Climate Sads :( Lunatics Recognizing Failure ….. But, Still Haven’t Figured Out Why



So, I’m reading a fairly nauseating paper written by Amy Leurs.  It’s an advocacy paper.  She’s advocating a change in the nutters’ approach to the climate wars.  In it is this admission……

While we have had our share of policy successes, we have failed to build the political will needed for significant national climate policy.

But, poor Mzzz. Leurs fails to understand why, even though it slaps her in the face while she writes the paper.  Some excerpts…….

The climate movement has been hyper focused on fast changing variables, such as public opinion, which fluctuates with the weather (Krosnick et al. 2006) and the economy (Krosnick and MacInnis 2012) and on winning the policy opportunity of the moment (e.g. cap and trade, renewal portfolio standards or carbon tax), protecting regulations under threat (e.g. EPA) or attacking new proposals (e.g. Keystone, coal power plants). …..

We need to start picking our battles, designing our campaigns, and assessing our losses and wins with this endgame in mind. …..

Many climate engagement efforts are driven by the outdated “information deficit” theory of science communication. The “deficit model” refers to the idea that public uncertainty and skepticism around climate change is caused primarily by a lack of understanding of the science (Moser and Dilling 2011; Maibach et al. 2008; O’Brien 2012). If this were correct, the obvious solution would be to increase public understanding of climate science.

You see, she’s right.  But, she doesn’t understand what the problem is.  More on that in a minute, but, she even quotes super nutter congressman Ed Markey…..

“We need to win back the science, but we will – that’s the easy part. The more difficult question is whether we win back the principle that if the science is valid, public policy action is morally mandatory…”  ….

She continues by quoting someone from the “other side”…….

I heard the same point from a voice on the other side of the political spectrum, Eli Lehrer, a former Heartland Institute employee and the president of R Street, a conservative think tank: “…being right about science DOES NOT by itself make somebody’s proposed public policy solutions infallible.” It is clear that without a moral mandate, science isn’t enough.

While the evidence suggests that linking the local threats of extreme weather, such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to climate change has successfully put the issue in the public discourse, it has so far not lead to building the political support needed for significant climate action. Meanwhile, the conservative movement’s long-term effort to shape a culture has set the terms of the discourse around pending climate catastrophe. The prevailing narrative is that the dire warnings of climate scientists and advocates are just scare tactics to enable big government to impose more regulation (Klein 2008).

And, I’ll finish quoting with these last two excerpts…….

I interviewed over 40 climate advocates,more than a dozen representatives from the foundation community, and a dozen academics.

Decarbonizing the US economy is primarily a social and political challenge. We already have the technical know-how to achieve significant carbon reductions, yet social inertia and vested corporate and political interests are preventing progress.

What’s wrong with Mzzzz Leurs babbling?

Well, first and foremost, she’s asking the losers why they’ve lost.  Don’t get me wrong, she’s not saying they’ve lost the war, but, she recognizes they come up against a wall and can’t make anymore headway.  But, she’s not talking to anyone who formed the wall.  She recognizes that they’ve lost much of the discussion of the science, which is why she’s advocating taking a different direction.  And then she mistakenly quotes a conservative. 

It is true, being correct on the science isn’t enough, but, you have to be correct in the science to move the thought forward.  While I won’t ever expect her to understand, because she, like many of the other nutters absolutely refuse to see the facts, we see her trying to move around the facts, and that’s not going to play well.   

She’s also under the mistaken belief we can decarbonize the US, or any other 1st world nation.  And, I suppose we could, but, it requires us to move to a 3rd world nation status.  She advocates making the conversation about morality, but, there’s nothing moral about raising energy costs forcing the poorer people of our nation to choose between food or heat in the winter, or cooling in the summer. 

She mentions the droughts, floods, and hurricanes.  Again, we see the reality avoidance.  In each of those instances, the nutters have been shown to be wrong.  Not by some sinister shadowy oil financed group, but, by bloggers using the nutters own data to show that there is no connection between CO2 and these weather events. 

They’re losing because their science is wrong.  Their hyperbole was entirely overblown.  And, their proposed solutions are not workable.  And, that’s why they’ve run up against a wall.  Even if their idiotic ideas about CO2 were correct, they’ve offered no viable solution for the people of the US or the world. 

The world isn’t drowning, nor is it going to turn into a fireball.  Hurricanes are not becoming more frequent or intense.  And, a stupid windmill isn’t a substitute for the energy needs of modern civilization. 

Why and how did the nutters come up against this wall?  REALITY

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Climate Sads :( Lunatics Recognizing Failure ….. But, Still Haven’t Figured Out Why

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    It is true, being correct on the science isn’t enough, but, you have to be correct in the science to move the thought forward.

  2. philjourdan says:

    Reality, like facts, is a b*tch. They do not care what you think or feel. They just are.

    • cdquarles says:

      Nor does reality depend upon our perceptions. Adults recognize and adapt to reality, for we know that reality never recognizes us or adapts to us.

  3. DirkH says:

    She says Climate Change causes droughts and floods. Can someone ask an alarmist, WHAT does Global Warming cause MORE; droughts or floods. Will the future be more drie or more wet.

