Global Warming or Climate Change or Climate Disruption?

Watermelonsby Timothy Lane   5/24/14
Alarmist watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) use climate as their favorite means of scaring the public. Go back a few decades and their concern was global cooling (which in fact remained a concern well into the 1980s, as I know from a book I bought then), but already global warming was mostly beginning to replace it as a major concern. This became especially popular in the 1990s even though the evidence didn’t really support it; one thing I noticed is that the alarmists would proclaim the case settled, then a few years later would admit that it hadn’t been settled before but was now, and then a few years later . . . It doesn’t take many such backtracks to sacrifice credibility, at least to those who are paying attention.

As one who had been studying environmental concerns since I was in college, I picked up books on the subject, and even moderated panels at the World SF convention in Winnipeg in 1994 on global warming and ozone-layer depletion. But then came the El Nino of 1998, and since then there has been no significant net warming. Several years ago the alarmists decided to change their buzzword from “global warming” to “climate change” because of this. The problem is that climate is always changing, and over time more and more people came to realize that “stopping climate change” (as the zealots called for) was akin to Canute stopping the waves. (One version of this is that Canute was trying to teach his sycophantic court a lesson, in which case he was far more sensible than modern environmentalists.)[pullquote]Several years ago the alarmists decided to change their buzzword from “global warming” to “climate change” because of this. The problem is that climate is always changing, and over time more and more people came to realize that “stopping climate change” (as the zealots called for) was akin to Canute stopping the waves.[/pullquote]

As it happens, several years ago I wrote a quartet of articles, 3 of which are related to this subject, for The Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues from Salem Press. I’ve mentioned these occasionally in commenting on the subject in various blog posts, and it occurred to me that I could include them here (not precisely due to copyright restrictions – even if Salem Press is no longer around, unfortunately). So I will include here my article on Global Warming, with additional material from my articles on Climate Change and Human Health and Climate Models. I had wanted to do the article on Climate Change Skeptics, and was especially concerned that an alarmist would get the topic and use it to smear skeptics, but instead that article was written by a skeptic with excellent credentials, Professor C. R. de Freitas.) So here goes:

Scientific findings on global warming are extremely important for policy-makers. Harmful consequences may result if the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory is correct and policy-makers don’t take the actions necessary to address the problem. Conversely, harmful consequences may result if the CAGW theory is not correct and policy-makers make decisions based on the belief that it is.

According to the IPCC, overall global temperature increased by about 1 degree Celsius during the 20th Century. This involved an increase of about 0.5 degrees from 1910 to 1945 and a similar increase from 1975 to 2000 (actually peaking in 1998), with a very slight decrease in the intervening years. These figures are approximate because of uncertainty of data and yearly fluctuations (which can be as large as 0.25 degrees up or down), as well as the complexity of adjusting the raw temperature data. Explaining these increases and projecting future trends and their consequences are the key issues addressed by the scientists who examine global warming.

Two basic theories have been posited regarding the source of the warming, both of which could be partially correct. Some see the warming as basically natural (as many scientists agree was probably the case for the pre-1945 warming that predates most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide). Short-term natural causes have definitely occurred, such as volcanic eruptions (the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 led to a strong temperature down-spike in 1992) and the El Nino/La Nina cycle (the very strong 1998 El Nino led to a very large temperature up-spike that year). In addition, some long-term fluctuations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, affect global as well as local temperatures. Also, solar energy isn’t constant; there are cyclical variations correlated with sunspot activity. These don’t seem sufficient to explain the post-1975 warming; Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling in Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (2009), estimate that natural causes explain only 25% of the post-1975 warming as compared to 75% of the earlier warming. Some scientists think the rest can be explained naturally (such as by the effect of solar activity on cosmic rays reaching Earth, and the cosmic rays’ effect on cloud formation).

