JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war

This study really reinforces how important it is for skeptics to be heard. Just get out there, write letters to the editor, email your MP, and speak up at public events. It does help.

There’s a new long detailed study out struggling with how to keep Climate Fear alive. Oh, the disappointment, exposing people to both sides of the story created more skeptics. The researchers tried all their best angles, like pretending that using expensive energy would “help the economy”, or “free the nation from a dependence on foreign oil”. They tried the religious frame “we’re protecting god’s creation” and they tried what they thought was a nationalist frame (but which was really just another gonzo economic claim dressed up with US-flattery) “Innovative technology will keep our nation’s economy strong”.

Not surprisingly these dud messages don’t work. McCright et al miss the point that if they are selling schemes to change the weather, the best salesman would list the direct benefits — like how much nicer a cooler world will be, with fewer storms and floods, less heatwaves, and more cold days in winter, stuff like that right. (I can’t think why they don’t?) Could it be that no matter what suit they put the skunk in, it still stinks? Lipstick on a pig… The bottom line is that people don’t really believe we can slow storms, and control the weather, and they don’t really like a cold climate much either. No one believes that solar panels will reduce floods, or that windmills will bring rain in a drought. The believers can’t sell the direct benefits because they are preposterous, which leaves them selling weak messages about fake schemes to boost the economy, or the fear of “looking like a pariah”, or being called a “denier”. Because they are hobbled by that gulf with reality, the sales team just can’t compete with even the basic skeptical messages. No wonder they try so desperately hard to silence skeptics. It is their best tactic.

The researchers McCright et al are hunting for the impossible, the magical phrase or angle that will convert the fence-sitters to believe the fantasy. As usual they’ve done exhaustive, dedicated and pointless work. (Is that government funded?) They start with namecalling — there are “deniers” everywhere, and not surprisingly they finish with nothing. As long as they assume the climate models are right they’ll be banging their heads against the wall.

 Climate-change foes winning public opinion war

As world leaders meet this week and next at a historic climate change summit in Paris, a new study by Michigan State University environmental scientists suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.

The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, finds that climate-change advocates are largely failing to influence public opinion. Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.

“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”

The findings come as leaders from 150 nations attempt to forge a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. During a speech Monday at the Paris summit, President Barack Obama said the “growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”

Nearly 1,600 U.S. adults took part in the MSU study. Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change and then completed a survey gauging their beliefs on the issue. The articles contained either positive or negative real-world messages about climate change, or both.

The positive messages framed the topic of climate change around one of four major issues: economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health. According to the article addressing public health, for example:

“Medical experts argue that dealing with climate change will improve our public health by reducing the likelihood of extreme weather events, reducing air quality and allergen problems, and limiting the spread of pests that carry infectious diseases.”

In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.”

Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change — and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.

“That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

The skeptical messages they chose to use didn’t work so well on the Democrat voters as they did on the Conservative ones, but that’s only because they didn’t pick the right messages. I could help them, but I don’t think they want to know.

REFERENCE

Aaron M. McCright, Meghan Charters, Katherine Dentzman, Thomas Dietz. Examining the Effectiveness of Climate Change Frames in the Face of a Climate Change Denial Counter-Frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2015; DOI: 10.1111/tops.12171

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (95 votes cast)
If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war, 9.0 out of 10 based on 95 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jv7vc2v

143 comments to If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war

  • #

    The denial message presumes you are denying something. The IPCC denies basic physical laws and their influence on public opinion has been huge. The reason the skeptics will win is not because of the denial message, but because the truth is the most powerful message.

    764

    • #
      Robk

      And it’s become very obvious the entire ruse is about Agenda 21, world government and collecting 100 billion a year to run it. People are disgusted at what is being done in the name of science….these people want to run the world! They have shown themselves to be unfit for the purpose.
      I was amazed at how little attention was paid to the fact that Maurice Strong died in China. The deception is a disgrace.

      553

      • #
        mc

        But, but, but, how can you not believe me, I’m a really good guy, you know a Sensitive New Age Totalitarian and I’m just saying if you follow me I can lead you to a wonderful new way of life, full of the simple pleasures of being human, you know like huddling around the wood stove in your grass hut on a cold night, picking the lice out of your partners hair, so intimate, so bonding. All you need to do is give up and give over your hurried, modern life and your burdensome possessions to the cause and together we can transform the world into a simpler, nicer happier place. Think of the poor African villagers, they have nothing but they are happy in a way that you with your electric lights, modern cooking facilities, heating and air-conditioning could never be! So I ask you again how can you possibly not believe me?

        460

        • #
          RobertBobbert GDQ

          mc
          I like ‘Sensitive New Age Totalitarian’ (SNAT)and shall plagiarise often but with due credit of course.

          I alsopost at government funded sites like the Conversation and the Drum ( Australian) and the establishment warmers do not take kindly to my irreverence and your SNAT will get a good workover and likely lead to further accusations of ‘innapropriate questions’

          They do not take kindly to my suggestion that they are the new establishment conformists and SNAT should get under their skin nicely.

          However I would like to keep the SNAG term going so how about Sensitive New Age Governmentarian. Any other suggestions?

          If I could have a bit of license.
          I posted at The Conversation that every good Conference COP21 needs a good catchy theme song and suggested that the Beatles cover ‘Money’ fit the bill.

          The best things in life are free
          But you can keep ‘em for the birds and bees;
          Now give me money, (that’s what I want) that’s what I want,
          (That’s what I want) That’s what I want (That’s what I want) yeah,
          That’s what I want.

          I came across the original track from the Gordy record stable by Barrett Strong.
          As Molly Meldrum says, and that includes The Beatles cover and the Lennon vocal,
          Do yourself a favour.

          SNAT is a little ripper mc

          150

          • #
            mc

            “New establishment conformists”, you naughty, naughty boy RobertBobbert; yes we know it’s true but don’t you know that saying it out loud will make their heads explode!

            “I also post at government funded sites like the Conversation and the Drum ( Australian) and the establishment warmers do not take kindly to my irreverence and your SNAT will get a good work over and likely lead to further accusations of ‘inappropriate questions’”

            Establishment warmers don’t take kindly to, well, pretty much anything really. As for irreverence, my God, are you crazy? Good luck with that but personally the prospect of being chased by an enraged mob with pitchforks, feathers and scolding hot tar is not one I would be brave enough to provoke!

            “I like ‘Sensitive New Age Totalitarian’ (SNAT) and shall plagiarise often but with due credit of course”.

            Be my guest, though no credit needed, it is after all just a description of the obvious.

            80

          • #
            bobl

            Houw about,
            Sensitive, new age, and gullible?

            40

          • #
            bobl

            I also like
            Post Normal Socialist. Kinda rings, PNS.

            50

      • #
        Dennis

        I wonder what Maurice Strong’s relationship was with Goldman Sachs and a former Chairman of that firm who is now our PM?

        220

        • #
          clive

          Maurice Strong was too busy hiding out in China because he was wanted for [snip]. Nobody in the “Free World” will lose any sleep over his passing.He should have been sent to jail.

          120

      • #
        Dennis

        It is interesting to rethink old news: For example the effort former PM Rudd put into the Copenhagen Conference and with now PM Turnbull into convincing Australians that a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme would be a good policy to deal with global warming climate change. If you google Rudd+Tang there are links about his China Associates and business. The new PM also travels to China from time to time and was spotted by The Weekend Australian dining with the Rudds at a Beijing restaurant not long ago. I do of course appreciate the fact that China is or has been a rapidly developing economy country and that business opportunities flow from this.

        With the death of Canadian Billionaire Maurice Short in China recently, said to be the chief engineer of UN Agenda 21 and in on the UN IPCC climate change fraud too I was reminded that our new PM is a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs. And he of course continues to push the UN IPCC agenda. Last year Al Gore visited Australia a couple of times and spent time with PUP founder Clive Palmer. Our new PM was spotted dining at a Canberra Chinese restaurant with Mr. Palmer around the same time and media did question what their private discussions were about.

        “As the information jigsaw pieces are assembled the picture is becoming clearer, and for me it is looking like there is no separation of political sides participating behind the scenes in the biggest wealth creation scam the world has ever experienced, the milking cows, the taxpayers.

        Of course it is about much more than wealth creation for insiders, as was revealed by Investors Business Daily (see my post lower down);

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.”

        The self-interest and grab for power by our plotting to be controllers of the world apparently knows no political boundaries, there are Socialists on every side.

        But not all, Tony Abbott said: I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

        Christopher, Lord Monckton did try to warn us to watch Tony Abbott’s back. No doubt his jigsaw puzzle is complete.

        150

        • #
          Dennis

          I understand that Maurice Strong also attended the Beijing China dinner with Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.

          110

          • #
            Egor TheOne

            One less Mad Malthusian ….Morry (it may become necessary to set mortality controls)Stong….
            can only be a good thing !

            Lunch eh, with Kevin (Consulate General) Dudd ,and Mr Goldman and Sachs of **it Turn(Left)Bull .

            All three share/d similar delusions and all three are of the left .

            120

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            You understand MS was also there. Do you know, or did you imagine it? Or is somebody stringing you on?

            True or false? Surely false.

            20

    • #

      My recent experience of engagement with one of the most dogmatic believers is a presumption they hold a monopoly on understanding, whether scientific, economic or moral. Climate models are a priori true, so any real world data that does not conform to the models is incorrect. This is a large part of the reasons for temperature homogenisations are changing, and why these self-proclaimed scientists get a tad shirty when criticized. This is the reverse of proper science or any academic discipline or the principles of common law. In all, claims must be backed up. In science, hypotheses or conjectures need to be confronted with the evidence to be verified (or fail to be contradicted). In history sources need to be cited – preferably original not secondary sources. In law the prosecution needs to provide direct evidence to support the charges, not hearsay and vague circumstantial assertions.
      Like others before who hold similar ideological perspectives, those holding of the back-to-front view of theory and reality have a standard for name-calling. Our “denial” is of this back-to-front reality. When there is genuine exchanges the audience comes out overwhelmingly out on the skeptic side. The vast majority of normal people has a sense of justice, that the truth will win out, and that science accomplishment is based on demonstrable achievement, such as landing on the moon, technological achievement, or mapping the genome. But for the alarmists they always have the last slingshot and think they have won, when any person who tracks the exchange sees they have avoided every issue that would link the claims to the real world. For example, take this exchange, where I try to get my adversary to state a single example where climate alarmists have made a single successful short-term prediction. Things like hurricanes getting worse since 2005, or Arctic summer Sea Ice disappearing by 2013. From a physicist at one of the World’s top 100 universities, I just got rudeness, name-calling and total avoidance of saying anything positive to support his side.

      432

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        I think it goes further back than that.

        They first make an emotional decision that the solutions (regulation, anti-capitalism and all the rest of it) are morally ‘correct’. This is a worldview which makes them feel noble and wise.

        They then engage their rational facilities simply to defend that worldview, along with any and all excuses for taking those actions.

        Any attack on the science is therefore an attack on their emotionally held worldview, which they feel personally. That is why the response is so shrill and abusive.

        Nobody could possibly get that upset about a dispute over mere numbers, say, climate sensitivity being 1.6 or 2.0.

        It’s their emotions that are triggered, which is why they never address the argument itself, but rant about deniers, Big Oil, racism, the Koch Brothers, Islamophobia or whatever it may be.

        91

    • #

      Rick,

      To support my point, here are the logical arguments behind the IPCC’s denial of basic physics.

      Stefan-Boltzmann:
      The IPCC claims 1 W/m^2 of forcing nominally increases the surface temperature by 0.8C, but denies that the surface emissions increase by 4.3 W/m^2 according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I understand why this is denied since how can anyone believe that 1 W/m^2 can be amplified into 4.3 W/m^2. You need powered gain to get this much amplification which is not even a remote possibility.

      Conservation of Energy:
      The consensus denies COE by implying 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions. Where are the additional 3.3 W/m^2 coming from? The claim that this comes from positive feedback (without actually specifying the magnitude in joules or watts, but instead in degrees) is absurd and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how gain and feedback work. No amount of positive feedback can create energy out of thin air as the consensus requires.

      Denial of the Second Law:
      The consensus denies the Second Law of thermodynamics which tells us that a heat engine can not warm its source of heat. Certainly radiation from clouds and GHG’s accumulates with incident power to warm the surface, but the observable consequences of the second law precludes net positive feedback from water. Hurricanes demonstrate this as localized, maximally efficient versions of the global heat engine driving weather and they leave a trail of cold water in their wake. If the end to end effect of evaporation was net positive feedback, storms would heat the surface. Yet another test of consensus claims that fails.

      While the logic is unambiguous, its opposition is strictly emotional including,

      Guilt for past CO2 emissions assuming they are bad.

      Guilt for the success of the west assuming this was the result of emitting CO2.

      Envy for the fruits of the west.

      Anti- capitalism/oil company/Bush/progress sentiments.

      Emotional insanity from the green movement.

      Illusions about the greater good.

      The logical truth is devastating to the emotionally driven politics supporting CAGW.

      A need to keep the gravy train running.

      The biggest emotional issue of all is that individuals driven by emotional arguments fail to grasp how these kinds of arguments can drive ostensibly intelligent people (scientists included) to be so incredibly wrong about something so important.

      60

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      Thanks, Jo. I did misunderstand; glad to have it cleared up.

      In reading co2′s reply he begins his salutation with ‘rick’, I infer Rick is the monitor; hi and thanks to you too, Rick.

      No need to publish this reply.

      00

  • #
    Phil R

    Saw this on another site and someone (sorry, would love to credit, but don’t remember who or where offhand)pointed out huge contradiction in this release. In the second paragraph they say,

    Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.

    Yet in the last paragraph they say,

    That’s the power of the denial message. It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.

    Then again, maybe it’s not so much of a contradiction as it is a cognitive disconnect. They seem to think that if they can just hit on the right wording, the right message, they can change everyone’s minds. It never seems to cross their minds that they could just be wrong.

    363

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      There is a technique that many information analysts use: You first read an article as it is written, and then read that article again, substituting negative concepts for positive, and vice versa.

      Thus the final quoted paragraph would be treated as: “That is the weakness of the alarmist message. It’s extremely easy to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are open to exploring new evidence“.

      The analyst then asks, which of the two alternatives seems more reasonable?

      I would judge that McCrite et al, have been put in a position where they have to be economical with the truth, as a condition of their funding. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn’t follow the laws of economics.

      422

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        “human psychology doesn’t follow the laws of economics”

        Actualy, I think it does. When you’re hungry you find work.

        131

        • #
          Russ Wood

          ” When you’re hungry you find work.” Actually, in a Socialist society, when you’re hungry, you DEMAND that the Government feeds you, and blame your worklessness on someone else!

          10

      • #

        R.K.-Brilliant and insightful, as always!

        61

      • #
        Dariusz

        This is what I used to do reading communist papers or watching TV. Substitution of white for black, good for bad allowed me to function in the communist society or I would go mad. One other side effect is that you realise that you live continuously in the bad dream where everyone is asleep and you the only one awake.

        321

        • #
          Griffo

          Here in Australia,we have the ABC and Fairfax newspapers,not much different in tone to the eastern bloc days before 1989. Thanks Dariusz for your insights

          161

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Thanks Dariusz,

          That is where the idea came from, in the first place.

          40

  • #

    The skeptics are winning because they have the truth on their side. As Shakespeare writes, “The truth will out.”

    The Republicans will likely win the white house and may even have a 60 seat majority in the senate. If that happens the global warming fraud will be defunded and it will all be over burt the crying.

    I just hope the ringleaders are brought to justice.

    If Obama believed that climate change was the greatest threat facing the human race why doesn’t he use his good office and bully pulpit to sponsor a debate between the skeptics and the warmists? If the science is so “settled” the warmists could expose the skeptics and shame them into silence. We Americans could rally around the flag, sacrifice our economy on Gaia’s alter as atonement for our green sins and save the world!

    Maybe Obama doesn’t do it because he knows that every debate that was sponsored by a legitimate debating society has been won by the skeptics? If that is the case then perhaps his motive for supporting for attempting to control the weather lies elsewhere?

    I believe that his real motive is to foist his progressive agenda upon us. As usual, it always gets down to the money. Money is the medium of exchange used to purchase power. They want to control the very air we breath. It reminds me of the ring of power from Tolkien’s trilogy. One scam to find them all and in the darkness bind them.

    452

    • #

      Please excuse the typos. The beers I had at lunch today were exceptionally tasty!

      171

    • #
      clive

      For anyone living in the good old USA,”Gun Futures”are looking good. Obbumer the Numpty,still hasn’t realised that every time he mentions”Guns” that the sales of said same goes up.The last I heard it was up 370% since he came to office.

      91

      • #
        Aaron M

        Its similar for ammunition. Mention a government buy up of quantities of .223 and store shelves empty. Mention a slowdown of rimfire production and there’s no .22LR to be found anywhere. Imagine the talk of tracking/registering ammunition sales after the San Bernadino tragedy.

        00

      • #
        Aaron M

        Further, the FBI are processing background checks for Friday 27th Nov (Black Friday, an annual sales event in the USA), two days after the tragic murder, for gun sales on that ONE day totalling…..wait for it…… 185,345 new firearms.

        185k guns sold in one day. The power of fear?

        10

  • #
    Transport by Zeppelin

    the deception promoted here by McCright et al could be another reason why opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.

    as reported – In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most —conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated”

    no mention of the vast amount of scientists, let alone environmentalists that believe so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated

    252

  • #
    Peter Miller

    As hard as I try, the only evidence I can find of global warming is in:

    1. The highly manipulated/homogenised/tortured temperature data of GISS and other non-satellite statistics, and

    2. Climate computer program forecasts, which have been pre-programmed to find imminent Thermageddon.

    Glaciers, sea levels, polar bears, satellite temperature measurements, rates of extinction, storms, floods, droughts, Antarctic ice extent and volume, and droughts all clearly demonstrate business as usual.

    Even the late summer Arctic ice cap is recovering nicely from its low point 6-7 years ago.

    So that’s why we call ourselves sceptics, as there is no evidence for runaway global warming and why we call them alarmists, as their arguments are largely emotional and expend on being misleading to the peddling of outright lies and BS.