  4. kim2ooo says:

    Let us imagine a world where the following occurred*:
    ◾2008 – 2013: Barack Obama accepts public financing for the election, promptly closes Gitmo, and rigorously avoids raising taxes of any kind on the middle class. Just to not-really-randomly pick three of his campaign promises.
    ◾2009: Barack Obama secures the formal appointment of Inspector Generals at Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, State, and the Agency for International Development.
    ◾2009 – 2013: President Barack Obama has regular, open press conferences, in the manner of his predecessors.
    ◾2009 – 2010: A form of Obamacare passes that is acceptable to at least one Republican Senator.
    ◾2009: A proposed loan to troubled Green energy company Solyndra is circular-filed when an advisor to Energy Secretary Steven Chu sits him down and explains to him that there was probably a good reason why the previous administration refused to sign off on the loan, and that the populace doesn’t really like having its money thrown away.
    ◾2010: a particularly difficult worker at the IRS office in Cincinnati sends a series of terse emails to his supervisor, his supervisor’s supervisor, and the relevant officials in DC, indicating that written clarification of a new policy where conservative groups are to be under increased scrutiny will be needed before said worker would feel comfortable following that policy. The written clarification is not given; the policy is not followed.
    ◾2010: plans to tell a federal judge that Fox News reporter James Rosen was a co-conspirator in a criminal case, and thus a legitimate target for a search warrant, are derailed when a Justice Department staffer reads the draft, blanches, calls her supervisor, and asks him to ‘read that draft again, only this time in a Republican voice.’
    ◾2010: the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry leads to an internal Justice Department investigation of the disastrous Operation Fast & Furious [program]. Attorney General Eric Holder responds by producing an unusually frank and open report on the fiasco, firing everyone responsible with prejudice, and takes ultimate responsibility for his department’s mistakes. Holder then arranges with Congress to expedite a replacement Attorney General so that he can resign respectably.
    ◾2012: the IRS engages in a full and public investigation over the allegation that IRS officials leaked the membership list of the National Organization for Marriage to Human Rights Campaign. The investigation at a bare minimum wrecks several careers, and provides a salutary object lesson for the surviving bureaucrats.
    ◾2012: the Department of Justice contemplates wholesale subpoenas of the Associated Press. This goes nowhere, because the combination of the terms ‘wholesale,’ ‘subpoenas,’ and ‘Associated Press’ in one sentence produces a feeling of anticipatory dread that threatens to take tangible form and savagely beat everyone in the room.
    ◾2012: the ambassador to Libya and three other Americans are killed as part of an organized, planned Islamist attack. False initial reports that the attack was due to a supposed YouTube [video] are later aggressively pushed back on by State Department officials; the President goes on the air and explains that the government is sometimes pulled in two directions by the populace’s expectation that it be simultaneously be both transparent and responsive. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes full responsibility for the deaths, and announces her retirement in the same press conference, after likewise working with Congress to expedite her replacement.
    ◾2013: the personal assistant to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius coughs discreetly and points out to her that the legislative branch gets exceedingly shirty when the executive branch tries to fund its shenanigans outside of the standard appropriations process. A series of calls to various health care companies begging for/extorting (depending on who you ask) Obamacare implementation funds are thus not made.
    ◾2013: Senator Rand Paul asks President Barack Obama, “Do you think that you have the right to order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil?” Barack Obama says “No, unless we end up in some kind of nightmare Tom Clancy scenario and if that happens you’re probably going to be in the room with the rest of us anyway.” Senator Paul says “Thank you” and the confirmation vote of John Brennan proceeds on schedule.

    So, imagine that all of this happened. Which is to say, imagine that the federal government during the Obama administration was operating up to roughly the same level of scandal and basic functionality that we had all come to expect from the Bush administration. OK? OK. Now, contemplate that the story had still come out that the federal government has been routinely requesting and getting Verizon’s (and other company’s) phone metadata.

    Do you think that the government’s response/defense of Trust us would then be better received, or worse received? – Because I’ll be honest; when it comes to running the government in a scandal-free and non-disastrous manner this administration is notably inferior to the last one. George W Bush, I could trust with the metadata. Barack Obama, I’m not entirely certain he wouldn’t just accidentally send it all to Belize.

  5. HankH says:

    The one (and last) time I attempted to reason with Appell and apply the common sense method of finding common ground with people to accomplish a goal where people might have different reasons for accomplishing it, he got pissed off and went into a childish rant about how was I paying for my carbon footprint? Obviously entirely unable to grasp the concept.

    It’s marketing 101 these people don’t understand. To make my case, in a business selling a widget, if you walked into a prospective customers meeting room and accused them of being a problem and if they don’t buy from you certain destruction will befall them and their children. How many widgets do you think you would sell. How many offices do you think you would get thrown out of?

    • suyts says:

      LOL, Hank, these people know nothing of business, and they don’t want to know. It would destroy their world view. But, that’s one of the funny parts to all of this madness. The nutters brainstorm as to why they’re not making the progress they want, but, they don’t bother asking the people they’re not making progress with. The idiot in the article would rather talk to 40 different people who have equally failed to make progress than to talk to one skeptic.

      I don’t think I ever been seriously approached by a warmist trying to find common ground.

      • HankH says:

        I don’t think I ever been seriously approached by a warmist trying to find common ground.

        You never will be approached by his kind trying to find common ground. They see you as being at enmity with Gaia. There can be no common ground unless you repent, lay prostrate before their alter of the all powerful CO2 molecule, and make recompense for your sins of emission against the planet. Only then can you be accepted into the fold.

      • suyts says:

        LOL, so true. I find it fascinating. Year after year they blather about their messaging, but, they never ask skeptics.

    • cdquarles says:

      None. In fact, sales people are taught to find the need and show the benefits of buying the widget being sold. In other words, a salesman is a servant supplying an unmet need, want or desire. That some cheat to do this does not change, heh, reality :).

      • DirkH says:

        Greenpeace has rather good marketing; think of all the free publicity through chaining themselves to something and filming themselves and getting it broadcasted on taxpayer funded public media.

        WWF gets paid by companies so they can print the Death Panda on their cans of mackerel. I buy such a brand. They’re good, and I probably help to save the planet by buying them. The Death Panda Logo is probably a pretty valuable brand, threatening companies with slandering them is a great way to sell it.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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