These scientists think the current warming is natural, part of a large cycle in which the Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which was then followed (after about 1850) by the Modern Warm Period. A wide array of historical temperature proxies show a roughly 1500-year cycle, with shorter heating and warming subcycles. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery (2008) uses ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years, 6000 boreholes from all continents, seabed and lake-bed sediment cores, tree rings and tree lines, cave stalagmite cores, peat bogs, and historical records (such as a Japanese monastery’s report on the yearly freezing of a nearby lake). These show remarkable shifts, such as global temperature increasing about 1 degree Celsius for about a decade at the end of the Younger Dryas (11,500 years ago) for reasons still unknown (there was an increase in greenhouse gases after the rise).

Singer has estimated that the Medieval Warming Period exceeded the current warming (so far). Others dispute this. Michael E. Mann argued (using a limited number of historical proxies, and then current temperature estimates without comparing them to more recent proxy results) that global temperatures barely changed until the 20th Century.

One possible anthropogenic influence on climate is land use. These effects are important, but mostly local. Cropland is warmer than forest, and urban areas as much warmer than cropland (the urban heat island effect). Overgrazing can lead to desertification, which also makes the land warmer.

The strongest anthropogenic effect comes from the production of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Water vapor is actually the most important greenhouse gas overall, and methane is far more powerful than carbon dioxide, but a trend toward increasing atmospheric methane halted in the mid-1990s. Carbon dioxide has been the greenhouse gas causing the greatest concern. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 290 ppm to almost 380 (as of when I originally wrote this). The increase in the greenhouse effect is far smaller than the increase in greenhouse gases, particularly in areas with high humidity, due to the climatic equivalent of the Law of Diminishing Returns (water vapor and carbon dioxide block the same infrared wavelengths). Greenhouse gas warming is highest at night and therefore in winter (especially in upper latitudes), and in the atmosphere it leads to a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere.

Computerized climate models can be used for historical research as well as future projections. The key models in climate research are general circulation models. An ideal GCM would take every climate factor into account, but in practice some factors are ignored or simplified. Among these factors are volcanic eruptions, solar radiation, natural weather oscillations (lasting from a few years to several decades), the water cycle (evaporation, condensation into low-level clouds, and precipitation all move heat between the surface and troposphere), atmospheric content (including greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide as well as pollutants such as sulfur dioxide), ocean currents, wind patterns, and land use. None of these is entirely predictable, and some are random in occurrence. Local events can have global effect; for example, El Nino conditions in the southern Pacific lead to weaker Atlantic hurricanes (due to wind shear) and changes in precipitation in many areas.

Very complex GCM provide information on how either natural or greenhouse gas warming is likely to affect climate all over the globe and into the atmosphere, and these projections can be tested against observational data. Such testing is as necessary for the predictions made by computer models as for those produced by any other scientific theory; results must be shown to be replicable by others and the results must be available for examination by other (which is why the refusal of the Hadley Research Unit to provide its data to skeptics was a serious violation of proper scientific practice). One problem with the testing of climate models is that observational data is often too recent (satellite tracking of hurricanes only began in 1970 and satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice in 1979, for example) to allow scientists to determine reliably whether any changes represent coincidental long-term oscillations or result from the warming trend.

The models used by the IPCC generally project a temperature increase of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Part of this is expected to come from natural causes, part from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases, and part from positive feedback effects such as increased humidity from evaporation and increased summer slow melt (bare ground absorbs more heat). All of these are speculative numbers. In reality, temperature rise since 1975 was far less than projected. Part of this may result from the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols (another speculative number), but part may also result from negative feedback effects such as the water cycle (especially cloud formation, usually ignored in climate models). Scientists continue to disagree about the effect of global warming on cyclones and other severe storms; there’s no observational evidence so far that warming leads to more storms or more severe ones. Climate models also make predictions about regional conditions (such as increased drought in the southwest United States) that are unverifiable so far.

Early models greatly exaggerated the warming and couldn’t match the previous history. More recent models that added in sulfate aerosols are more accurate, but failed to predict the absence of net warming since 1998 or the lack of warming in the Southern Hemisphere with its lower sulfate aerosol levels (they basically used on unknown to check another). Climate models predict different results from natural and greenhouse gas warming, and many observations (such as the greatly increased Arctic warming) support the latter, but not entirely (such warming has not been reported in Antarctica). The models predict that greenhouse-gas warming will lead to a cooler stratosphere (which is happening) but a warmer middle troposphere (which has in fact warmed less than the surface).

Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump in their study of the 2007 IPCC report (Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming) praised James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and his presentation of 3 projections in his 1988 testimony to Congress on global warming. The most severe scenario projected an increase of just over 1 degree in the next 30 years, comparable to the high-end projection of 3 degrees in a century, but started to diverge from reality within a couple of years. The middle scenario projected an increase of less than a degree, roughly comparable to an increase of 2 degrees over a century; the lower scenario projected an increase of 0.25 degrees in 30 years, or about 1 degree or less over a century. (They didn’t explain the difference, but I’ve seen reports since that Hansen was basing his different estimates on carbon dioxide levels, which would put the expected increase between the first 2 scenarios.) The last 2 tracked closely with each other until about 2005, but the continued warming pause since then show that the lowest scenario has so far been the most accurate.

Global warming may have many effects. The Medieval Warm Period was beneficial to European and Arctic agriculture but often led to droughts elsewhere (including the drought believed to have caused the collapse of the Anasazi culture). Similar effects can be seen today, such as the decline in the snowpack on Mount Kilimanjaro (which seems to result primarily from local aridity rather than warming).

Warming also leads to a sea-level rise of 1-2 cm per decade, which could increase if the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice packs (but not ocean ice shelves) melt significantly, which could also seriously alter ocean currents. Also with warming, warm-weather crops can be grown further north, and warm-weather habitats can invade cold-weather habitats. Direct deaths from warm weather would increase, but deaths from cold weather (which are much higher in temperate zones) would decrease. (In Europe, annual deaths amount to about 1.5 million from cold weather and 200,00 from heat; the warmer United States had about twice as many deaths from cold as from heat between 1979 and 1997.) Even the severe August 2003 heat wave that led to 35,000 deaths in Europe (half in France, many because the doctors were all on vacation) led to only a modest increase in heat deaths that year.

Drought in many places can make obtaining water supplies more difficult even as population continues to grown in some of them (such as sub-Saharan Africa). This can force people to labor more to acquire water that is often tainted, leading to increases in diseases such as dysentery, typhoid fever, and cholera as well as aquatic parasites such as guinea worms. Scarcer water also causes cleaning and sanitation to suffer; unclean bodies (especially hands) help spread diseases, and unclean clothes can carry and spread parasites such as lice. Warmer weather, particularly if it’s also wetter, can increase the number of insects; mild winters can be important in spreading insects vulnerable to freezing weather. Many of these insects are disease vectors for serious diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, typhus, and plague. They can spread to larger areas and higher elevations (such as a 1997 malaria outbreak at 2100 meters in Papua New Guinea), and for longer periods during the year. On the other hand, warming may reduce the range of schistosomiasis and the ticks that carry diseases such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever.

Wetter weather can lead to increases in hay fever and asthma, and flooding can drive rodents such as rats from their burrows, which can increase the incidence of diseases such as plague. Carbon dioxide increases lead to improved crop yields, but also increased allergenic pollens such as ragweed.

Many skeptics, such as Barry Beaty of Colorado State University, argue that the spread of diseases such as malaria seen during the warming period since 1975 result primarily from non-climatic factors, such as resistance to drugs and pesticides and a collapse in public health measures in some areas. (More than 80% of the world’s population is theoretically vulnerable to malaria even without global warming.

Suggested approaches to addressing global warming include adapting to the heat and its effects when it occurs (and meanwhile devoting resources to dealing with other major problems, as recommended by Bjorn Lomborg in Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming in 2007), as well as trying to reduce the increased in warming. The latter can have no effect on the natural component and will be unnecessary if the increase is small.

