Get Tucker Carlson to host a debate between the key spokesman of AGW and an eminent climate scientist relying on real science as regards AGW. As long as MSM publishes and promotes cherry picked and politically motivated "facts and figures", nothing will change. Fear mongering is how the unwashed masses are controlled and manipulated.
SM: Some climate debates have been done before. The problem is that they quickly devolve into disagreements about complex scientific matters — so it's hard to tell who is right.
I joined a ZOOM meeting on this topic ten days ago. There were three Australian scientists of sound mind who gave us plenty of food for thought, amongst which was
DON'T USE THE ENEMY'S TERMINOLOGY, so
FOSSIL FUEL becomes ORGANIC FUEL
GREENHOUSE GAS becomes GOLDILOCKS GAS (not too hot and not too cold but just right)
Your suggestion of abandoning THEORY for HYPOTHESIS is just right too.
Instead of being DENIERS we could become QUESTIONERS, TRUTH-SEEKERS, VERIFIERS, SCRUTINEERS or something better and so on...
As most people get quickly bored or confused with maths and graphs, keep them simple and few. I think it might be a good plan to keep up a drum fire of UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES - preferably by really important people - the more extreme the prophecy the better. In the UK we could start with His Majesty (when he was Prince of Wales).
As most people have not really got beyond the ideas in Al Gore's film- An Inconvenient Truth, show how this has been disproved in court. I have the Daily Telegraph's court report, if required.
There is a problem because the theory ( Sorry, HYPOTHESIS!) is universally taught in schools. A neighbour of mine was quite shocked a few years ago. He told his three granddaughters ( then in their early teens) that he did not agree with the Catastrophist Cult. They were nice girls at good schools but they shrieked in unison "DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT US, GRANDPA?" . Scientifically qualified friends of mine have offered to give lectures or debate in schools but have been turned down on the grounds that it would "confuse the students" because the curriculum and exams are solely geared to the official theory/HYPOTHESIS.
In the UK there is an organisation called the Campaign for Real Education which might help . It looks as if we are likely to get a Labour government shortly which will be stricter in this matter than the present Conservative government which I would class as only partially brain dead .
A model of a physical system makes an "argument" in the philosophical sense of the word and, in the case of the climate models, a deductive proof is available of the fact that this argument is logically and scientifically non-sensical. It seems to me that this proof should be used in the proposed PR pivot.
Terry: That's the p[oint of insisting that alarmists follow traditional science methodology when making their case. If they can not, then their position would be non-sensical.
In "Unsettled," Steven Koonin starts out by demolishing the proposition that climatism is a science. Then, as we all eventually seem to do, he digs into the details of how almost every individual climatist proposition is false. He was Deputy Secretary for Science in the Obama Administration's Department of Energy, so he can't be honestly labeled as a MAGA extremist. Before that, he was vice president and provost at Caltech. There's a summary of a 23-page paper about it by Richard Lindzen (MIT), Will Happer (Princeton), and Koonin (and a link to the entire paper) at https://co2coalition.org/publications/fossil-fuels-and-greenhouse-gases-climate-science/
An important point they make (and that I make in "Where Will We Get Our Energy?") is that the "I" in IPCC means "interGOVERNMENTAL." It's composed of two politically-appointed representatives of each of the UN's member countries. The "Summary for Policymakers" is approved, line-by-line, by those politicians, who have no qualms about inverting the conclusions of the scientists they appointed to write the Scientific Annexes, or of revising those Annexes without the scientists' having a say in the revisions.
You wrote that, "the REAL reason they object to following traditional scientific methodology, is that it does not support their hypothesis.”
A central part of the real reason is that climatologists have no training in the scientific method. That has been my (initially shocking) experience over the entire time.
And that lack of training includes the AGW skeptic climatologists as well as the proponents. None of them display any sign that they know how to evaluate the physical reliability of their own data and models.
This lack of training explains the heat with which they defend their views. They truly do think AGW is supported. Because their training in scientific rigor is so critically defective, they’ve no idea that the data are poor and the models are deficient.
It seems to me that the APS has fallen down on the job. A part of the new PR might be to publicly shame them. If the APS saw the light and publicly disabused AGW, the tide may turn.
"It doesn't matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true."
– Paul Watson, Greenpeace cofounder.
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."
– Dr. David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
"The data doesn’t (sic) matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models."
– Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
There have been zero twists and turns in the AGW science in the past 35 years. It was nonsense then as it’s nonsense now. Never once in all these years has anybody told me what is the “ideal” climate these charlatans want to achieve and why they’ve selected it over the hotter, colder, wetter, drier or whatever climate in the past.