    473

    • #

      I can sum it up as inconclusive evidence of unusual warming, coincidence for cause and speculation for consequence.

      81

    • #

      Take the evidence for catastrophic global warming to another realm – a court of law where the prosecution is trying to convict somebody of a heinous crime – multiple murders for instance. If the accused protests their innocence would anyone who is interested in justice (for the perpetrators to be found guilty and the falsely accused to be acquitted) say that there was sufficient evidence to support the accusation beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of admissible evidence in a civil law suite) that we are heading for catastrophic global warming within three generations? Even if this is the case, is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the countries of the world can collectively reduce global to lower than 2010 levels to prevent this catastrophic scenario? Reading Jo’s website (along with multiple other sources) should dispel the case for climate catastrophism. Looking at the country INDC policy proposals for Paris, even if fully implemented (pauses to avoid the low flying pigs), they will make very little difference to global emissions. Even the evidence of the UNFCCC accepts this, despite the official unsupported pronouncements to the contrary by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. So there is neither the strong evidence for a big problem, nor the evidence that the solution will make a big difference even if there were a big problem. But sufficient for policy to make a positive difference, it is necessary for both conditions to be met.

      61

  • #

    It’s interesting that we’re referred to as deniers all through the study. There’s a certain pleasure at seeing them eating their liver as they try and justify our success through gritted teeth.

    Totally OT but the nominations phase of this year’s Climate Prat Award for 2015 have just opened.

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/the-pratties-2015-the-race-is-on/

    Pointman

    292

  • #
    Yonniestone

    If believers of CAGW keep throwing around thinly veiled ad hom’s like ‘denier/denialist’ then the public opinion will sway further against them, as using name calling by perceived authorities to make a professional statements will raise alarm bells and foster distrust in the public they want to manipulate.

    People look for qualities in a leader that the majority don’t possess, even if some of those qualities are a front there’s others supporting the leader with similar mindsets that will cover any flaws of the top dog, this is what people look for vote for to gain security in their society.

    The average person can find a comedian, mouthpiece, smartass, zealot anywhere in their life, the failure of CAGW alarmists is the imbalance of these people represented in their camp.

    282

  • #
    Chris Hagan

    I would argue that the message is so much different in outcome.

    Proponent: Carbon dioxide will kill us all. (everyone that goes to school knows we breath out CO2 and plants use it to make oxygen)

    Skeptic: Carbon dioxide has a very small effect and is beneficial to plants and is a natural part of our eco-system.

    I think when presented calmly with both viewpoints most people are tired of weing told their very existence is an

    existential threat to the world.

    323

  • #
    Chris Hagan

    I would argue that the message is so much different in outcome.

    Proponent: Carbon dioxide will kill us all. (everyone that goes to school knows we breath out CO2 and plants use it to make oxygen)

    Skeptic: Carbon dioxide has a very small effect and is beneficial to plants and is a natural part of our eco-system.

    I think when presented calmly with both viewpoints most people are tired of being told their very existence is an

    existential threat to the world.

    124

  • #
    Manfred

    Peddling snake-oil has had a long history, so long in fact that I suspect intuitive caution may be an epigenetic trait, particularly when triggered by ridiculous claims in tight juxtaposition with demands for money in exchange for reams of nauseating, sanctimonious directives on the eco-safe way to live life.

    ‘Global warming’ couldn’t and didn’t deliver as it flatlined, inconveniently DOA. Besides, there is still the problem of convincing people about a importance of a few tenths of a degree so those that said their children and their grandchildren wouldn’t see snow came up with ‘climate change’ (which they – the UN – have carefully pre-defined, something that almost no one appears to appreciate). They thought in their ideological strangled view they were very clever, coming up with something that is technically undeniable, and could only be made void by the complete eradication and absence of all humanity on the Earth.

    Doesn’t that just reek of committee, of the ideological and bureaucratic Green-spam? People don’t need to rely on anything other than their own instincts and senses to detect the ‘skunk’, even when wrapped in scintillating fluorescent green. All the pseudo-science and propaganda in the World patently cannot convince all the people all of the time. What’s more, it’s utterly risible that they thought they could.

    McCright et al. propaganda is fatuous, their abstract betrays them.

    … exposure to the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denial counter-frame has a disproportionate influence on the ACC views of conservatives (than on those of moderates and liberals), effectively activating conservatives’ underlying propensity for anti-reflexivity.

    I suspect almost any challenging topic would engender precisely the same leftist view, that attacks and seeks to undermine the individual. If you’re anywhere right of centre in your political disposition, you’re clearly suffering from ‘anti-reflexivity’. Keep an eye out for their next publication, they may soon have the final ‘solution’.

    71

  • #
    Dave in the states

    Just yesterday I had an hour long conversation with a State Senator on this topic. He’s a medical doctor and his father was my 8th grade science teacher. I was able to present several of the points by David Evan’s New Science Series here. It went over very well. He was very impressed.

    We always win the argument when it comes down to the actual science- well presented.

    282

  • #
    Dave in the states

    The fact that Skeptics have the more coherent argument was on display during one of the recent US presidential election debates. Ted Cruz was cut off and shut down as soon as he began to expound on the science of climate change. The MSM do not want the actual science heard. They do want the 97% consensus mantra repeated and repeated often, however.

    303

  • #
    scaper...

    Most people are not fools. Kind of what Abe Lincoln said in relation to this.

    I’ve been pretty quiet here during the Paris talk fest. Especially concerning the billion dollars that has been committed over five years from our aid budget.

    Here’s a link worth listening to that explains a lot. To the people that believe that Greg Hunt is a sell out to our interests…I wouldn’t bother!

    It is the middle ground that counts.

    82

    • #
      el gordo

      Price said a lot of our listeners live in the bush and as you can appreciate most of us think global warming is not happening.

      I listened for a minute and came to the conclusion that Greg is either being disingenuous or an idiot.

      Sorry mate, nothing personal.

      131

    • #
      King Geo

      I listened to the Price/Hunt interview and right at the end Greg Hunt said Oz was meeting its 2020 emissions targets, clearly with its “direct action policy” e.g. growing more trees – enough said. Clearly no need for an ETS or CT in Oz. He also acknowledged that emissions in China (mainly from coal fired power stations being built on a regular basis) will keep growing up to the year 2030 and will totally overwhelm our emissions by a massive margin. So what is the point of Oz giving the UN Climate Fund a single cent. Good letter in the Western Australian today with this comment “Pacific Island nations left high & dry wrt to funding tackling rising SL” – well what is the problem? – isn’t being “high & dry” what they want. Don’t they trust their coral reefs to grow in unison with the current eustatic SL rise of a mere 2-3mm/year? Well corals can keep up with eustatic SL rise rates much greater than that. Just ask a carbonate sedimentary geologist or marine scientist that – very basic stuff.

      171

      • #

        King Geo mentions that Greg Hunt rightly mentioned that Australia’s reduction will be negated by China.

        In reply to an earlier Thread here at Joanne’s site, I made the Comment here (at this link) that Australia’s yearly target for reductions will be negated, virtually each week, as China constructs those new coal fired power plants, and that our total CO2 reduction target to be achieved by 2030 will be negated by China in around 6 weeks.

        I also mentioned that even the U.S. the World’s (current) second largest emitter, and who has a reductions target similar to ours here in Australia (26 to 28% by 2030) will have its 2030 target wholly negated by China in less than 2 years.

        Whole of Planet CO2 reduction targets for EVERY Country will be wiped out in possibly less than four to five years by the increase from China alone, and that’s not taking India into account, or the other new coal fired plants planned for other Countries.

        When China has wiped out the whole of World reduction in five years, there’s still ten years left until 2030.

        Tony.

        141

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The writers are sociologists in an academic department. Likely they have to publish one or more papers each year to keep their dean’s evaluation in the positive range. The dean won’t read the papers and will not be aware of the silliness thereof. [Dear Dean, Read the comments at JoNova, WUWT and elsewhere.]
    On WUWT, I pointed out that “ACC”, as in … framing anthropogenic climate change (ACC) …” takes the good name of the sports league – Atlantic Coast Conference – in vain.
    They should be ashamed in conjuring up bogymen – organized ACC denial, as should the National Science Foundation for funding such nonsense.

    151

  • #
    Novarina

    The very language McCright et al are using displays their deep confusion. On a literal level, what would be a climate change foe?
    Someone who is against climate change, which is someone who would like the climate to not change, and probably takes action to ensure that it stays the same. In the context of global warming alarmism, the alarmists claim they are against any warming (ie change) and take action to limit behavior that in their view is responsible for that change.
    Likewise a climate change advocate would be advocating for change, ie advocating for warming or cooling, and for actions that would cause that change.
    Skeptics don’t fall in either camp because their position is not nominally for or against change, but rather just accepting that change happens and is beyond our control.
    Yet, figuratively, global warming alarmists are very much climate change advocates because their livelihoods and sense of purpose depends upon the existence of global warming. Without global warming, they don’t get funding, elected, etc. and they don’t get to be self-righteously indignant.
    I find it very revealing of their true state of mind and their own unacknowledged intentions that they have chosen for themselves the moniker ‘climate change advocate’.
    -ps- how do you make blank lines in your comments? I can’t find any how to info.

    92

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Blank lines — good luck, but maybe with html coding.
      .
      Until then you can get something similar using dots
      .
      as in periods and an Enter or line end.
      .
      Looks great. Yes?

      51

  • #
    David S

    The power of money in influencing opinion was so clearly shown at the last election in Australia with the performance of the Palmer United Party. Gradually the less well funded protagonists such as Hedley Thomas who have truth on their side will overcome the corrupt practices of the media bullies. The determination of crusaders such as your self , Andrew Bolt and Anthony Watts have been successful in stemming the massively funded tide of Global warming propagander. Thank God that the world hasn’t warmed for 18 years and extreme events have moderated. What I can’t understand if as is clear by His actions of the last 18 years God is a skeptic , why is the Pope a warmist?

    202

  • #
    Robk

    Most people can be convinced by evidence.

    112

    • #

      Most people can be convinced by evidence.

      Except those who do the drive by thumbs down and are unable to make a coherent case for their position. They seem to fear the evidence as much as they want others to fear CAGW.

      194

    • #
      Ross

      Rob

      I get the impression there are a lot of people out there that genuinely doubt the issue and are “itching” to get something to grab hold of to allow themselves to commit to the skeptics side of the debate.

      92

    • #
      PeterS

      Most people can be convinced by evidence.

      Yes it’s usually right, provided the evidence is not corrupted and distorted to the extent that it supports a lie, as is the case for the global warming alarmist nonsense currently being spread around the world by our leaders, and supported by certain academic and scientific establishments through scientific journals. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

      102

  • #
    handjive

    Pierre Gosselin @notrickszone notes “Growing Impatience” Among Democracy-Hostile Scientists “Intoxicated by Knowledge”

    “Increasingly alarmist climate scientists, media members and politicians are openly challenging democracy, saying the people-represented system needs to be done away if there is to be any hope of averting major climate damage.”

    192

  • #
    TdeF

    .. using expensive energy would “help the economy”, or “free the nation from a dependence on foreign oil”

    No, that’s fracking, another object of hate by anti democracy activists posing as environmentalists and which has made the US a nett energy exporter, vastly expanded energy resources and forced the halving of world oil prices. Now what sort of big oil lobby wanted prices halved? Do the facts never get in the way of a good fantasy?

    111

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Aaron M. McCright et al: What’s wrong with you people? Why don’t you just believe us?!

    91

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war

    To win would mean the dementia would stop

    It does not !

    101

    • #
      Robk

      The caveat was: if they are heard. It’s pretty hard to get a fair hearinng. I’m hoping David & Jo get some clear air to present their case.

      41

  • #
    TdeF

    In this morning’s Australian, the new power group are the smaller countries plus China. It had to happen.

    As the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and a rapidly developing country and in places one of the world’s developed countries, China is now playing the game that the now historic 50% increase in CO2 in the 20th century is not their fault and they also should be compensated. What a chess move! Check.

    So China should not be penalized for their current massive CO2 output but actually rewarded for not emitting for so long! The essential twin arguments that the CO2 increase is due solely to industrialization in the West and that CO2 hangs around for ever has now come back to bite the activists. As the world’s major ‘polluter’ and as the West loses its manufacturing industries to China, the same China argues on population alone that they get the bulk of the $100Bn to help victim countries cope with Climate Change. Tuvalu has only 9,800 people, a single building in Shanghai. Nice one. Checkmate.

    121

    • #
      Dennis

      Cheque Mate.

      131

    • #
      Robk

      And the UN has indicated that the Chinese form of government is preferred over all others.

      151

    • #
      markx

      That truly is the cutest part of the whole thing.

      All those clever bankers and finance guys and politicians happily pushing for a ‘carbon price’ and/or a carbon tax were gleefully explaining how badly affected all the poor developing countries were by the ‘dreadful’ actions to date.

      Little did they imagine all those sly opportunists would leap in and demand compensation. Much less with combined, and China on their side.

      But the contradiction is that every bit of scientific and technological advancement that all those poor developing countries have had dropped in their laps came from this very process they now wish to be compensated for.

      In the benefits/harm ledger, they perhaps owe more than they claim is owed to them.

      60

    • #
      PeterS

      It’s all about the re-distribution of wealth. Our leaders are simply going about weakening Western economies to level the playing field. We are run but neo-socialists. Socialists never can manage things properly but instead destroy everything they touch without them realizing it even when much of the damage is done. The AGW scam is nothing compared to what’s next. Keep stocking up on popcorn.

      50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    To win we must convince the greens

    41

  • #
    michael hammer

    Most people are concrete thinkers. They are guided by what they see and directly experience and their time scale is governed by the time scale of their lives. CAGW advocates claim that something really bad is happening but people dont directly experience it so there is some skepticism. In order to drive home the message more strongly the advocates increasing claim serious impacts are already clearly discernible. Trouble is its not discernible, polar bears are not dying out, pacific islands are not shrinking into oblivion, storms are not increasing, snow is not disappearing, total ice on earth is not shrinking, winters are still as cold as they were and so on. People see that and the increasing strident claims set up an increasing dissonance between what they observe and what they are being told. In the end people’s direct observations win out and what started off as a real fear becomes maintained only by fear of political correctness. In my view, skeptical arguments of themselves do not have much impact in changing public views (I doubt many listen to, or understand the substance of those arguments), what they do is to provide a role model making it easier for the public to go against perceived political correctness.

    In short, the public has concluded from their own observations that CAGW is a massive exaggeration. Skeptical arguments simply make it easier for people to publicly acknowledge their conclusions. The skeptics are not winning, the CAGW advocates are losing because their narrative is visibly not borne out by reality.

    This focus on reality (reality check) exerts a very powerful stabilising effect. It is often slow to act but it is one of the most powerful dampeners on mass hysteria. In the end what counts is that nature says NO and people can see natures answer.

    153

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    What on earth makes you think that rational arguments will change the mind of a greenie?

    All you can hope to do is reduce the number of people voting for them so they become an irrelevance.

    152

  • #
    Dennis

    At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
    The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily

    151

    • #
      Dennis

      I think I have worked out why the devious capitalists would be prepared to help socialists collapse capitalism: The key where the answer lies is in China. China has an authoritarian Communist Government that permits selected Party Members to indulge in capitalism for wealth creation purposes that also helps China to increase its power and influence by growing its economy. Our would be masters want a one world government with four regions, economic regions, but controlled by our masters like in Communist China. A partnership of Communists/Socialists and Capitalist Lords who are our masters.

      50

  • #
    Ruairi

    Few climate-change skeptics are fooled,
    By alarmists who need to be schooled,
    On how warming was faked,
    Cooked up and half- baked,
    To deny that the Earth has now cooled.

    212

  • #
    flaxdoctor

    MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”

    Not at all. My mind, in common with the majority I know on the sceptical side, has completely changed on the issue – I used to believe, but then was provoked into looking into the issues more thoroughly when it became clear that I was being lied to. Curiosity begets scepticism.

    The hypocritical ‘entrenched’ are merely indulging in psychological projection.

    111

  • #
    pat

    virtually every word from the CAGW side is meaningless:

    PDF: 20 pages: Ministry of Finance, India: Climate Change Finance, Analysis of a Recent OECD Report: Some Credible Facts Needed
    ABSTRACT:
    The OECD in partnership with Climate Policy Initiative (OECD-CPI) recently released a paper “Climate Finance in 2013-14 and the USD 100 billion goal”…
    The ‘preliminary estimates’ were that the mobilization of climate change finance from developed to developing countries had reached USD 62 billion in 2014 and USD 52 billion in 2013, equivalent to an annual average over the two years of USD 57 billion…
    This paper examines carefully the OECD report’s accuracy, methodology and verifiability of the numbers reported. It finds serious problems on all counts. Numbers were derived on self-reported basis from self-interested players, and open to ‘gaming’ and exaggeration. Definitions of climate change finance used were not consistent with the Convention—to find more leeway to count progress? Methodologies used were inconsistent with the literature and best practice and even ‘bent’ in ways to find more flows than reality. Meaningful, independent verification was impossible since only aggregate numbers were reported—with lack of transparency. No serious consultations were done with developing countries themselves…
    CONCLUSION
    …The only hard number we have right now is USD 2.2 billion in gross climate fund disbursements from 17 special climate change finance multilateral, bilateral and MDB funds created for the specific purpose—and not USD 57 billion average for 2013-14 as exaggeratedly reported by the OECD…
    http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/economic_div/ClimateChangeOEFDReport.pdf

    3 Dec: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: 134 developing countries warn of collapse in Paris if developed countries break convention over finance
    Reacting to news of how the US and its allied countries in particular had tried to put all 196 countries on equal footing to contribute to climate finance, the developing country group, of which India is also a member, made a formal and strongly-worded statement against any attempt to rewrite the existing provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on climate finance.
    Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko, ambassador from South Africa and chair of the G77+China group, said, “Any attempt to replace the core obligation of developed countries to provide financial support to developing countries with a number of arbitrarily identified economic conditions is a violation of the rules-based multilateral process and threatens an outcome here in Paris.”
    She added, “The G77 and China is deeply concerned with the attempts to introduce economic conditions in the finance section currently under negotiation here in Paris. This approach is not consistent with the Convention, the mandate of the ADP (the track under which the Paris agreement is negotiated at the UN convention) and the sovereignty of Parties.”
    The G77 group reminded that under the UNFCCC, developed countries are obliged to provide financial resources, including technology transfer and capacity building to all developing countries.
    In language that is rather harsh by diplomatic standards, the group said, “This is a legal obligation under the Convention. It is neither ‘aid’ nor ‘charity’, nor is it the same as development assistance. Finance support from developed countries relates to the impacts of historical emissions, which will only get worse with time for developing countries.”…
    Diseko’s strong reaction, formulated with the approval of all 134 countries, only added to the growing concern in the negotiating halls that the developed countries had brought out such proposals with the particular purpose of log-jamming the negotiations in the first week.
    Usually in this phase of talks when countries provide alternatives that help reach a compromise rather than take a harder position than the ones they had taken so far…
    This was confirmed on Thursday morning as the first compiled negotiating text of the Paris agreement — drawn from the talks behind closed doors over past four days — was presented in public.
    The 54-page draft of the Paris agreement, with which the countries had begun negotiating in Paris, had been scaled down by only four pages to 50. The document contained 859 pair of brackets – indicating disagreement between countries on 859 different phrases and sentences in the 50-page document…
    http://wap.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/134-developing-countries-warn-of-collapse-in-paris-if-developed-countries-break-the-un-climate-convention-over-finance-115120300870_1.html

    73

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      This should come unstuck when somebody notices that historical emissions have not to date rendered any significant consequences.

      20

  • #
    pat

    1 Dec: The Hill: Timothy Cama: 73 more companies back Obama on climate pact
    The signatories announced Tuesday include big, recognizable names like Amazon.com Inc., DuPont, Staples Inc., MGM Resorts International, JetBlue Airways Corp. and 21st Century Fox, the parent company of the ***right-leaning FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
    Many of the companies on the pledge separately bought an ad Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal expressing their support for a low-carbon economy and for a strong deal in Paris…
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261589-73-more-companies-back-obama-on-climate-pact

    2 Dec: Accuracy in Media blog: Don Irvine: Fox News, Wall Street Journal Sign Obama Climate Pledge
    The parent companies of conservative cable news network Fox News Channel and the right-leaning Wall Street Journal have signed onto a White House pledge to combat climate change.
    From the White House statement…
    What is surprising, though, is that climate change fear-mongerers MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not on the list, proving that their belief in climate change may not be what they say it is.
    http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/fox-news-wall-street-journal-sign-obama-climate-pledge/

    ***Fox News Channel is owned by 21st Century Fox; Wall St Journal is owned by News Corp:

    30 Nov: White House Announces Additional Commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge
    The following companies have joined the pledge:
    ***21ST CENTURY FOX
    ***NEWS CORP
    ETC
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/30/white-house-announces-additional-commitments-american-business-act

    72

  • #
    Bulldust

    Did a little O/topic research this morning. It always bugs me when I see the size of “fossil fuel subsidies” claimed for Australia. Another case in point:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-rich-nations-fossil-fuel-subsidies-exceed-climate-aid-40-to-1-20151203-glf4zi.html

    Alledgedly Australia has $5 billion in “fossil fuel subsidies” per year. So we hunt down the report at:

    http://priceofoil.org/

    Which is funded by mysterious funds, but be that as it may. Here’s the link to the report page:

    http://priceofoil.org/2015/12/03/new-cop21-analysis-start-funding-climate-action-stop-funding-climate-chaos/

    Where is the data from? OK if you take the second image, look at the footnote, zoom in and squint real hard, you find a link to the report:

    http://priceofoil.org/2015/11/11/empty-promises-g20-subsidies-to-oil-gas-and-coal-production/

    If you are really keen and word search (I used Australia) and trawl through the report eventually you find the smoking gun on page 70, to wit:

    Investment in fossil fuel exploration, extraction and electricity production in Australia are supported by an average of $5 billion in national subsidies annually. The mining industry receives most of these benefits through tax breaks for fuel and capital investment costs.

    The key words here are “…tax breaks for fuel…” This is my personal bugbear, I will admit it. This is a lie plain and simple and I had a running debate at the ABC a couple days ago on exactly the same point. The ABC refuses to Fact Check this lie because they are fond of perpetrating the fallacious Green meme.

    The key “subsidy” is the fossil fuel rebate. The history on said rebate is that fuel excises were originally hypothecated (meant for) road upkeep. Given farm and mine vehicles are largely (in many cases 100%) for off road use, it was reasonable to refund the fuel excise on the diesel they use. The fact is, the rebate isn’t even 100% of the fuel excise these days, so they effectively pay a net fuel excise (aka tax).

    For someone to call the diesel fuel rebate a subsidy is a flat out lie. In no world, other than Green day dreams, can a net tax be described as a subsidy.

    As for the capital write offs, I think that is probably accelerated depreciation. Presumably these rules apply to many industries. Every civilised nation allows capital to be depreciated for taxation purposes to allow investors to recoup some of the money they risk to increase a nation’s productivity. The fact that some of this may be accelerated (over time) makes no difference to the fact taht 100% of the investment is claimable regardless of how it is done. Again, if this is what they are referring to, it is disingenuous at best, deceptive more likely, and possibly another flat out lie. After the diesel fuel rebate lie, I could hardly be bothered to check for more…

    161

    • #
      ROM

      There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

      The Green blob excels at the first two;
      —————
      It is NOT a subsidy when you are allowed to keep your OWN money;

      It IS a subsidy when you are handed OTHER people’s money;

      91

    • #
      ianl8888


      … Given farm and mine vehicles are largely (in many cases 100%) for off road use …

      The strongest example here is the fishing fleets, powered as they are by diesel engines in the boats. It’s really hard to wear the ocean out by sailing over it continuously, yet by Greenie verbiage the fishermen are subsidised with diesel fuel tax rebates for doing just that

      [Of course mine and farm vehicles are almost 100% off-road, used only on roads and tracks that the entities build themselves. Fishing boats, however, have no chance of sailing on terra firma roads, irrespective of who built them]

      91

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        The “Greenie verbiage” is an outright lie. Yet students graduate from our universities believing it.

        Rebating a tax is not a subsidy, even when selectively applied. I was 30 years ago asked by an ABC News man: “What’s the difference” (between a subsidy and the removal of a tax) when I complained about their gross misreporting of an event. I couldn’t afford the STD phone rates to even try to put him straight.

        A tax on fuel is a tax levied in advance of production. Such a tax is counter productive, and should only be levied where it is desired that production should be suppressed, or usage of the item taxed should be suppressed. To levy a tax in advance on primary production generally will depress the production of the produce. The tax on fuel for other uses may be justifiable, as for that used on roads which must be built and maintained.

        70

    • #
      Bulldust

      It is not unlike the thinking that the current (past) state of the climate was “perfect” and therefore any change attributable to mankind is detrimental.

      Similarly the diesel fuel excise is considered the new normal, and any aberration, in this case the partial rebate, is therefore a relative subsidy.

      30

  • #

    “…with messages denying the existence of global warming.”

    This is what these scum are reduced to – outright lying. Who amongst us has denied the existence of global warming? ABSOLUTELY NO ONE – unless you could “plants” amongst us from the warmist side. We say warming and cooling has always happened, that it has warmed recently since the little ice age. They say the climate was flat for over a 1000 years! The only deniers are the warmists.

    133

  • #
    ROM

    Jo’s headlines

    Climate Change skeptics win the public opinion war
    &
    Climate-change foes winning public opinion war

    I beg to differ!

    [ so what's news !!! :-) ]

    The Skeptics have won nothing.

    The scientific, academic, political and media Alarmists are losing everything due to their own self inflicted stupidity and their own unfathomable and gross and arrogant elitism.

    Now to try and explain where I am coming from.

    A little thought and the realisation dawns that the entire CAGW / climate change meme and its entire associated ideological support systems are a product that was created entirely by the top levels of the western scientific, academic, political and media elites and is still being sustained to the pathological reward levels of Pavlov’s dogs by those same elites.

    Of course the Elites in their customary arrogance are incapable of ever admitting that something they have convinced themselves they intimately believe in could possibly be wrong.
    So they blame everybody else for either opposing them such as the Skeptics, that minute body of people who have almost nothing in the way of resources particularly when compared to the immense tax payer funded financial juggernaut that underpins the entire climate catastrophe meme.

    As well as a vast numbers of passive street level doubters, few of whom, unlike the openly skeptic brigade, have dared to openly question and have gone along for the ride as instructed by the elites.
    So those street level dwellers up to now have just agreed with the elites claims as the easy, no trouble way out.

    [ Reality is quite different as my post some time ago on another of Jo's posts, pointed to the fact that only around 5% to 8% of Quantas's passengers were prepared to pay a couple of extra dollars in their fares as a carbon credit offset for the CO2 emmitted as a consequence of their flight. ]

    It is the skeptics only, that small bunch of questioning individuals who have dared to doubt and who are now busily into the process of tearing down the whole vast elitist created edifice of the scientific, academic, political and media created climate catastrophe ideology.