Some proposed solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are dubious. For example, the substitution of ethanol for fossil fuels can decrease food production or replace forest with cropland (and has proven to be of no value in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions). The severe changes that would be necessary to cause a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would involve serious economic dislocations (and would also lead to the migration of energy-intensive industries to countries that don’t impose such limits, which thus would minimize the emission reductions). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions have declined slightly since 1979; if this trend continues, they will level off when global population does (around 2050). • (2699 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Global Warming or Climate Change or Climate Disruption?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Outstanding, Timothy.

    In my view, global warming is a complete and utter myth. Back in the 80’s there was a legitimate reason to suspect that CO2 was the (or “a”) driving force in global temperatures because of what early ice core samples suggested. But that idea was (to those in the know) quickly debunked as it became understood that the CO2 levels in the ice cores were an effect, not a cause. As the earth warmed (for whatever reason), CO2 fizzed out of the oceans into the atmosphere. As temperatures cooled, the cooler oceans could then absorb more CO2.

    Also, the fact is, a warmer earth (by a few minuscule degrees) would be a godsend. It’s cooling that would be detrimental for not only us but for the rest of the life on the planet. So even if man-made global warming is true, we should really want more of it.

    Also also, CO2 is indeed just a trace gas. 90% of so of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor. Some still (in a superstitious mindset) see CO2 as some kind of “tripwire” catalyst that can be like the straw that broke the camel’s back. But even if this were so (and it is not), we are near saturation levels of CO2 as it is. That is, CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas in only a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and I’ve read that estimates are that this band is already from half to three-quarters saturated. That is, we could dump a gazillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and it could not have a cumulative effect.

    Unfortunately, this subject is no longer about science. It’s about Communism (socialism or “Progressivism,” if the former word is too shocking to tender and naive sensibilities). The schools and media are saturating young skulls-full-of-mush with the idea that mankind is bad, that mankind is on the verge of destroying Mother Gaia (sort of a stand-in for the “war on women,” but on a larger scale) who must be saved. And who can save her? Big, Socialist Government, of course.

    Fascists are amongst us. It’s not even so much the fact that people have been given bad information. It’s that they’ve been indoctrinated into a type of Master Race cult whereby they, and only they, are the nice, kind, caring people and everyone else is cast off as a racist, sexist, polluter, the raper of Mother Gaia for profit. That is to say, it is arguable that the new state religion is the Cult of Leftism, and an intolerant and fundamentalist cult it is. And remember — these are the same kooks and demagogues who were breast-fed on the idea that Christianity, in general, and the Catholic Church, in particular, were the superstitious, retrograde, fundamentalist forces that needed to be transcended.

    Physician, heal thy f***ing self.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      There obviously is natural warming (the warming cycle that probably began around 1850 very likely isn’t over), and greenhouse gases probably contribute to it (though the Law of Diminishing Returns effect means it’s a lot less than the models seem to predict). Of especial importance to me is that Hansen’s own projections, carried out (it’s no accident, I suspect, that Mann and Kump only showed the temperature data to 2005, when they presumably had another year or so available) to today, indicate minimal warming.

      Another key aspect is that the really spectacular projections come from the possibility that the warming from natural causes and greenhouse gases will then have positive feedbacks leading to much more warming. In reality, the evidence so far is for negative feedbacks, which no doubt is why the models have been consistently wrong. One of the most important is cloud formation; cirrus clouds actually increase warming, but stratus and cumulus clouds have a cooling effect. Cloud formation is generally ignored in models because no one knows what precise effect the warming will have on how many more clouds of which types there will be. This is fine if they have no net effect on warming, but that probably isn’t the case.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Another key aspect is that the really spectacular projections come from the possibility that the warming from natural causes and greenhouse gases will then have positive feedbacks leading to much more warming. In reality, the evidence so far is for negative feedbacks, which no doubt is why the models have been consistently wrong. One of the most important is cloud formation; cirrus clouds actually increase warming, but stratus and cumulus clouds have a cooling effect.