These fools are driven by petty rivalries, money and power, just like we are seeing today across the broad spectrum of science (ahem, I’m looking at you, Fauci). 13,000 scientific papers were just pulled by a major publisher in what is a $20B industry of scientific publication. And how many billions (or trillions) have been wasted on this garbage, especially in the so called Social Sciences.
I’ll die soon, and I don’t see any potential for the rehabilitation of science’s reputation in the years I have left…
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (Q=UA(Thot-Tcold) and w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
When we consider what "the war on climate change" really is - mankind's endeavor to control 1. temperature, 2. Earth's many climates as if they were one, 3. the weather, 4. hurricanes, 5. forest fires, 6. tornadoes, 7. droughts, 8. precipitation, it becomes crystal clear as to "Who is winning this war?" The winner has always been, still is, and always will be Mother Nature. It will never be mankind. So, this so-called war on climate change (defined as above) leaves mankind as the embarrassingly arrogant and sole loser.
Mankind will be far better off when we spend our time, efforts, brainpower, and resources on establishing alternative sources of always-reliable and transportable energy, not because the CO2 biproduct of hydrocarbon combustion is harmful in any way (it is not), but because the day is coming when Nature's supply of hydrocarbons will be insufficient to keep up with mankind's demand for it.
We already have nuclear, and like we've done several times already in other aspects of life, we can learn how to mimic Nature's production of long-chain liquid hydrocarbons using the same science, the same but sped-up pathways, the same sun, and the same feedstock, and the same endothermic and bio chemistry - in a commercially viable manner. That's a far better bet than trying to make a silk purse out of sow's ear (windmills, solar panels). BUT, such would require intelligence at governmental funding levels, wouldn't it (sarcasm).
John...again crystal-clear thinking on your part. I agree with your assessment that "realists" on climate change have totally lost the PR topic. I remind everyone that "Climate Realists" are making no claim regarding climate...so, we don't have to prove anything. The alarmist are the ones making the claim that mankind is changing Earth's temperature significantly. Realist must stop shot gunning the message and simply demand the alarmist to show their claim is true using traditional scientific methodology and not some unproven computer model, political science, etc. etc....Don Runkle
John, Some years ago, I visited the Chicago Board of Trade. The mood was a little downcast because after spending money and time, they had created a trading system for carbon credits. It never started because it was a sham set up by those who would profit by nothing changing except wealth.
The entire CO2 scam was monetized by Gore and his body of friends and associates to raid the treasury and that continues today. Primarily Democrats have been partial to those who support their reelection efforts by contributing to them in exchange for legislation to spend vast amounts of money to lease land from farmers to build Wind and Solar Farms. Manchin was the deciding vote that created the infamous Inflation Reduction Act which was a fake name for the biggest spending ‘climate’ boondoggle in history.
Why can’t the educated truth be made mainstream? Because there’s no money in it John.
Perhaps rather than focus a campaign on the bastardization of the scientific method done by the alarmists create a campaign touting the benefits to plant life due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Many commercial plant nurseries add CO2 to their greenhouse atmospheres to increase plant growth. There are satellite maps from NASA showing huge increases in the sub-Sahara green belt in Africa over the past ten years.
"Tis a shame that that all the alarmists have to do is look around themselves. None of the promised environmental disasters from global warming (strike that, climate change) Al Gore promised in the late 90's if we did not "do something " about the burning of fossil fuels have even remotely come to pass. This despite a slow, steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
I also believe that we should focus on the ugly underbelly of climate change policy - COST. The costs are becoming more obvious, particularly in the UK and EU and the resistance is growing. Governments are delaying or cancelling elements of policy. (EV mandates, heat pump mandates, Hydrogen city plans,) Media attention to the growing costs is increasing We need to help it along.
Packaging, advertising, marketing and even incentives and subsidies are meaningless "if the dogs won't eat the dog food". (EVs, veggie burgers, "frankenmeat", factory grown bugs for dinner, etc.)
Ed: Yes the cost is atrocious, but their standard response is that "We are saving the planet so no cost is to great." Of course the fly in the ointment is that they are NOT saving the planet.
Ron Emmanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”. That is what drove spending for years. Crisis occurs, government jumps in and plays like they can help with money and growing the government even bigger.
Now, they create a crisis out of whole cloth and fund it in advance. Some scientists are willing to jump all over the grant money to help prove the crisis is real. This results in two things: 1) The crisis is determined to likely be real and may be getting worse. 2) More money is needed for more elaborate studies due to the possibility of a catastrophe. More money is found immediately.
COVID is a prime example because climate change worked so well. Now they are priming the pump for bird flu. The game continues because we are suckers and the media will jump all over any crisis whether real or imagined. Trying to solve this with better science is not going to work. The public has no ability to figure out the truth.
What needs to happen is we must call them out on their scare tactics immediately. Our reliance on honesty and integrity is our greatest weakness as far as the Left is concerned. They know how to win by scaring the public. We have no answer until years later.
An attack on the Left is required. We must go on offense and publicly accuse them of blatantly lying and deceiving for personal gain. Make them prove us wrong! That is what they do to us and we fall for it every time.
RE: What needs to happen is we must call them out on their scare tactics immediately. Our reliance on honesty and integrity is our greatest weakness as far as the Left is concerned. They know how to win by scaring the public. We have no answer until years later.
An attack on the Left is required. We must go on offense and publicly accuse them of blatantly lying and deceiving for personal gain. Make them prove us wrong! That is what they do to us and we fall for it every time.
I agree. I bet nearly all in this conversation agree with you. I'd like to add though, that we'll never be successful until we can get the media on side of truth, and get their mandate back to honestly and unbiasedly informing the public, instead of what they are doing now ..... peddling faddish ideologies and obscenely stupid narratives, fear-mongering, and disingenuously propagandizing politically LEFT initiatives, all of which necessarily includes out-right lying to the public. They are VERY good at this!
So, attacking the Left must include attacking THEIR media, which is most of the mainstream and legacy media. How is that to be done? So very little of the media is not owned by the LEFT.
thank you John for this well conceived & presented post.........which should be distributed by all your readers. Important, useful thinking. Clint
Clint: TY for your insightful observations!
Get Tucker Carlson to host a debate between the key spokesman of AGW and an eminent climate scientist relying on real science as regards AGW. As long as MSM publishes and promotes cherry picked and politically motivated "facts and figures", nothing will change. Fear mongering is how the unwashed masses are controlled and manipulated.
p.s. I would "like" many of the comments in this thread because they're excellent, but my "like" button doesn't work.
SM: Some climate debates have been done before. The problem is that they quickly devolve into disagreements about complex scientific matters — so it's hard to tell who is right.
I joined a ZOOM meeting on this topic ten days ago. There were three Australian scientists of sound mind who gave us plenty of food for thought, amongst which was
DON'T USE THE ENEMY'S TERMINOLOGY, so
FOSSIL FUEL becomes ORGANIC FUEL
GREENHOUSE GAS becomes GOLDILOCKS GAS (not too hot and not too cold but just right)
Your suggestion of abandoning THEORY for HYPOTHESIS is just right too.
Instead of being DENIERS we could become QUESTIONERS, TRUTH-SEEKERS, VERIFIERS, SCRUTINEERS or something better and so on...
As most people get quickly bored or confused with maths and graphs, keep them simple and few. I think it might be a good plan to keep up a drum fire of UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES - preferably by really important people - the more extreme the prophecy the better. In the UK we could start with His Majesty (when he was Prince of Wales).
As most people have not really got beyond the ideas in Al Gore's film- An Inconvenient Truth, show how this has been disproved in court. I have the Daily Telegraph's court report, if required.
There is a problem because the theory ( Sorry, HYPOTHESIS!) is universally taught in schools. A neighbour of mine was quite shocked a few years ago. He told his three granddaughters ( then in their early teens) that he did not agree with the Catastrophist Cult. They were nice girls at good schools but they shrieked in unison "DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT US, GRANDPA?" . Scientifically qualified friends of mine have offered to give lectures or debate in schools but have been turned down on the grounds that it would "confuse the students" because the curriculum and exams are solely geared to the official theory/HYPOTHESIS.
In the UK there is an organisation called the Campaign for Real Education which might help . It looks as if we are likely to get a Labour government shortly which will be stricter in this matter than the present Conservative government which I would class as only partially brain dead .
Edward: TY for the multiple good thoughts!
A model of a physical system makes an "argument" in the philosophical sense of the word and, in the case of the climate models, a deductive proof is available of the fact that this argument is logically and scientifically non-sensical. It seems to me that this proof should be used in the proposed PR pivot.
Terry: That's the p[oint of insisting that alarmists follow traditional science methodology when making their case. If they can not, then their position would be non-sensical.