    The entire , complete alarmist global climate catastrophe meme was NEVER a product of the lower status, non academic, non political man on the street.

    It was a meme that was [ attempted to be ] handed down like the Ten Commandments from the very top of the elite of the scientific. academic and political world.
    It was to be imposed on the unthinking , bovine stupid herd below by the scientific, academic , political and media Elite.

    Nor at any time was there ever a firm and decisive concession to the man on the street in the outlining any expected and even guaranteed personal significant benefits, particularly future personal as well as immediate benefits.

    The Elite in their arrogance just informed everybody they regarded as of a lower social status that they would have to make sacrifices and conform to Save the Planet so that the Elite could continue on in their salubrious life style, a point not lost on the lower social classes as they increasingly note the rank open hypocrisy of those who were demanding that others make the huge personal and societal sacrifices demanded of them but without any visible evidence that they themselves were making any other than a token sacrifice .

    Nowhere have the western Elites of science, academia, politics and the media ever provided any signs of any actual or potential rewards both tangible and of a benefit to living standards that those at street level are going to experience in some highly visible , tangible and personally significant way if they made the sacrifices demanded of them by the Elites, sacrifices that were supposedly essential to repeal the great Elitist created Climate Catastrophe predicted to occur at some unknown and un-forecastable time in the decades ahead.

    “Decades ahead” of course meaning to the street levels that they were lkikely to be dead and therefore highly unlikely to get anything at all for their sacrifices within their life times.

    A totally arrogant limited and small cabal of the scientific elite reinforced by a self interested and self promoting parasitical academic elite were the sole and entire creators of the whole disastrous climate catastrophe meme.

    The political elite as they still are doing, were convinced and as they are politicians intent on continuing to savour the trappings of power as long as they can do so, rapidly fell into line as it made a very good political meme, that to be seen as a “Saviour of the Planet”.

    Few politicians could see any down side as it was they were assured by a grandiose self promoting scientific and academic elite, it was all a proven fact that a climate catastrophe was in the making as a minor greenhouse gas, essential to all life on earth but which only made up a tiny percentage of the global atmosphere was rapidly increasing due to humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy, at the rate of a few parts per million every year according to adjusted measurements taken from the top of an active volcano some 3000 kms or more from the any large land mass and its industrial concentrations and right out in the middle of the world’s largest ocean.

    The political downside is just starting to appear and there will be much political blood on the floor before it is finished as the street level, that unthinking bovine herd at street level begins to see the totally unnecessary trauma and the unaccountable distress they have been subjected to for absolutely no purpose except that of reinforcing the Elites positions and power and influence over the nations of the Earth.

    As for the media;
    The media in modern times instead of acting as a questioning counterweight to the political and now the scientific and academic elite have instead turned to ingrating themselves with that same Elite and have become an instrument of the Elite, used by that same scientific, academic and political elite to promote their own interests at the expense of the low status bovine herd far below.

    The media could have stopped this entire elite fiasco dead in its tracks a long time ago but it failed tom do so as it too has undergone a transformation over the decades of my lifetime.
    Media conglomeration concentrates and centralises power and people and most particularly promotes a singular cultural meme within its ranks due to peer pressure that will permeate the entire organisation
    So a cultural like think , a singular cultural meme becomes the norm within media concentrated and centralised media organisation.

    [ The ABC if it broke up its entire highly centralised organisation into roughly equal sized units spread across the length and depth of Australia would be a vastly different organisation in its news reporting than the present highly bigoted, biased, non conforming to ABC cultural memes news and events ommission prone outfit that it is today ]

    The modern media gravitates to the elitist end of the political, academic and scientific contacts today and in doing so adopts the elite’s memes of the day so as to ensure it maintains those contacts and can feel that it is a part of the ruling elite.
    It then uses its powers to facilitate the handing down, the attempted imposition of the dictates and instructions of the scientific, academic and political elite its cultural memes agree with but rarely of those it doesn’t agree with.

    Nothing but a full on censoring of alternative news and science by the media itself in this case.

    The media has changed over the decades in a way that has to my knowledge never ever been reported on or analysed.
    A half a century ago the media reported news and started to offer some limited “do it yourself” advice.

    The modern media’s “do it yourself” advice has morphed into a cultural meme particularly through its “opinion pages” where it now believes it can “instruct” the populace in how it should behave, what the populace should believe, what is politically correct, who they should vote for, what is bad or good for you, what you should / should not eat, consume , how to dress and etc and etc.

    Just look at your average magazine or newspaper or the news sites on the net from a heavily doubting skeptical viewpoint and you will see what I mean.

    Some of this has come about through the pervasiveness, the invasiveness of advertising which has gone a long way into the black hell of trying to instruct us how to live, a theme now taken up with gusto by the media and a theme now being utilised by the scientific, academic and political elite with the full support of the media elite as well to try and impose the elites beliefs and dictates onto the bovine herd of the populace far below them in status.

    Well, in the end, we, the populace are no longer buying that elitist meme and dream of control that the scientific, academic, political and media elite tried so hard to forcibly impose on us from their own self promoting and self created belief in their own highly elevated status and positions.

    The Skeptics haven’t won.

    The Elites have through their own stupidity, arrogance and hubris have lost.

    133

    • #
      ianl8888


      The modern media gravitates to the elitist end of the political, academic and scientific contacts today and in doing so adopts the elite’s memes of the day so as to ensure it maintains those contacts and can feel that it is a part of the ruling elite

      Most “leading” journos and commentators have done a stint, perhaps 2 years, as a PR go-to for some politician. The MSM never publicise this but it is fairly easy to find such information

      So some journo spends a year or two defending and publicising silly political ideas, then quietly slips back to the newspaper or other meeja outlet from whence they came and goes on pretending to be an informed, objective critic of exactly the same ideas that just yesterday they were promoting

      All is vanity …

      71

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        About 1986 Kerry visited Jabiru to make a 4 corners program. I went there as principal interface to our company and its developments in Uranium mining at Ranger, some threats from plans to cover a huge area with World Heritage.
        In a quiet moment after some filming of places I insisted hadnought to do with the mining story, I asked Kerry if he was enjoying this assignment He said ‘Not really’ even though his on camera words were about the magnificence and values of this patch ofscrub.
        My take was that he was getting sick of fibbing. Later he was revived (I joke) by a long drink at the Look Aid tit.
        Geoff.

        41

    • #
      John Robertson

      Very well put.
      The stupid evil bastards have struck again.
      Funny how an unreasoning lust for power always seems to infect very small personalities.
      Confounded by their own fear and incompetence

      ROM that deserves a Post on its own merit.

      Here in Canada, these elites are concentrated in taxpayer supportered areas, the federal civil service is awash.QANGO’s, government fully funded NGO’s.
      They have lip lock on the public teat down.
      And Canada has aided and abetted the creation of this meme , the whole modus operandi wreak of Laurentian Liberals, Maurice the Dead Liberal sprang from this group, aided and funded all the way.

      81

  • #
    Pouncer

    In discussion with low info believers I always, truthfully, begin by agreeing that I believe and worry about, just as they do, in global warming. I go on to admit I worry about crime, war, famine, plague, poverty, illiteracy, racism, sexism, oligarchy, and political corruption, abortion law, gun law, immigration law, and voter ID. Then I ask advice about where in the list we should cut back our efforts in order to apply resources to climate. What could “we” trade to “them” in exchange for their support on climate?

    Strangely I have yet to meet a lay climate alarmist who would give up on any other concern to advance on this so-called priority.

    103

  • #
    pat

    3 Dec: ReutersCarbonPulse: COP-21 Roundup: Dec. 3 – Day 4
    FEWER PAGES BUT MORE BRACKETS: While the latest negotiating text has been reduced to 50 pages from 54, the number of brackets has risen to 1,718 from 1,167 since Monday, analysis by the Tropical Forest Group and ParisAgreement.org showed. “Even at this late stage, rather than reduce disagreements, negotiators are raising new specific issues of contention. This would seemingly suggest that negotiations are moving backwards,” they said. However, they point a few reasons to be optimistic, including the “larger blocks of discord (options)” being reduced to 205 from 228, and “certain critical sections” seeing “dramatic improvements, including the implementing body for the new Paris Agreement and the transparency system/framework to clarify overall implementation”…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/12809/

    PDF: UNFCCC: 50 pages: Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
    Work of the ADP contact group
    Version of 3 December 2015
    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/in-session/application/pdf/_adp_compilation_3dec15.pdf

    53

  • #
    pat

    4 Dec: Times of India: Vishwa Mohan: India’s view on finance, transfer of tech part of new shorter Paris draft
    PARIS: India’s suggestions seeking a deeper commitment from the developed world on finance and transfer of technology still form part of the revised, shortened draft circulated at the Paris meet…
    The proposals made by India on the issue of extending financial help and transfer of technology from rich nations to poor and developing countries free of costs continue to be there. India had the suggestions inserted under Section 7 of the text during the last round of negotiations in Bonn, Germany in October.
    It said: “In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Convention, developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to address barriers created by policies and intellectual property rights (IPRs) and facilitate access to and the deployment of technology, including, inter alia, by utilising the Financial Mechanism and/or establishing a funding window under the GCF to meet the full costs of IPRs of environmentally sound technologies, know-how and such technologies will be provided to developing country Parties, free of cost, in order to enhance their actions to address the adverse effect of climate change”.
    Asked whether any of the country’s suggestions were left out in the shorter draft, India’s chief negotiator Ajay Mathur said, “All suggestions by India are there in the draft text”…
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-view-on-finance-transfer-of-tech-part-of-new-shorter-Paris-draft/articleshow/50036128.cms