        These climate models have become the equivalent of taking the auspices or cutting open a chicken and examining the entrails. If such models can mean anything, they thus mean nothing.

    • Rosalys says:

      I can remember when I first heard about the Gaia hypothesis and thinking, well that makes sense, essentially that the earth is a complex, self regulating organism. The idea is in complete harmony with the character of a loving Creator, Who gave this world to His creatures on which to live and multiply. I remember seeing an interview with the man who pretty much came up with this hypothesis. When he was told that many church type people agreed with him and welcomed his ideas, his reaction was one of great offense!

      Some folks just hate God so much that they can’t stand agreeing with Him, even when they agree with Him.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Gaia hypothesis is very popular with liberal atheists, since it involves a deity with no moral codes or other unpleasant activists. (Although I consider Moloch the true liberal god, a case can be made that they worship the bastard offspring of Moloch and Gaia.) Isaac Asimov once wrote a story (“Green Spots”) about such a world, and in the end it fails (by chance) to spread its influence to Earth. But much later, in his Foundation series continuation, he made the opposite choice.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1981

    Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991. I can recall as the flight I was booked on from Singapore to Hongkong was delayed by one day due to the fact that the ash from Mt. Pinatubo had fouled up one of the jet engines on the flight down from Hongkong. The engine had to be replaced and thus I had to wait until the next day to fly back.

    Interestingly, Mt. Redoubt in Alaska had errupted a year and a half earlier, the result of which was that another flight I was on was re-routed.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That was a typo, of course, since Hansen’s appearance before Congress was in 1988. If that’s the only one in such a lengthy article (not easily proofread), I’ll be satisfied.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Dutifully updated and changed regarding the dates.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        My thanks. I decided to look it over further for errors, and found a few minor typos plus one error that resulted from the confusing nature of the proofs: the third article I wrote, mentioned in the third paragraph, was on Climate Models rather than Climatology. I also wonder why italics generally don’t carry through on articles.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The Magic Posting Fairy just italicized all your book titles, corrected a couple typos, and provided links to the books (at either Amazon or Salem Press).

          When you submit articles in the body of an email message, the formatting doesn’t come through on any subsequent cut-and-paste. If you send the Magic Posting Fairy a Word or rtf document, they will. If you want to send your articles in the body of an email message, you need to use the mark-up codes as shown here.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I knew it was a typo, but in such an important article on an issue in which facts are often wrong or mis-characterized, I thought you would like to know of the typo and correct it. Such small mistakes are too often blown out of proportion by our enemies and I don’t want to give them any purchase on their descent into oblivion.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Unfortunately, I don’t know how to correct it once the article is sent. (Well, I once realized I had an error and mentioned it to Brad before the article was included, and he corrected it before loading it in.) When I do FOSFAX, my material is proofread repeatedly, and still I’m afraid to look right after it’s published because of what I might have failed to catch.


    Tim – this is an excellent summary of a very complicated issue. Of course, the Left’s purpose is to exploit any warming (or even any lack of warming, which they treat as the same thing) in order to seize more power – like you said, “alarmist watermelons”. There are any number of follow-up articles you might do, concentrating on particular aspects of the problem, for instance the smoking-gun emails revealing the Climate Research Unit’s scientific dishonesty, or the way in which the alarmists just keep moving the goalposts every time one of their models is proven wrong.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I’m not particularly sympathetic to the idea of global warming. I appreciate Timothy’s erudite and patient article. And this is good and necessary because it’s a fact that people have become indoctrinated in this belief with all the techniques of a cult – which it is (thus they need deprogramming). Laura Ingraham appropriately calls it “The Church of Global Warming.”

