Over at Pointman’s, he has published another powerful, intense essay around the climate furore, and this time he declares:
‘The war against climate alarmism is over, and we won it.
There won’t be a formal surrender, there will be no armistice or cease-fire, there will be no shell-shocked soldiers staggering out of bullet scarred bunkers with their hands raised high waving white kerchiefs and there will be no trials for crimes against humanity for the genocide committed in the developing world, but it’s over.
They’ll just continue to melt away as the murderous craze drifts further into political irrelevance and what will be looked back on as yet another moral aberration of the it’s all about my feelings generation and the politics that pandered to it.
Politically, the whole thing is dead in the water and has been for some time. Global warming is at the bottom of everyone’s list of concerns even if it makes an appearance on the list at all, and we’ve just been through a year-long presidential campaign where it was barely mentioned. Trump being elected as president will be its long overdue coup de grâce, though not in the form of a bullet through the head but rather a knife cutting through its financial umbilical cord down which flow the government grants, concessions and loan guarantees that keep it alive.’
The Times They Are A’Changin
An article (hat tip Climate Depot) with the headline ‘Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold’ by James Varney at Real Clear Investigations, also has some optimism in it:
‘Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. Blog.
William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”
And, later on in that article, Richard Lindzen himself is not quite so optimistic:
‘Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us. “I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected. “They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”
How Would We Know ‘Victory’?
Pointman was claiming we were well on the way to victory back in 2012:
‘It’s not quite over yet but we’ve beaten them and will have to be satisfied with that. The bitter pill for me, is that none of them will ever stand in a court of law to answer charges of crimes against humanity for the deaths, starvation and poverty that their policies inflicted on the poor around the world. We must now move to get those policies reversed.‘
But was the main war not already lost years earlier? How else could the lunatic Climate Change Acts in the UK have been passed? How else could possibly every school in the country have been subject to the glossy crafty scary prejudiced ignorance of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’? How else could uncounted thousands of organisations, commercial and charitable, have sprung up to exploit the bonanza of funding they were presented with?
The 2012 Pointman article was discussed on Bishop Hill, and most of the commenters were not so sure about victory. Robin Guenier wrote what to me might be the least we might hope for soon. I reproduce his comment in full here:
‘I agree with those who disagree with Mike Haseler’s view that “we have beaten them”. Although we’re getting there, we’re a long way from that. However, victory need not entail abject surrender: IPCC disbanded and the Nobel prize rescinded, prominent alarmists lose their jobs, WWF and Greenpeace lose their charitable status, etc. These things are not going to happen. Nor need they – it would be sufficient if the “established” view (i.e. the consensus of leading politicians, the MSM, prominent commentators, scientific institutions etc.) were to gently be adjusted to something on the following lines:
1. The world has been warming for at least 160 years.
2. Human activities have contributed to that.
3. Whether the warming trend will continue and whether, if it does, it will be dangerous or even beneficial are matters of considerable uncertainty.
4. What is certain, however, is that the climate changes (it always has) and that historically mankind has been successful in adapting to such change.
5. The key to successful adaptation is a strong global economy.
There are, I think, signs that elements of this attitude are being tentatively adopted: Paul Nurse’s Dimbleby lecture for example.
Mar 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM | Robin Guenier’
I think, well I hope, that Robin will be proved right on his 5 items, but I would not call victory (for the revolution, not the original war) myself in the UK until a good few of the following actions were underway:
Repeal of the Climate Change Acts
Dramatic cut in funding for climate research (the topic is interesting but so corrupted by zealots that they need to be starved out before any rebuilding can begin)
Major effort to clean school curricula of all traces of eco-alarmism
Pastoral initiatives to help young people who have been through school over the last 30 years and who have been burdened by a depressing view of their future
Met Office divested of all climate roles, and returned to being dedicated to weather forecasting and associated data collection and management.
Opening of a Hubert Lamb Climate Research Centre somewhere untainted by the CO2 alarm virus
Cease participation in UNEP and the IPCC, and cease all associated funding in all UN bodies with major interests in promoting climate alarm such as UNESCO.
Cease spending on climate change in Overseas Aid budgets
Launch a Royal Commission to report back on how we got into this mess
In any event, the election of Trump and his extremely promising list of appointees does make it look like many of the not long established empires of the Carbon Dioxide Movement are under serious threat.
Welcome 2017! And a Guid New Year for All Our Readers may it turn out to be!