    4 Dec: Indian Express: Amitabh Sinha: Climate finance on agenda: Don’t shift responsibility on funds, India tells developed nations
    “The emphasis should be on the amount of money that is being raised and not on the number of countries in the donor list,” said Ajay Mathur, a key Indian negotiator.
    Mathur said nobody is stopping any developing country to make finance available if it wants but it can’t be made responsible for doing so.
    “There is a difference between countries getting listed as donors in an agreement, and countries providing money as and when they feel comfortable doing so,” he said, citing China and India’s support for countries through south-south cooperation.
    Mathur said such support cannot become part of the US$ 100 billion fund, which is the sole responsibility of developed countries…
    He warned that “nothing could be achieved” at the negotiations if the developed countries do not fulfill their commitments on providing money.
    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/climate-finance-on-agenda-dont-shift-responsibility-on-funds-india-tells-developed-nations/

    52

    • #

      I’ve often said that the UN’s main aim is the introduction of an ETS, and as dictated by Kyoto, all monies raised would go to the UN for redistribution to those still Developing Countries, to, umm, alleviate the impacts of Climate Change.

      The targets are those 20 or so major Developed Countries. (Australia included)

      Few people realise how much money we’re talking about here.

      Let’s look at the two biggest target Countries, the U.S. and the EU as a whole.

      Set that ETS at just $20, and just from CO2 emissions alone, there’s $108 Billion a year from the U.S. and $70 Billion a year from the EU, and from the remaining target Countries around $80 Billion plus.

      That’s just the CO2 emissions, because there are also 19 other gases as well, all costed in Multipliers of CO2 ranging from 21 times for Methane up to many thousands for some gases.

      The income from any ETS is quite literally astronomical, probably more than $300 Billion a year, and rising each year, so around $9.5 Trillion by 2030.

      And tell me, when was the last time you ever heard a journalist, or anybody for that fact asking a politician where the money raised from any ETS goes to?

      I’ve set that ETS at $20, but even at any cost lower than that, the amount raised is still huge.

      And please, don’t ever try and tell me that when amounts this large are talked about that corruption on a large scale would not raise its ugly head.

      Some people will get immensely rich from the introduction of any ETS, which when you look at it, is not designed to actually lower emissions, but is just a mechanism to make inordinately humungous amounts of money.

      Tony.

      141

      • #
        macha

        Hey Tony, this is a little off topic, but you often write about residential solar cost benefits. Be nice to see your calcs on light industrial or admin offices, where power is only (mostly) used during the day rather than, as rsdential is, 70% at night. Any chance of an econmic Summary from you one Day?

        00

      • #
        Brian H

        Really? I project the actual cash raised will be closer to 1% than 10%…

        00

  • #
    peter

    I’m not convinced most people are on skeptic’s side. Most people think and react emotionally. Haven’t you noticed that in TV interviews (mostly ABC)people will be asked ‘do you believe in climate change?’ and not ‘do you see the evidence for climate change?’. It’s actually a debate about beliefs, NOT a debate about evidence. If I submit anything skeptical about climate change to local paper (Fairfax), I’m lucky if they would print 1 in 10 letters. The sub-editors will cut and slash the letter content readily, often removing salient points. Even if published, the paper gets flooded with abusive response from indignant alarmists. One even described me as ‘the resident climate denier of Newcastle’. Most people on this page appear to be well informed and educated in science and/or engineering but that background focuses your attention on facts and evidence – none of which most people are interested in. They just want to feel good about climate – whatever that means? Jo is a persistent and determined woman and we’re glad of that. But the climate wankers are winning the political debate.

    111

    • #
      AndyG55

      “the resident climate denier of Newcastle’”

      Seems there are a few of us Novacastrians on this site. :-)

      All Novacastrians .. SIGN IN !! :-)

      51

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, I am going to take your advice, however it will need to be in small grabs for me to understand, and for the targets to also understand, in spite of being “educated and enlightened progressives”.

    50

  • #
    AndyG55

    This is what Malcolm Turnbull would wish for.. :-)

    51

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    Necessary knowledge to realize CO2 has no effect on climate should have been learned before the 12th grade in school. It is a basic understanding of a ramification of photosynthesis which is that CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 500 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it cumulatively for 500 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon and most of the time it has been warmer than now. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.

    The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com expands on this and identifies the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change for at least as long as AGT has been accurately measured world wide. An equation there, using only the noted two factors, calculates a 97% match to reported measured temperatures since before 1900 (after calibration to historical AGT, the only inputs to the equation are from the sunspot number data set). Everything not explicitly included (such as aerosols, volcanos, non-condensing ghg, ice changes, uncertainty in measurements, heating from the earth’s core, storing heat in ocean depths, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 3%.

    71

  • #
    pat

    2 Dec: AP: Karl Ritter/Seth Borenstein: India, Brazil resist bid for long-term carbon goals
    The United States and other members of the Group of Seven wealthy countries earlier this year endorsed a “decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century.”
    “Decarbonization is something that has appeared recently. We don’t even know what that means,” Indian delegate Ajay Mathur told reporters. “Does it mean zero carbon? Does it mean net zero carbon?”
    The term is generally understood to mean sharp reductions of carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, but it hasn’t been defined precisely.
    Brazil’s lead negotiator Antonio Marcondes told The Associated Press that there was no need to come up with a new joint climate goal…
    Speaking at a NATO conference in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he thought the climate talks “got off to an encouraging start” …
    However, the talks have made little progress after the leaders left…
    U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said there was no reason to worry just yet.
    Negotiations “will go through ups and downs,” she said. “There will be many commas inserted and many commas removed because that is the nature of this.”
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-negotiations-proceed-just-action-095801534.html

    61

    • #
      handjive

      “Negotiations “will go through ups and downs,” she said.
      “There will be many commas inserted and many commas removed because that is the nature of this.”

      . . .
      Extremely tempting to create the analogy of being screwed every which way but Sunday, but, I aint going’ there.
      Oops. I just did.

      71

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    We have won when no more money is wasted on this obvious nonsense !

    What is the latest count ? 1.5 trillion per year ! …. 4 billion per day on hot air …or as it turns out , not so hot air ,but luke warm air … no increase for nearly 2 decades .

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

    Just goes to show what kind of scams can be perpetuated with massive funding and Marxist Media Control !

    General rule no one : if the political class say it’s so ….then you can bet it ain’t !

    When have our so called ‘leaders’ , been collectively correct about anything ?

    They are collectively responsible for all our woes ,as the vast majority serve only themselves and criminal interests ….look no further than our ‘esteemed central banks’ , our real masters !…..The ‘Manipulators In Chief’!

    Does it come as any surprise that this ‘Bank Hierarchy’ are such big advocates for this CAGW Global Racket ?

    And now , in Australia , we find ourselves with Mr Goldman & Sachs of **it as Prime Minister El Supremo ……just in time for the Paris CON21….how conveniently timed is that ?

    WE must make/continue to make as much noise as possible to counter the nutters and scammers .
    Only the silent get trodden on !….the Meek are easy prey .

    http://australianconservative.com/2010/02/christopher-monckton-in-melbourne-videos/

    http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2015_10_07_Turnbull_Goldman_Sachs.html

    Godfrey Bloom slams global warming scam
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk

    72

    • #
      PeterS

      All correct but you left out one very important and critical element. The people actually prefer Turnbull. So that means the people are either too lazy, stupid or aloof about what our neo-socialist masters are doing. As Lord Monckton stated some time ago, Abbott was our last hope, but Australians blew it via the polls. So much for democracy. We get the government we deserve.

      40

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Agreed !

        20

      • #
        Angry

        “The people actually prefer Turnbull.”……..

        I Don’t think so!

        The so called polls are blatent leftist propaganda a la PRAVDA style !

        They will find out what Australians REALLY THINK on election day !!

        00

  • #
    jeff in Canada

    Maurice Strong when he was Senior Advisor to the UN’s Kofi Annan said the following ” Isn’t the only hope for the planet that industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Speaks volumes about the warmists.

    110

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.

    Michigan State University is a cold place. 2 deg C right now, early morning, and reaching 8 degrees maxlater in the afternoon. It needs a little bit of that ol’ global warming.

    71

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The Unelected Nutters (U.N.) = Global institution for the environmentally insane .

    This wacker organization needs to be abolished along with their medieval religion … ‘CAGW’.

    41

  • #
    pat

    I couldn’t access this article when I posted it the other day, but most of it is here, so posting again:

    3 Dec: Notalotofpeopleknowthat: ETS Scheme Suffering Endemic Fraud & Never Enforced
    By Paul Homewood
    The Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan reports:
    Emission impossible as EU fails to police main anti-pollution scheme
    READ ALL
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/ets-scheme-suffering-endemic-fraud-never-enforced/

    Pat great minds think alike — I just posted on this 2 hours ago (then had to leave the desk). Thanks for always bringing in the news. — Jo

    32

  • #

    He had tentacles everywhere. Some are covered in my old site: http://tome22.info/Persons/Strong-Maurice.html

    50

  • #

    Let’s forgive the use of the slob term “climate change”, so multi-function and so loved of push-pollers, and cut to a better way these people can defend their alarmist position. A case can be made that government regulation of human activity ended the Syrian drought.

    Actually, it wasn’t this Syrian drought, but the one in the 1930s. (They, er, have lots of droughts in the ME, especially during coolings as in 2200BC, 1300s, 1600s: but they can get ‘em any old time.) As for the government regulation…

    In the early 30s the Syrian Interior Ministry, warned by the Mufti of Damascus, banned newly popular toys called yo-yos, on the grounds that the “exasperating motion” of yo-yos caused the region’s crippling drought.

    Three days after the ban, it rained.

    (Not a beat-up. It’s detailed in a recent history of the French Mandate.)

    So…Big Yo-Yo!

    40

  • #
    pat

    3 Dec: IcelandReview: Vala Hafstad: Record December Snow Cover
    The snow cover in Reykjavík is the thickest on record in December. It measures 42 centimeters (16.5 inches), one cm thicker than in Akureyri today, according to the Icelandic Met Office. The old December record was set December 29, 2011, when the thickness was 33 cm (13 inches), mbl.is reports. The all-time record for snow cover thickness in the capital area dates back to January 18, 1937, when it measured 55 cm (21.7 inches). That record could possibly be broken later this week…
    http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/12/03/record-december-snow-cover

    4 Dec: BBC: Snow and heavy rain across Midlothian and the Borders leaves drivers struggling
    Unexpected snow showers and flooding across Midlothian and parts of the Borders have caused major transport problems.
    Gritters were sent out on Thursday evening but drivers reported long delays affecting many roads.
    Routes in Penicuik, Gorebridge and Straiton were among those affected.
    All the major routes through the Borders, the A1, A7 and the A68, were badly hit.
    The A68 at Soutra and the A7 at Heriot were closed for a time to allow snowploughs to free trapped vehicles and clear the routes…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35001276

    41

  • #
    pat

    3 Dec: Guardian: Jonathan Watts: Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy
    In less than 10 years the country has slashed its carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs, without government subsidies. Delegates at the Paris summit can learn much from its success…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy

    3 Dec: Bishop Hill: Solving the Uruguay mystery
    But today, according Jonathan Watts in the Guardian, Uruguay has made a “dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy”…
    I struggled to work out what has happened here – I wondered whether this it was just the environment journalist’s traditional trick of using capacity figures but talking about generation (as favoured by Roger Harrabin). But even that didn’t seem as if it would be big enough.
    The answer turned up in the Uruguayan National Energy Balance document (in Spanish), which contained this graph…
    God, the journalists at the Guardian are shameless.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/3/solving-the-uruguay-mystery.html

    31

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Why interupt your enemy when they are making a mistake! , papers or studies like this cost money and for the alarmists are a waste of ink , they learn nothing new about how to fight skepticism , and the real impact of papers like this are detrimental , because as soon as they release it to the MSM it will appear on internet blogs like Jo Nova to be dismantled and thus confirm and strengthen peoples skepticism , completely opposite to what papers like this hope to achieve in the first place. They almost completely control the language and message in the MSM , but its the internet where skepticism thrives and grows , and they lose control of the language and message , so what we really want to see is the studies or papers that show how they aim to achieve take over of the message on the internet, but because that is an attack on our freedom of the internet worldwide , they have to keep such papers and conversations behind closed doors or behind the wizards curtain , but once in awhile we get a glimpse of the wizards shoes underneath the curtain, such as dodgy adjustments to Wikipedia pages , and have you all noticed lately that when you type a skeptical blog such as Jo Nova into a Google search engine, you will get one link to this site and then a long run of links to every anti skeptic disinformation blog that exists . So the real battle is control of the internet aqnd studies like the one above are a waste of ink and money. cheers

    31

  • #
    pat

    2 Dec: Politico: California Playbook, presented by Chevron: BROWN blasts Republican climate ‘disgrace’
    by Carla Marinucci & Jesse Rifkin
    CALIFORNIA IS TALKING ABOUT…six days in Paris for Gov. Jerry Brown — a major commitment of time, energy and scheduling, with a lot at stake. At the UN Global Climate Change conference, he leads a crowded delegation of legislative leaders, high profile business and tech titans, in a schedule packed with headline-generating events.
    — Bottom line for the big Paris stage: It’s about who will emerge the winners (and losers) in the race to clean energy, and what will be the real deliverables while other major pressing issues also loom on the state horizon…
    ALONG FOR THE RIDE: Led by Gov. Brown and NextGen Climate founder Tom Steyer, the delegation will include Jim Mahoney, Global Corporate Communications & Public Policy Executive, Bank of America; K.R. Sridhar, Founder and CEO, Bloom Energy; Thad Hill, President and CEO, Calpine; Thad Miller, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Calpine; Pasquale Romano, President and CEO,ChargePoint; Nancy Pfund, Founder and Managing Partner, DBL Investors; Sister Susan Vickers, RSM, VP Corporate Responsibility, Dignity Health; Bernard J. Tyson, Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Permanente; Raymond J. Baxter, PhD, Senior Vice President, Community Benefit, Research and Health Policy, Kaiser Permanente; David Crane, CEO, NRG Energy; Anthony Earley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, PG&E Corporation; Cathy Zoi, CEO, SunEdison Frontier Power; Rob Davenport, Chairman, Sungevity and Lyndon Rive, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity
    http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/california-playbook/2015/12/politico-california-playbook-presented-by-chevron-brown-blasts-republican-climate-disgrace-panettas-sigh-of-relief-perea-moving-on-211547

    2 Dec: Politico: Carla Marinucci: Jerry Brown lambastes Republicans for climate vote ‘disgrace’
    Regarding criticism from increasingly vocal Hollywood luminaries like actor Mark Ruffalo, who have sharply criticized his failure to stand against fracking, the governor suggested that they are largely ignoring the realities of Californians’ own continued reliance on cars and foreign oil.
    “I don’t think it’s responsible to let third-world countries do the oil production so that Californians can drive around, even in their hybrids,’’ he said. “We have to shoulder our part of the responsibility. And reducing our climate footprint is not ‘snap your fingers, take one issue,’” he said. “To just instantly kill an industry, with all the backlash that entails, with the trivial impact on climate change, does not seem to me the wise way to go.’’
    On Bill Gates’ new investment coalition and its heavy representation from Silicon Valley billionaires who seek to develop new green technologies, Brown called it “a testament to California’s leading role in technology and innovation.
    .. It will create jobs and opportunity. It’s a good step forward, and I’ll do whatever I can to support it.”…
    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/california/2015/12/8584437/jerry-brown-lambastes-republicans-climate-vote-disgrace

    31

  • #

    [...] If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war [...]

    00

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    One only needs to look at the words used to realise that the author has no idea what he/she is talking about: “…opponents of climate change…” Who, reading this comment, is an “opponent of climate change”. More to the point, how can anyone be an “opponent of climate change”? The closest I have seen, lately, to anyone being an opponent of climate change is the POTUS, Mr Barak Obama himself, who has declared that climate change is the biggest threat to (U.S., presumably) national security… like, forevah! Thus, logically, he has put himself up as an opponent of climate change. Regrettably, this… erm, learned… person does not tell us how climate change can be identified, nor how it can be effectively opposed. Fortunately, the world is populated by those who manage to keep their feet on the ground, and accept that, whatever the climate throws at us, we, as a species, will have no trouble adapting and surviving; it is only when dealing with ourselves that we might have problems.

    30

    • #
      Brian H

      “Climate change” is being used as shorthand for ‘efforts to suppress climate change thru manipulation of human CO2 emissions’, just as ‘carbon’ is short for CO2.

      All stupid, IAC.

      00

  • #
    StewGreen

    I wonder why people might become entrenched, if you call them “deniers” and ban them from the media ?

    30

  • #

    The researchers are shocked, shocked, when they throw manure at us and tell us it’s an organic air freshener and we tell them it stinks?

    And they say we’re the deniers?

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    If they are heard, the Climate-change skeptics win the public opinion war

    Unless you’re talking to one of the lost cause types I’m debating politics with right now. Climate change is in the mix and he can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Blessed are they who have ears to hear but hear not. Blessed are they who have eyes to see but see not. For these shall be known as the ignorant.

    Isn’t that an interesting word, ignorant? It comes from the word ignore, implying willfulness, a decision to not inform oneself (in spite of the world’s experts claiming otherwise).

    10

  • #
    Brian H

    We will be fortunate if Global Warming wins. You wouldn’t like Global Cooling.

    00

  • #

    [...] garbage, the results are quite interesting and ironic, which is why the paper has been discussed by Jo Nova and Michael Bastach as well as WUWT.  What they did was show people (recruited via the [...]

    00