process — effectively leaving withdrawal to the next president.”

    So Trump is both more and less of a globalist than we think. In other words, that cheese stands alone.

    In any case, the treaty is really so much political theater. It gives the ruling class and SJWs something to preen about, while on the back-end private interests in Western nations make billions grifting the system (and funneling it back as donations), while third-world nations just grift straight up, like they usually do, because nobody holds them responsible for anything.It’s all about money, honey, and not a damn thing else.

    As for concerns that Trump is alienating the leaders of Europe — good! The Western European ruling class is even more degenerate and evil then that of the U.S. We should not give them aid or comfort in any form. They are the enemy, full stop.

    Finally, someone mentioned how Trump called global warming a “Chinese conspiracy.” This is classic Trump blending thoughts in his head: he is both right and wrong. In fact, the whole global warming ball of wax was started to a large extent by billionaire Communist Maurice Strong. Strong lived, for many years, in China. My guess is that Trump heard this somewhere along the line, but only remembers the China part.

    peterike

    June 3, 2017 at EST am

  28. A bit off-topic…Per Lion’s discussions of income bottlenecks that get you rich, these may be some examples: http://www.cracked.com/article_22734_5-seemingly-lousy-jobs-that-can-earn-you-six-figures-year.html

    Anne

    June 3, 2017 at EST am

  29. O/T: Oh bloody merduh. London bridge is falling down, falling down…

    The Anglo Prole Sphere is on meltdown…The city looks like a dump.

    Londonistan is just a bigger version of Liverpool, more like Livercesspool now with all the multicult.

    Just look at the Brits, a bunch of ugly proles like many Americans.

    JS

    June 3, 2017 at EST pm

  30. The Goobermint cannot defend the border, maintain the infrastructure or actually enforce the law, but NOW they want a Trillion Moar Clams to CHANGE THE WEATHER. Yeah, OK. Why do you hate science? Don’t you believe Goobermint can change the weather? Everyone complains about the weather but they won’t give a TRILLION DOLLARS to the Goobermint to do something about it. Think of the children. Cause they’re the ones who will pay for this…

    Joshua Sinistar

    June 4, 2017 at EST am

  31. Global warming being true or not, this was a dumb deal. What kind of deal lets China, the number one polluter, increase its pollution output all the way until 2030?

    I don’t trust any International deal at this point because every country pursues its own selfish interests except America. The deals totally fall apart without America, because the deals were a feast where America was on the menu.

    Dan

    June 4, 2017 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: