Lesson For Trump From Media Attacks

Yes, continue to focus on the flawed climate science:

The CNN video ridicules Trump for saying that global warming is “an expensive hoax.” We should respond by outlining the costs involved. Over one billion dollars a day worldwide is now spent on “climate finance,” according to the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative, yet we see no impact on climate. In 2017, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explained that if the UN Paris Agreement targets for 2030 were met and sustained through the rest of the century, there would be 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit less warming in 2100, if the models relied upon by the UN were correct. He explains that the cost of the Paris pact would be $1 – 2 trillion every year. So clearly, CNN’s criticism tells Trump that he should continue calling it “an expensive hoax,” and cite the cost estimates and forecast results to illustrate his point.

Yup.

13 thoughts on “Lesson For Trump From Media Attacks”

  1. I have yet to find a better retort than, loosely paraphrased, ‘When the alarmists start to act like it is an impending disaster, then I will start to listen.’ Unfortunately, I have heard very little in the way of credible reasons to fear man-made global warming, cooling, or anything we could avert. This whole thing brings me back to a quote from Canada Bill Jones; “It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.”
    On a separate note, glad to see you avoided disaster, Rand.

  2. I have yet to find a better retort than, loosely paraphrased, ‘When the alarmists start to act like it is an impending disaster, then I will start to listen.’

    Unsound. It’s like saying that a call for military action must be cynical because the person calling for such action isn’t in the military. Or that Rusty Schweickart doesn’t really think asteroids are a threat because he spends time and money on other pleasures and pursuits. Or that a Jew can’t really be concerned about Israel because he’s living in the US.

    We all have our passions but real life ensures we can’t pursue them with all our time and resources.

    It’s not a good retort. Just explain your issues with AGW and refrain from personal attacks.

    1. I think he’s referring to all the climate activists who constantly hop on fuel guzzling private jets to fly to Davos a couple times a year to scream that people are emitting too much CO2. If five of them get on a Bombardier Challenger 350 and fly from LA to Davos and back, each of the five emitted an entire year’s worth of CO2 emissions of the average American. And they’ll fly to various climate conferences many times a year to tell us that we’re destroying the planet.

      And of course they also peddle carbon offset schemes, otherwise known as indulgences, so the climate elites can keep emitting hundreds of times more CO2 than normal people, while arrogantly lecturing those normal people about the sins of their greedy CO2 emissions.

      It’s not a real problem, it’s a moral panic that they’ve stoked, gamed, and monetized.

  3. I think he’s referring to all the climate activists who constantly hop on fuel guzzling private jets to fly to Davos a couple times a year to scream that people are emitting too much CO2.

    Yes, I know what he’s referring to. It’s a foolish point that doesn’t hold water. Suppose these activists stayed at home and had a conference call? Then one could claim “I’ll take global warming seriously when these so-called activists are willing to spend their own money to have a face to face meeting instead of a lame teleconference!” One can always cast the cost/benefit analysis the way one wants to make any position look inconsistent. Art’s “retort” is silly rhetoric and says nothing about the reality or otherwise of global warming.

    1. Um, you’re over thinking it. If someone is going to criticize me for doing something that THEY THEMSELVES ARE DOING BUT EVEN WORSE, they are a base hypocrite. It’s extremely difficult to take them seriously in that relationship.

      1. So your saying its like getting bombarded with temperance lectures from Foster Brooks and Dean Martin?

        “Wait. You don’t want me to drink whisky so you can have it all for yourself!”

      2. If someone is going to criticize me for doing something that THEY THEMSELVES ARE DOING BUT EVEN WORSE…

        You’re creating a strawman here, Craig. “Air travel is a major contributor to global warming” is not equivalent to “nobody should fly” any more than “coal fired power plants are a major contributor to global warming” is equivalent to “nobody should use electricity”. Use of these strawmen just makes the skeptical position look weak. Most global warming activists do appreciate that our world runs on fossil fuels and change will be slow and gradual (AOC notwithstanding).

        Effectively rebutting global warming cannot be done with rhetorical flourishes. They sound good in the echo chamber but that’s about it. I have to interact with global warming activists daily and as a class they don’t seem to be any more inconsistent or hypocritical than average.

  4. Jim, I didn’t say what you think I said. I said very plainly that being told by self-appointed intelligentsia that what everyone else is doing is wrong, then claim exemption to the same supposed “wrong”, it makes it hard to take them seriously. It is not the only thing that makes it hard to take them seriously, but it is an example of a huge logical disconnect on their part.

    THEY make the rhetorical flourishes based on their unfounded assumptions, and when we try to ground the topic in science, they call us names from meetings worldwide. At such gatherings, they (literally) expend huge amount of energy to act in this illogical way and rub each other’s rhubarbs about how much smarter they are then us great unwashed. It is symptomatic of their inability to embrace the scientific method and instead turn the whole topic into a sociopolitical fashion show.

    If you can’t see this major flaw in the Warmista’s inquisition, I don’t know what else to say.

  5. I said very plainly that being told by self-appointed intelligentsia that what everyone else is doing is wrong, then claim exemption to the same supposed “wrong”, it makes it hard to take them seriously.

    Okay, fine, Craig. Just out of curiosity, what “self-appointed intelligentsia” told everyone that flying was wrong and then claimed it was all right for them personally to fly?

    I have heard activists claim that air travel is a major contribution to global warming. I’ve heard some of them advocate high speed rail as a substitute in the long term. But I don’t recall any of them saying that it is wrong to fly at present but they’re special so it’s all right if they do. Maybe there are such people but they’re certainly not typical of global warming activists. Claiming that the extremes are typical is disingenuous.

    1. Seriously? Aviation is cited as a prominent portion of the AGCC liturgy of sin. Many “remedies” have been offered to address humanity’s “failing”. Artificial price controls, banning of frequent flyer programs, etc., all with the aim of making air travel the venue of the people of substantial means. That means rich.

      I never said they claimed no one should fly, but they sure want it reserved for the “beautiful people”. That is, the faithful who can pay their indulgences.

  6. I think there is a simpler metric of believability; there isn’t a single Democrat running for president (or any other office I know of) that does not support massive government intervention based on climate change, while the reverse is almost true of Republicans.

    If something is divided on party lines then the truth does not matter to most people. If you want to know which side is “right” (the answer is almost certainly “neither”), you can read the original research yourself.

    When I started looking at global warming a few decades ago, it was obvious bunk. The early IPCC reports are filled with predictions that have all been falsified, which was no surprise to anyone not drinking copious amounts of coolaide.

    Now, the IPCC reports seem a lot closer to reality. The predicted warming is far lower, and is in line with what has happened previously without CO2 forcings. Of course, that brings up other probable issues, but at least they are no longer predicting things that obviously won’t happen.

Leave a Reply

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