[Rushtalk] How the global warming fraud will collapse

William White wbbanjo at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 12 11:26:19 MST 2017


Bring on "the preference cascade."

      From: John Quayle <blueoval57 at verizon.net>
 To: rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:23 PM
 Subject: [Rushtalk] How the global warming fraud will collapse
   
        
How the global warming fraud will collapse
  By Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, December 18, 2016    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/how_the_global_warming_fraud_will_collapse.html   Writing in The Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Merton predicts how the global warming thesis, still unable to account for a twenty year “pause” in its predicted  temperature rise, will crumble, thanks to Donald Trump becoming president. Here are some of the most important points, but read the whole thing: 
  Among members of the environmental movement, when their heads stop exploding, there are plenty of predictions that this will be terrible for the United States:  international ostracism, loss (to China!) of "leadership" in international climate matters, and, domestically, endless litigation battles stalling attempts to rescind or roll back regulations.  I see it differently.  I predict a high likelihood of substantial collapse of the global warming movement, both domestically and internationally, over the course of the next couple of years. Start with the EPA.  To the extent that the global warming movement has anything to do with "science," EPA is supposedly where that science is  vetted and approved on behalf of the public before being turned into policy.  In fact, under Obama, EPA's principal role on the "science" has been to prevent and stifle any debate or challenge to  global warming orthodoxy.  For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to  undermine EPA's authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond.  In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their  orthodoxy.  Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money.  Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up.   
 There could be a lot of interesting spectacles headed their (and our) way: 
 Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering  for the last eight years.  Questions like:  Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted?  How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated?  What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from  the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago?  Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough anymore.  What now? 
 And then there is the matter of the precious “international community.” 
 …people like Isabel Hilton predict a combination of ostracism and "loss of leadership" of the issue, most likely to China.  Here's my prediction:  As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well.  This is "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria.  Countries like Britain and Australia have already more or less quietly started the retreat from insanity.  In Germany the obsession with wind and solar (solar -- in the cloudiest country in the world!) has already gotten average consumer electric rates up to close to triple the cost in U.S. states that embrace fossil fuels.  How long will they be willing to continue that self-destruction after the U.S. says it is not going along?  And I love the business about ceding "leadership" to China.  China's so-called "commitment" in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to  build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease increasing emissions after 2030!  At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind.  Who exactly is going to embrace that "leadership" and increase their consumers' cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now?  I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they that stupid?  
 This sounds awfully plausible.  Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds calls a sudden collapse of a public opinion a “preference cascade.” In my view, global warming is overdue for a preference cascade that  will shock people in its rapidity.  
      
_______________________________________________
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20170112/aeabc983/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list