The Climate Wars

The (rare) voices of reason:

10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.

11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.

12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.

13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.

And it will continue to.

13 thoughts on “The Climate Wars”

  1. “Climate change” is the 21st century version of the 20th century “Ban the Bomb” movement. Both are political movements driven by a combination of marxist activism and globalists using pretty much the same argument – do what we want or you will all die in fire. I suspect the modern incarnation may end in a similar fashion when the natural trend to low or no carbon energy and transportation reaches a certain point. At that point the movement will morph into something else, unless the psychological dysfunction of marxist activism is understood and cured for all time.

    1. That is an apt analogy.

      The Bomb was indeed a serious threat, but the ban-the-Bomb movement offered both unserious solutions to the enslavement of Eastern Europe and other places under Communist tyranny that led to its large-scale deployment along with being encouraged by the Soviets, in whatever way they were able, to reduce popular enthusiasm for weapons that were aimed at them.

      It also had the element of demonization of anyone and everyone skeptical of Ban-the-Bomb as being an amalgamation of the Buck Turgidson and Dr. Strangelove characters from the Kubrick movie.

      1. As I understand it, ‘Ban-the-Bomb’ was also funded by the West’s enemies as a subversion program to undermine the West. Just as I’m sure many of the ‘Climate Change’ groups are funded by the West’s enemies (or, at least, not-friends) today.

        Why wouldn’t China throw a few billion dollars at ‘environmental’ groups who want to destroy Western industry? They’d be mad not to.

    2. State of Fear is definitely holding up.

      The tale for both “Ban the Bomb” and “Climate change” is that neither put pressure on others, such as China, Russia, USSR, to change their behaviors, only the US and Western Europe. Sadly, “Ban the Bomb” was effective in stifling US growth in peaceful nuclear energy, thus increasing our dependence on fossil fuel for generations to come.

    1. That looks like something fun to watch but their website doesn’t say anything about streaming or putting up a video on youtube.

  2. One of the things that is interesting about that research is the discussion of the sums spent. Over half a billion dollars in five years. I have yet to see a credible estimate of climate skepticism that’s more than about $100 over ten years (though there are less than credible estimates that go higher, such as here and here). Yet so many people think Big Oil is somehow massively dominating the propaganda war here by spending alone.

    1. Over a half-billion in “behind-the-scenes” grants alone, not including whatever else that are supposedly in-front-of-the-scenes or whatever. Staggering amounts of money there.

      Nisbet notes in his study that environmental causes began partnering with other grassroots organizations seeking “social justice-oriented solutions to climate change” and employed an “intersectional” strategy which connected the issue to other causes more aligned with the liberal ideology in order to build a larger movement.

      We can see there how the “global warming as a symptom of the patriarchy” message gets created.

  3. Warmer average global temperature is a warmer ocean.

    We are currently in an icebox climate and in the distant past, Earth was in hothouse climate.
    Icebox climate is a cold ocean and having polar icecaps, Earth has had warmer oceans and not had polar icecaps and if warm enough that would be a hothouse climate. A hothouse climate does not have glacial periods in which the oceans become cold.

    Over last million years the range of temperature of our ocean have been between 1 and 5 C, and currently it is about 3.5 C. When ocean is between 1 and 5 C it is an icebox climate. When ocean are 10 C or warmer, that is hothouse climate.

    When entire ocean has higher average temperature, the average surface temperature can be warmer.
    Our current average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and oceans are 70% of Earth surface. The land surface temperature (30% of entire surface) is currently about 10 C. And average of land and ocean surface temperature is global average temperature of about 15 C.

    The warmed ocean surface increases global temperature due to it being warmer and covering 70% of surface of planet.
    And it is widely accepted than warmer oceans cause land temperatures to be warmer (everyone knows the warmer Gulf Stream warms the European land area).
    Or without the Gulf Stream warming Europe, Europe would have average temperature of around 0 C.
    And Gulf stream was a lot warmer, Europe might get close to having an average temperature of 15 C .
    Or if Gulf Stream was lot warmer Europe could warmer average temperature than the current continental US average temperature which is about 12 C.And

    During last interglacial period, Europe was a lot warmer, and ocean average temperature was about 5 C and at that time sea levels were +5 meter higher than present sea levels.

  4. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.

    Mass graves and basking in the lamentations of their women.

    Sounds a little over the top but they always go on about wanting to either kill the deniers or reduce the population and seem to take delight in the suffering their policies will impose on certain groups of people. They are determined to have an apocalypse regardless about what nature has to say about it.

Leave a Reply

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