    But it was “global cooling” just a few decades ago that was a scare. What we’re looking at is a post-Christian phenomenon whereby the creation, not the Creator, is deemed the proper object of veneration. And this “veneration” is buoyed by fundamentalist, even fascist, attitudes.

    And it’s a thoroughly Communistic scheme. A commenter at the bottom of Deana’s current American Thinker article (The Power of Powers), makes this point:

    The protection of the spotted owl or any other species is not the true goal of the state.

    This is proven by the fact that when their pet project, windmills, massacre endangered species, they are instantly given a waiver to continue the killing.

    Many old regulations and certainly all the new ones are simply an excuse for the state and its organs to exercise absolute control over the population by limiting their access to and use of land and resources.

    In short, leftist environmentalism is a power play. A return to feudalism where the overlord owns or controls everything.

    And the ultimate benefactors, the ruling class, are the first to trample on their stated environmental values if they get in the way.

    That’s a great point about feudalism, a point that Mr. Kung has made a time or two.

    To my mind, “global warming” is a runaway religion/Communist project, and one that has corrupted science and scientists.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Quite so. Hence the term “watermelons” for most environmental activists. The environment is merely the excuse for the real goal, government control.

  6. Leigh Bravo says:

    The worst part is the fact that no one on the left seems to do any homework. Germany’s economy tanked because of the “green initiatives.” They closed down all of their Nuclear Plants before really knowing that solar and wind turbines would not be adequate to supply the masses with the power they required, especially during the winter months. As a result, Germany’s population suffered Energy poverty. this is where over 10% of their annual income had to be spent on electricity. They actually did experience 80% increase in their bills. AS a result, they are back to coal production. Other countries in Europe have also learned the same lesson. Recently, Australia elected the conservative party after 15 years of Liberals pushing the carbon emissions tax, and green initiatives. Their economy, very similar to ours also tanked. They are now getting rid of carbon emission taxes and anything and anyone who represents “forced green initiatives.” They are also tired of government run “anything.” Currently closing down Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Education, Dept of Conservation… name it. They say the best thing America could do would be to follow their example of getting back to the Constitution and definitely not to follow Obama’s vision!! I just posted a new article addressing Obama’s new EPA emission regulations. Read if you are interested: Article: “Obama; King of Mars?”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The problem with this analysis is simple: Do those problems act as a deterrent to liberals, or would they only make their determination to inflict these changes on the peasants whom they disdain with all their aristo arrogance?

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As was predictable, Leonardo Di Caprio’s movie about Global Warming did not draw a huge audience. It is somewhat encouraging that most people are not so stupid/gullible as to listen to the wealthy Global Warming “Chicken-Little” hypocrites, who live at complete odds with the message they try to foist on the great unwashed.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Evidently a lot of people are starting to notice the gross hypocrisy of climate alarmists.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The paradigm I use to view this, Timothy, is not whether the facts will come to light. It’s whether or not a sub-culture can break off from, or be created from scratch, from that vast group for whom it’s not the facts of the case that matter.

        “Cliimate Change” is about wrapping oneself in the self-righteous mantle of world-saver. And very much more important than even that (for it is primarily just a conceit), it’s about identifying oneself as NOT of the group of anti-science Troglodytes who believe in Creationism and whose views about “Climate Change,” for example, are formed by listening to corporate oil company propaganda.

        My view of things, rightly or wrongly, is that our super-marketed materialistic culture has applied great pressure on people to BE SOMEONE. That is, we are an ego-centered society. We could be a religious-centered one, an art-centered one, a work-centered one, a knowledge-centered one, an entertainment-centered one, a family-centered one, etc. And, of course, we are entertainment-centered to a large degree.

        But, good gracious, (and I think this applies to the Trump phenomenon as well), most people seem to be squishy vulnerable little marshmallows who need constantly propping up of their egos. They dare not go against the grain. Their dare not stand for right or truth if the crowed believes something else because there is nothing worse than being alienated from popular culture, no matter how headless that culture is.