In "Unsettled," Steven Koonin starts out by demolishing the proposition that climatism is a science. Then, as we all eventually seem to do, he digs into the details of how almost every individual climatist proposition is false. He was Deputy Secretary for Science in the Obama Administration's Department of Energy, so he can't be honestly labeled as a MAGA extremist. Before that, he was vice president and provost at Caltech. There's a summary of a 23-page paper about it by Richard Lindzen (MIT), Will Happer (Princeton), and Koonin (and a link to the entire paper) at https://co2coalition.org/publications/fossil-fuels-and-greenhouse-gases-climate-science/
An important point they make (and that I make in "Where Will We Get Our Energy?") is that the "I" in IPCC means "interGOVERNMENTAL." It's composed of two politically-appointed representatives of each of the UN's member countries. The "Summary for Policymakers" is approved, line-by-line, by those politicians, who have no qualms about inverting the conclusions of the scientists they appointed to write the Scientific Annexes, or of revising those Annexes without the scientists' having a say in the revisions.
Hi John,
You wrote that, "the REAL reason they object to following traditional scientific methodology, is that it does not support their hypothesis.”
A central part of the real reason is that climatologists have no training in the scientific method. That has been my (initially shocking) experience over the entire time.
And that lack of training includes the AGW skeptic climatologists as well as the proponents. None of them display any sign that they know how to evaluate the physical reliability of their own data and models.
This lack of training explains the heat with which they defend their views. They truly do think AGW is supported. Because their training in scientific rigor is so critically defective, they’ve no idea that the data are poor and the models are deficient.
It seems to me that the APS has fallen down on the job. A part of the new PR might be to publicly shame them. If the APS saw the light and publicly disabused AGW, the tide may turn.
Pat
"It doesn't matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true."
– Paul Watson, Greenpeace cofounder.
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."
– Dr. David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
"The data doesn’t (sic) matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models."
– Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford
VS: Yes, that is one of the main differences between a PR argument and a Science argument.
There have been zero twists and turns in the AGW science in the past 35 years. It was nonsense then as it’s nonsense now. Never once in all these years has anybody told me what is the “ideal” climate these charlatans want to achieve and why they’ve selected it over the hotter, colder, wetter, drier or whatever climate in the past.
These fools are driven by petty rivalries, money and power, just like we are seeing today across the broad spectrum of science (ahem, I’m looking at you, Fauci). 13,000 scientific papers were just pulled by a major publisher in what is a $20B industry of scientific publication. And how many billions (or trillions) have been wasted on this garbage, especially in the so called Social Sciences.
I’ll die soon, and I don’t see any potential for the rehabilitation of science’s reputation in the years I have left…
Frank: Think positively!
I’m pretty sure…
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (Q=UA(Thot-Tcold) and w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
Very many resources available on this site!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
James: Yes, but they are not about the PR that I am advocating.
When we consider what "the war on climate change" really is - mankind's endeavor to control 1. temperature, 2. Earth's many climates as if they were one, 3. the weather, 4. hurricanes, 5. forest fires, 6. tornadoes, 7. droughts, 8. precipitation, it becomes crystal clear as to "Who is winning this war?" The winner has always been, still is, and always will be Mother Nature. It will never be mankind. So, this so-called war on climate change (defined as above) leaves mankind as the embarrassingly arrogant and sole loser.
Mankind will be far better off when we spend our time, efforts, brainpower, and resources on establishing alternative sources of always-reliable and transportable energy, not because the CO2 biproduct of hydrocarbon combustion is harmful in any way (it is not), but because the day is coming when Nature's supply of hydrocarbons will be insufficient to keep up with mankind's demand for it.
We already have nuclear, and like we've done several times already in other aspects of life, we can learn how to mimic Nature's production of long-chain liquid hydrocarbons using the same science, the same but sped-up pathways, the same sun, and the same feedstock, and the same endothermic and bio chemistry - in a commercially viable manner. That's a far better bet than trying to make a silk purse out of sow's ear (windmills, solar panels). BUT, such would require intelligence at governmental funding levels, wouldn't it (sarcasm).
Russ: TY for your good comments but the war I'm talking about is the policy war. What policies are running our life: Alarmist or Realist policies?
John...again crystal-clear thinking on your part. I agree with your assessment that "realists" on climate change have totally lost the PR topic. I remind everyone that "Climate Realists" are making no claim regarding climate...so, we don't have to prove anything. The alarmist are the ones making the claim that mankind is changing Earth's temperature significantly. Realist must stop shot gunning the message and simply demand the alarmist to show their claim is true using traditional scientific methodology and not some unproven computer model, political science, etc. etc....Don Runkle
Thank you. Yes, the proof required of the alarmists is that they prove their case using traditional Scientific methodology.
John, Some years ago, I visited the Chicago Board of Trade. The mood was a little downcast because after spending money and time, they had created a trading system for carbon credits. It never started because it was a sham set up by those who would profit by nothing changing except wealth.
The entire CO2 scam was monetized by Gore and his body of friends and associates to raid the treasury and that continues today. Primarily Democrats have been partial to those who support their reelection efforts by contributing to them in exchange for legislation to spend vast amounts of money to lease land from farmers to build Wind and Solar Farms. Manchin was the deciding vote that created the infamous Inflation Reduction Act which was a fake name for the biggest spending ‘climate’ boondoggle in history.
Why can’t the educated truth be made mainstream? Because there’s no money in it John.
Gary: There is plenty of money to be saved by speaking the truth on such technical matters like Climate.
But there's no money to be MADE by those speaking the truth -- or demanding "Prove It!"
Perhaps rather than focus a campaign on the bastardization of the scientific method done by the alarmists create a campaign touting the benefits to plant life due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Many commercial plant nurseries add CO2 to their greenhouse atmospheres to increase plant growth. There are satellite maps from NASA showing huge increases in the sub-Sahara green belt in Africa over the past ten years.
K.J.
Ken: The reason why is that has not been shown to be effective — when the counter message is that the planet is going to soon see a catastrophic end..
John,
"Tis a shame that that all the alarmists have to do is look around themselves. None of the promised environmental disasters from global warming (strike that, climate change) Al Gore promised in the late 90's if we did not "do something " about the burning of fossil fuels have even remotely come to pass. This despite a slow, steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
K.J.
Ken: This is part of the difference between a PR war and a Science debate.
John,
I agree.
I also believe that we should focus on the ugly underbelly of climate change policy - COST. The costs are becoming more obvious, particularly in the UK and EU and the resistance is growing. Governments are delaying or cancelling elements of policy. (EV mandates, heat pump mandates, Hydrogen city plans,) Media attention to the growing costs is increasing We need to help it along.
Packaging, advertising, marketing and even incentives and subsidies are meaningless "if the dogs won't eat the dog food". (EVs, veggie burgers, "frankenmeat", factory grown bugs for dinner, etc.)
Ed: Yes the cost is atrocious, but their standard response is that "We are saving the planet so no cost is to great." Of course the fly in the ointment is that they are NOT saving the planet.
...and they are not acknowledging the true cost.
That too.
Ron Emmanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”. That is what drove spending for years. Crisis occurs, government jumps in and plays like they can help with money and growing the government even bigger.
Now, they create a crisis out of whole cloth and fund it in advance. Some scientists are willing to jump all over the grant money to help prove the crisis is real. This results in two things: 1) The crisis is determined to likely be real and may be getting worse. 2) More money is needed for more elaborate studies due to the possibility of a catastrophe. More money is found immediately.
COVID is a prime example because climate change worked so well. Now they are priming the pump for bird flu. The game continues because we are suckers and the media will jump all over any crisis whether real or imagined. Trying to solve this with better science is not going to work. The public has no ability to figure out the truth.
What needs to happen is we must call them out on their scare tactics immediately. Our reliance on honesty and integrity is our greatest weakness as far as the Left is concerned. They know how to win by scaring the public. We have no answer until years later.
An attack on the Left is required. We must go on offense and publicly accuse them of blatantly lying and deceiving for personal gain. Make them prove us wrong! That is what they do to us and we fall for it every time.
Jim,
RE: What needs to happen is we must call them out on their scare tactics immediately. Our reliance on honesty and integrity is our greatest weakness as far as the Left is concerned. They know how to win by scaring the public. We have no answer until years later.
An attack on the Left is required. We must go on offense and publicly accuse them of blatantly lying and deceiving for personal gain. Make them prove us wrong! That is what they do to us and we fall for it every time.
I agree. I bet nearly all in this conversation agree with you. I'd like to add though, that we'll never be successful until we can get the media on side of truth, and get their mandate back to honestly and unbiasedly informing the public, instead of what they are doing now ..... peddling faddish ideologies and obscenely stupid narratives, fear-mongering, and disingenuously propagandizing politically LEFT initiatives, all of which necessarily includes out-right lying to the public. They are VERY good at this!
So, attacking the Left must include attacking THEIR media, which is most of the mainstream and legacy media. How is that to be done? So very little of the media is not owned by the LEFT.
Jim: Yes, we must go on offense — but that means working together based on a focused PR effort. So far that has not happened in 35+ years...