Fabius Maximus: An autopsy of the climate policy debate’s corpse 

Posted: February 13, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, greenblob, media, opinion, Politics
Tags:


Science has become a footnote in the mad rush to embrace so-called green energy policies, or so it seems. But is the climate likely to notice anything?
– – –
The climate policy debate has died. Its autopsy shows who killed it, says Larry Kummer @ Fabius Maximus.

Summary: The climate policy debate ran for 30 years but produced little action (it ranks #17 of the public’s top 18 concerns). Now it has died. The autopsy reveals not just who killed it but also disturbing insights about America.

This is post #404 in a series about climate change that I began 12 years ago.

Bottom line: the climate activists are decisively winning. The science no longer matters in the public policy debate. Activists have moved beyond it and the major science institutions no longer defend it against the activists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations. There are rumors that the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report will break with the past and fully embrace the hysteria.

Meanwhile, skeptics are talking to themselves, like characters in Alice in Wonderland – vocal but effectively locked out of the news media.

The climate wars are in the “pursuit” phase of battle, during which the victorious side runs down and destroys their broken foe.

Understanding how we got here reveals much about America’s dysfunctionality (i.e., its broken OODA loop).

But first, know that this was not inevitable.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    Reports of America’s demise are grossly exaggerated.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Meanwhile, skeptics are talking to themselves, like characters in Alice in Wonderland – vocal but effectively locked out of the news media.

    Or the fake news media as it’s now more usually known, at least where the climate is concerned.
    – – –
    The debate has moved beyond science to the exaggerations of the Climate Emergency and the fictions of the Extinction Rebellion. It is all politics and mass hysteria.

    Don’t we know it.

  3. hunterson7 says:

    We are experiencing what non-Christians experienced when Catholicism was used to tie Rome together.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Fab. Max.: remember the big truth which explains the gridlock in US climate policy.

    This is not what scientists do when they have
    decisive evidence of an imminent global threat.
    This is how they act when they do not have decisive evidence,
    but for professional or political reasons want the public to believe them anyway.
    Many Americans understand that, at some level.

  5. Damian says:

    For me, this insistence on debate is as unscientific as anything else in the climate debacle.
    From ”The Black Cloud” by Fred Hoyle

    “Bloody bad science,” growled Alexandrov. “Correlations obtained after experiments done is bloody bad. Only prediction in science.”
    “I don’t follow.”
    “What Alexis means is that only predictions really count in science,” explained Weichart. “That’s the way Kingsley downed me an hour or two ago. It’s no good doing a lot of experiments first and then discovering a lot of correlations afterwards, not unless the correlations can be used for making new predictions. Otherwise it’s like betting on a race after it’s been run.”

    It’s a twee old book but worth a read.
    We could really do with Fred Hoyle nowadays.

    There is no debate in science.
    Theory-prediction-experiment
    How many theories have their been in the history of mankind? How many were wrong?
    A lot more than 97%!

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    One Military Knight’s Maximal Fable

    “Can’t be too care fall with Eur. company
    Eye Can. feel the devil walk kin next to me”– War Eye Head “UN night in Bangkok”

    Beyond air and sea power there’s biological hack king power.

    1/(J+S) = 2Φ((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))-1)/(1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^0)+1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^1)+1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^1)+1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^2)+1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^3)+1/(((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^5)+1/((√(1/(J-S))(π/2))^8))))))))

    CR rabbit hale J+S differentiation from JEV won mathematica11y.

    8.45612345800431 = 2*0.618033988749895*((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)-1)/(1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^0)+1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^1)+1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^1)+1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^2)+1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^3)+1/(((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^5)+1/((sqrt(19.8650360864628)*pi()/2)^8))))))))

    West turn climate policy is No.1’s’care.
    IT’s “eye know eye’11 cure-AI” buy my west turn censor ship.

    The west will never correct itself without help from powers like Russia and China.
    Similarly Russia and China will never correct their flaws without help from USA and Europe.
    The Party is 4 all and weave lots of partying to do. Party Animals may find a home — even moles.

    If the west cared about climate suffering there wouldn’t be any homelessness in northern cities. They’re not winning enough minds and hearts, so western leaders’ thoughts are docked in the overcrowded ports of the censor ship industry, as is maximally fabulously obvious to everyone sleeping in the cold. The climate campaign is conducted as an ice-cold military strategy. It was easy enough to draw that as a final conclusion by about 2013.

    There are endless interesting patterns to explore in nature no matter what the western politicians and military planners do with with their insane “climate policy”.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Damian wrote:
    “For me, this insistence on debate is as unscientific as anything else in the climate debacle.”

    By 2013 everywhere I read the word “science” I was interpreting “scilence”.

    The “scilence” hammer convinced me that debate is evil. It’s a tool for what I call bullIDevils who only need to frame judgement of debate around false assumptions to make Americans so angry that they want to kill each other. The words “science”, “prediction”, and “debate” instantly associate with “dictatorship” and some fabulous people can maximally thank themselves for that.

    Nature is still wonderful to explore and thanks to the west turn censor ship industry we’ve developed many orders of magnitude more appreciation for art. Unlike “climate policy debate” that makes people literally want to launch nukes at each other, art and nature together are pure, beautiful joy.

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    the writer is full of it IMAO.

    While pols run about whinging on about saving the planet with new taxes and idiotic ideas like windmills and such, the common man/woman have figured it out. None of the predictions have come true. Ever.

    In the meantime the pontificating Follywood types run about in private aircraft, have multiple homes each bigger than three or four ‘normal’ homes in the ‘burbs and own a fleet of low mpg speed wagons they blaze about in at the same time the pols all fly to some spa city via private jet and drink expensive wine and eat food most of us would need a second mortgage to buy, and figure out ways to separate us from more of our money. In the meantime CO2 keeps going up and temperatures marginally creep up to no noticeable effect.On the planet that is. Although the planet’s greenery IS going mad, greening up all sorts of places that were a bit behind compared to the Roman Warm Period.

    So as to the writer’s view, I call BS. For 75% or more of the public this is CAGW stuff is nonsense. For the pols it is the angles dancing on a pinhead discussion which every time (surprise) leads to more taxes regardless of the discussion.
    —————
    “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from moonbattery.com

  9. oldbrew says:

    Nuclear enthusiast Bill Gates again: “let’s quit jerking around with renewables”.

  10. Phoenix44 says:

    The basic trouble is that when the politicians believe “the science”, they have to also believe “the solution”. Because it is the same people pushing both. It is very difficult to accept one part but not the other – as the Greens and Alarmists understand very well.

    But the solution will not work. Renewables and batteries will not work. The only question remaining is what happens when that becomes an inescapable fact?

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    “The climate wars are in the “pursuit” phase of battle, during which the victorious side runs down and destroys their broken foe.”

    No doubt last week’s elite trampling of the British electorate inspired this language.
    His confidence is boiling over with joy at the sight.

    The British political elite harnessed the energy of the herd going wild, honoring royal direction to “bold action”. Unceremonious back-stabbing followed the bait-and-switch. Crucial-but-temporary allies were disposable heroes before the polls closed.

    In the education field this is what’s known as a “learning opportunity”. The elite served an acid-in-your-face example of outcomes they envision for helpers.

    History will show that with outstretched hands people first sought alliances within their own country. What they got for that was deeply cruel but not as inhumane as what’s endured by western housing crisis victims suffering the unbearably cold winter climates of northern cities.

  12. […] über Fabius Maximus: An autopsy of the climate policy debate’s corpse  — Tallbloke’s Talkshop […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s