        But maybe at some point it could be uncool to be a Chicken Little climate alarmist. You never know how these things could go. But it will require some bold leaders to expose and talk-down the climate alarmism and put it in the same category as snake handlers and other charlatans. I’m not holding my breath.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Whatever one may think of the man, Donald Trump just defused a ticking time bomb left him by the Obamanation, when he today announced the USA would be withdrawing from the “Paris Climate Accord.”

    I heard the last few minutes of his speech which must have driven “Greens” crazy. Unlike other politicians, Trump called this accord exactly what it is, a theft of hundreds-of-billions of dollars from the USA. He then pointed out that nobody can say where all this money is going to go. Exactly!

    In fact, we do know where the money will go. A little will go to a few “high-profile” projects in some third-world countries so the public can be fooled into thinking everything is fine. But a huge amount (I suspect most) of the money will go to politicos, bureaucrats and special interests, like Elon Musk.

    Thank you Donald Trump!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Also today, the Dakota pipeline started delivering oil. More good news. For all his flaws, and his lack of conservative convictions, Trump is at least doing far better than any conceivable Demagogue would, and probably as well as most Republicans.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Trump’s best asset is that he is not anti-business. He’s a strange and mercurial man regarding many things. He’s passionately in love with big government. He’s not an anti-socialist and has the leanings of a Mussolini. But he doesn’t apparently have the anti-oil fetish nor, it seems, the anti-CO2 one.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          But he doesn’t apparently have the anti-oil fetish nor, it seems, the anti-CO2 one.

          Thank God for small favors.

          If what is being written about this decision is true, this is a case where Trump went against the strong advice of Jared and Ivanka to remain in the accord.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        More good news! Apparently Trump has also given instructions to withdraw from and cease further payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund. Whoopee!

        And “oh woe is me”, the communist pope takes this as a slap in the face.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I’ll believe it when I see it. Words are cheap with this man. And is that a treaty that the Senate has to ratify backing out of?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        No need for the Senate in this as the Obamanation never brought it before the Senate for a vote as he knew it would not pass. That is why they call it an “accord” instead of a treaty here. Everywhere else it is a treaty.

        Still, since the Obamanation signed the “accord”, the USA was a party to it.

        You should thank Trump because the way the “accord” was written. Thanks to the Obamanation, the USA was required to follow it unless the president specifically announced the USA was withdrawing from the accord. If Trump had said nothing, we would be stuck with it.

        Here is a case where I believe no other Republican presidential candidate would have pulled out of the accord, except maybe Cruz.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          That was my conclusion too, though I will add that Rand Paul undoubtedly would have pulled out too. But unlike Cruz, he never went anywhere in the campaign. Kasich represents a state that would have been badly hurt by the agreement, but I can’t see him going against Beltway “wisdom”.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks for the info, Mr. Kung. If it’s not up to the Senate to back out of a treaty then this sounds less like Trump just blowing the usual smoke. Still…if his executive order (or whatever) is signed in this regard, that will be a positive.

          Speaking of girly-men, I read where Romney thought we should stay in the Global Warming Chicken Little European Pansy-Man Club because it would maintain American leadership.

          Listen…I understand, although I don’t agree with, the raw Trumpian emotion to just blows things up. We’ve been spoon-fed this kind of RINO nonsense for decades now. Trump *is* showing American leadership by backing away from an accord that is based completely on deceit and pseudo-science.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The Left is, as you know, freaking out about Trump not upholding one of the Left’s deepest held beliefs and means of redistributing wealth (socialism on a global scale).

        This is religious fanaticism. God help any civilization where facts and reason are bulldozed by these narcissistic types.

        Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It has been amusing to see the leftist hysteria. Many of those now in hysterics previously had complained that the Paris treaty-that-isn’t-called-a-treaty hardly did anything (which, in a way, is true) — but dropping out of it still enraged them. There have been some nice parodies of the hysteria (“World coming to an end, women and minorities hardest hit”).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *