"But my twenty year record on the issue is clear. I believe that climate change is real and is caused by fossil fuels."
You lost me, right there. If you wanted to say that anthropogenic climate change is cause by fossil fuels, well OK. It is beyond any question whatsoever that climate change thru the eons has been natural. And hugely significant. Think ice ages, for instance.
No climate scientist will say that, except for man's influence, there would be no climate change today.
That leaves you to mathematically demonstrate what PART of today's climate change is caused by man. Barring that, you're just another policy wonk, more talk than thought.
p.s. It wouldn't hurt to give a rational explanation of the overall effects of climate change. Climate change clearly benefits people as well as hinder them. Personally, I'm glad we're coming out of an ice age.
You would think he would use the more correct term of “global warming”. Using “climate change” legerdemain is in itself a concession. Nobody is worried that the earth is getting cooler.
Neiter term is correct or incorrect. They are somewhat equivalent to choosing between 'monkey' and 'primate'. It comes down to what information a person is trying to convey.
But I have found that the term 'global warming' has faded away, largely replaced with 'climate change. This is not an action of scientists; it is an action or marketers and politicians. Scientists are not on board with a blanket statement of 'global warming' but no scientist would claim there is no climate change. So, the 'influencers' can use the term 'climate change' with impunity.
They never (rarely) claim that all climate change is caused by man, or that it is all driven by CO2. Yet, many people presume that is the case, based on innuendo. Try to find where AOC or sailboat girl ever stated as fact, "All climate change is caused by man, and it all comes down to burning fossil fuels."
Excellent column, thank you. I’ve repeated this quote many times in other blogs, but it is worth saying here as well: “The breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively.” (Yuval Levin).
No where is this more evident than in the words of Piltdown Mann. As a media darling, he occupies a bully pulpit from which he incites rancor, deliberately provides misleading information, and openly encourages blatant extremism. Hopefully, his 15 minutes will soon expire, much like Lysenko, Ehrlich, and Carson, and McCarthy, and their “decision based-evidence making” will be exposed for the fraud that it is.
In some ways, the argument is similar to that of creationism versus Darwin in the early 20th century. Creationists condemned those who thought Darwin was right; they glorified the poetry of Genesis and forbid the teaching of Darwin in schools. Folks like Curry, Iglesias, Nordhaus, and the rest of us “deniers” wish only to be accorded the right to think; the right to examine the evidence and form our own conclusions.
I cannot bring myself to offer any kind words or gracious thoughts excusing or forgiving Mann and company's behavior. Their calls for censorship, castigation, and criminalization of those who disagree with him should be denounced for what it is: demagoguery and tyranny.
I like your play on the Piltdown ‘Mann’ and may need to borrow that expression, with due credit.
Mann is a pseudoscientist who doesn’t agree with the scientific method and questioning.
I've also seen Einstein's retort paraphrased as, "to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Mann uses lawfare in attempting to quiet any and all detractors. Anyone who attempts to obfuscate their “data”, cherry picked and flawed, by calling it “his” intellectual property is obviously hiding inconvenient results.
The phrase “climate denier” is used as a negative label to force weak people to self sensor into silence.
I like to call Mann and his buddy Jacobson, "nuclear deniers". They care lots about climate change but are staunch advocates for energy sources that do zip to prevent it. While being most hostile to the one source of energy that can actually replace fossil energy.
The problem is in need of a definition and one way is to look at the philosophical ideas people like Erlich and Mann believe. They are anti-life and anti human flourishing, these come from the ideas of Marx, Engels, and all their followers. Read a book by Leonard Piekoff called "The Ominous Parallels" and its premise is that the founding fathers using the ideas of the European thinkers and when Marx came along, he denied the idea of individual rights and a knowable reality. After the Civil War, the elite sent their children to Germany to learn and they brought those ideas back to the U.S. and those people went in to colleges and started teaching these anti-American ideas. Dewey, for one went to the public schools with the idea that children must be taught to obey and not think, rote thinking to pass tests and take orders.
I have long thought that the climate movement will eventually become violent, either by extrajudicial violence or by authoritarianism. This is not unique to them, as it could/will happen on the other side of the spectrum. But to add to your piece, I think you have highlighted one of the two broad, necessary components to lead to violence, namely the unwavering belief in the utter rightness and primacy of the cause. I do not believe this is a cynical ploy for power. Rather, the zeal stems from a sincere desire to improve life (to "save the world" as the phrase goes). But it is messianic, unbounded, reductionist, and overwhelmingly emotive.
But the other part of the equation for me is the obdurate refusal of the general population to change. I believe history shows quite clearly that societies at large cannot sustain radical transformation. Human systems have evolved for a reason; for all their flaws, they deliver a decent life. Moving to something new at a rate faster than the organic pace of socio-economic change leads to problems and chaos. This inevitably results in backlash to slow down -- or even reverse -- change. Witness all the attempts to radically alter society by the various revolutions of the past.
So on the one hand we have devotees demanding a relentless and accelerating change to our core energy and economic system. I would note that they may be correct in this demand. But it runs into the reality that the vast majority of the population has other priorities, even if this is one. So then the passionate seek to spur change by making emotional appeals. First it is aimed at education, on the assumption that if people only really understood, then they would prioritize this above all else. When that does not do the trick, they move to a fear-based approach as we see in catastrophism. If this does not work and fossil fuel consumption continues to rise, seemingly without end, then the zealous give up on the general population and blame the suppliers. Heavy-handed legislation is also a factor here. To me the root problem is the frustration that any true believer has with the realities of the world. From their point of view, society is not coming together to solve the existential problem, people are obviously misled by tricksy (thanks, JRR) corporate propaganda, and the forces of destruction are winning the day. More force is clearly needed or we are all going to die.
Note again that I am not talking only about environmental extremists. This syndrome applies to any extremist movement. It was a particularly prominent part of Socialism from 1848 through 1948, and it also applies to any number of reactionary rightist dictatorships from Tsarist Russia to Franco. It is extremists wanting to create a utopia, when most people don't agree.
The response of the passionate to the inevitable resistance is, sadly, coercion and violence. This is a terrible state of affairs, but my own interpretation of the dynamics of the system concludes that we are headed down this road with little hope of finding a better path. That often only happens after lots of suffering.
Really good follow up to some interaction over the weekend. I still lean toward not using the word “enemy” in this context and would rather take the high road, but that said, I find the absence of scolding toward Mann and other prominent name callers completely ridiculous, especially by those criticizing you or your team for less fiery words.
Get real Nordhaus and stop clutching your pearls. BTI is just a bunch of shills for nuclear energy and you still can't tell us what your plan is for all the radioactive waste that you want to create more of. You are reaching bigly when you try to accuse genuine activists like Climate Defiance of inciting violence when it was your goons that were beating them up.
Sometimes I think we just over think all this stuff. What from a physics stand point is the best way to generate and deploy power? Then explain that to the public the best you can, and lean on the technology you believe is the best to deploy. It seems most of the opposition to nuclear is from the heavily subsidized segment of the wind and solar industry and their dependent contractors. Data Center operators tired to deny physics explaining their we’re operating net zero businesses. For a decade they’ve been n the public relations business until their support for wind and solar caused a shortage of electrical power. Not one in 5,000 people know who the dingbat environmentalists are, what the CO2 PPM is, what the energy pie chart of world production is, or what anthropogenic means, just explain how we keep the lights on, and do it as reliably and cheaply as possible.
While deplatforming and extra-judicial violence are certainly unacceptable and important to call out and resist wherever they come from and however they are justified, conflating such antidemocratic behavior with the fact that "the climate movement ... propose[s] to criminalize and jail its opponents" or that "groups have formally filed a petition against senior executives of BP with the ICC alleging that they have engaged in crimes against humanity for 'knowingly causing and perpetuating climate change while pursuing activities in the oil and gas industry'" or that other "activist groups have called for prosecutors in the United States to charge fossil fuel executives with homicide... and [for] the Attorney General to criminally investigate fossil fuel companies" is a category error (and probably a deliberate ruse). All of those activities are perfectly legitimate, entirely justified, and probably inevitable.
Both sides might have good intentions but neither keeps it civil. Don't kid yourself buddy. Climate change activists are murderers and anti-humanists. Vivek once described them as moron cult followers. You were called a cockroach by Mann? Wah.
I understand Mann was featured in a study of prominent tweeters analyzing the relative content of "us vs them" statements. He won a top five showing in a league with Trump
It's fair to mention that this is hearsay as I find I'm not able to find the particular analysis
Call me old fashioned but I happen to believe actions speak louder than words. We used to believe: "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."
Now it's been changed to:
"sticks and stones may break my bones but ONLY words can hurt me."
Trump is an entertainer, a bit of a blowhard, and out of the volumes of his improvised or unscripted rhetoric, it's is easy to pick out odd statements that sound like he is advocating violence or oppression against certain groups. Contrast this with the brief, highly scripted, comments of the establishment puppets, like Harris, who don't really believe anything, they are just spokespersons for their handlers.
In reality we are seeing unconscionable levels of violence & oppression by the establishment against "their enemies" which include us serfs who actually believe we have fundamental human rights. Didn't see that in the Trump administration. I fully expect to see far, far worse if the "nice talking bunch" get elected. These monsters will destroy an entire nation and kill a million people, including tens of thousands of children while using such syrupy gentle rhetoric.
Speaking of grotesque environmental violence, maybe we should be discussing how the Biden puppet regime blew up $20B of Russia-Germany gas pipelines, leading to a severe recession in Europe and de-industrialization. While deviously creating a proxy war with Russia using Ukrainian chumps as surrogates. "We will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian", being their motto. A war that has not only killed a million people already, but destroyed a once great nation & people, and pushed us within inches of Global Nuclear War. These are sick, sick people. Psychopaths. I could care less about Trump's occasional meanie rhetoric.
As another example of the violent fantasies explored in cli-fi is the 2022 indie movie "How to Blow Up a Pipeline." From IMDB: "Theo and Xochitl, lifelong companions from Long Beach, California, a city riddled with pollution from multiple oil refineries, are now in their twenties. After Xochitl's mother passes away during an unexpected heatwave that she attributes to climate change, she becomes disillusioned with the sluggish pace of her college divestment campaign. Seeking more aggressive environmental action, she shares her thoughts with Theo, who is battling leukemia. Together with Theo's girlfriend Alisha and five strangers driven by their own motives, they devise a scheme to detonate an oil pipeline in West Texas."
I second your recommendation that the abundance movement not aim at any one party but build forces for abundance within each.
"But my twenty year record on the issue is clear. I believe that climate change is real and is caused by fossil fuels."
You lost me, right there. If you wanted to say that anthropogenic climate change is cause by fossil fuels, well OK. It is beyond any question whatsoever that climate change thru the eons has been natural. And hugely significant. Think ice ages, for instance.
No climate scientist will say that, except for man's influence, there would be no climate change today.
That leaves you to mathematically demonstrate what PART of today's climate change is caused by man. Barring that, you're just another policy wonk, more talk than thought.
p.s. It wouldn't hurt to give a rational explanation of the overall effects of climate change. Climate change clearly benefits people as well as hinder them. Personally, I'm glad we're coming out of an ice age.
You would think he would use the more correct term of “global warming”. Using “climate change” legerdemain is in itself a concession. Nobody is worried that the earth is getting cooler.
Neiter term is correct or incorrect. They are somewhat equivalent to choosing between 'monkey' and 'primate'. It comes down to what information a person is trying to convey.
But I have found that the term 'global warming' has faded away, largely replaced with 'climate change. This is not an action of scientists; it is an action or marketers and politicians. Scientists are not on board with a blanket statement of 'global warming' but no scientist would claim there is no climate change. So, the 'influencers' can use the term 'climate change' with impunity.
They never (rarely) claim that all climate change is caused by man, or that it is all driven by CO2. Yet, many people presume that is the case, based on innuendo. Try to find where AOC or sailboat girl ever stated as fact, "All climate change is caused by man, and it all comes down to burning fossil fuels."
All good points.
Excellent column, thank you. I’ve repeated this quote many times in other blogs, but it is worth saying here as well: “The breakdown of political culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively.” (Yuval Levin).
No where is this more evident than in the words of Piltdown Mann. As a media darling, he occupies a bully pulpit from which he incites rancor, deliberately provides misleading information, and openly encourages blatant extremism. Hopefully, his 15 minutes will soon expire, much like Lysenko, Ehrlich, and Carson, and McCarthy, and their “decision based-evidence making” will be exposed for the fraud that it is.
In some ways, the argument is similar to that of creationism versus Darwin in the early 20th century. Creationists condemned those who thought Darwin was right; they glorified the poetry of Genesis and forbid the teaching of Darwin in schools. Folks like Curry, Iglesias, Nordhaus, and the rest of us “deniers” wish only to be accorded the right to think; the right to examine the evidence and form our own conclusions.
I cannot bring myself to offer any kind words or gracious thoughts excusing or forgiving Mann and company's behavior. Their calls for censorship, castigation, and criminalization of those who disagree with him should be denounced for what it is: demagoguery and tyranny.
I like your play on the Piltdown ‘Mann’ and may need to borrow that expression, with due credit.
Mann is a pseudoscientist who doesn’t agree with the scientific method and questioning.
I've also seen Einstein's retort paraphrased as, "to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Mann uses lawfare in attempting to quiet any and all detractors. Anyone who attempts to obfuscate their “data”, cherry picked and flawed, by calling it “his” intellectual property is obviously hiding inconvenient results.
The phrase “climate denier” is used as a negative label to force weak people to self sensor into silence.
I like to call Mann and his buddy Jacobson, "nuclear deniers". They care lots about climate change but are staunch advocates for energy sources that do zip to prevent it. While being most hostile to the one source of energy that can actually replace fossil energy.
The problem is in need of a definition and one way is to look at the philosophical ideas people like Erlich and Mann believe. They are anti-life and anti human flourishing, these come from the ideas of Marx, Engels, and all their followers. Read a book by Leonard Piekoff called "The Ominous Parallels" and its premise is that the founding fathers using the ideas of the European thinkers and when Marx came along, he denied the idea of individual rights and a knowable reality. After the Civil War, the elite sent their children to Germany to learn and they brought those ideas back to the U.S. and those people went in to colleges and started teaching these anti-American ideas. Dewey, for one went to the public schools with the idea that children must be taught to obey and not think, rote thinking to pass tests and take orders.
I have long thought that the climate movement will eventually become violent, either by extrajudicial violence or by authoritarianism. This is not unique to them, as it could/will happen on the other side of the spectrum. But to add to your piece, I think you have highlighted one of the two broad, necessary components to lead to violence, namely the unwavering belief in the utter rightness and primacy of the cause. I do not believe this is a cynical ploy for power. Rather, the zeal stems from a sincere desire to improve life (to "save the world" as the phrase goes). But it is messianic, unbounded, reductionist, and overwhelmingly emotive.
But the other part of the equation for me is the obdurate refusal of the general population to change. I believe history shows quite clearly that societies at large cannot sustain radical transformation. Human systems have evolved for a reason; for all their flaws, they deliver a decent life. Moving to something new at a rate faster than the organic pace of socio-economic change leads to problems and chaos. This inevitably results in backlash to slow down -- or even reverse -- change. Witness all the attempts to radically alter society by the various revolutions of the past.
So on the one hand we have devotees demanding a relentless and accelerating change to our core energy and economic system. I would note that they may be correct in this demand. But it runs into the reality that the vast majority of the population has other priorities, even if this is one. So then the passionate seek to spur change by making emotional appeals. First it is aimed at education, on the assumption that if people only really understood, then they would prioritize this above all else. When that does not do the trick, they move to a fear-based approach as we see in catastrophism. If this does not work and fossil fuel consumption continues to rise, seemingly without end, then the zealous give up on the general population and blame the suppliers. Heavy-handed legislation is also a factor here. To me the root problem is the frustration that any true believer has with the realities of the world. From their point of view, society is not coming together to solve the existential problem, people are obviously misled by tricksy (thanks, JRR) corporate propaganda, and the forces of destruction are winning the day. More force is clearly needed or we are all going to die.
Note again that I am not talking only about environmental extremists. This syndrome applies to any extremist movement. It was a particularly prominent part of Socialism from 1848 through 1948, and it also applies to any number of reactionary rightist dictatorships from Tsarist Russia to Franco. It is extremists wanting to create a utopia, when most people don't agree.
The response of the passionate to the inevitable resistance is, sadly, coercion and violence. This is a terrible state of affairs, but my own interpretation of the dynamics of the system concludes that we are headed down this road with little hope of finding a better path. That often only happens after lots of suffering.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Thank you for this, Mr. Nordhaus. I'm sorry you have come under fire from the Doom Cultists. Be safe.
https://www.mattball.org/search?q=doom+meaning
Of course, when Trump accuses, it's really a confession.
Really good follow up to some interaction over the weekend. I still lean toward not using the word “enemy” in this context and would rather take the high road, but that said, I find the absence of scolding toward Mann and other prominent name callers completely ridiculous, especially by those criticizing you or your team for less fiery words.
Get real Nordhaus and stop clutching your pearls. BTI is just a bunch of shills for nuclear energy and you still can't tell us what your plan is for all the radioactive waste that you want to create more of. You are reaching bigly when you try to accuse genuine activists like Climate Defiance of inciting violence when it was your goons that were beating them up.
Sometimes I think we just over think all this stuff. What from a physics stand point is the best way to generate and deploy power? Then explain that to the public the best you can, and lean on the technology you believe is the best to deploy. It seems most of the opposition to nuclear is from the heavily subsidized segment of the wind and solar industry and their dependent contractors. Data Center operators tired to deny physics explaining their we’re operating net zero businesses. For a decade they’ve been n the public relations business until their support for wind and solar caused a shortage of electrical power. Not one in 5,000 people know who the dingbat environmentalists are, what the CO2 PPM is, what the energy pie chart of world production is, or what anthropogenic means, just explain how we keep the lights on, and do it as reliably and cheaply as possible.
While deplatforming and extra-judicial violence are certainly unacceptable and important to call out and resist wherever they come from and however they are justified, conflating such antidemocratic behavior with the fact that "the climate movement ... propose[s] to criminalize and jail its opponents" or that "groups have formally filed a petition against senior executives of BP with the ICC alleging that they have engaged in crimes against humanity for 'knowingly causing and perpetuating climate change while pursuing activities in the oil and gas industry'" or that other "activist groups have called for prosecutors in the United States to charge fossil fuel executives with homicide... and [for] the Attorney General to criminally investigate fossil fuel companies" is a category error (and probably a deliberate ruse). All of those activities are perfectly legitimate, entirely justified, and probably inevitable.
Both sides might have good intentions but neither keeps it civil. Don't kid yourself buddy. Climate change activists are murderers and anti-humanists. Vivek once described them as moron cult followers. You were called a cockroach by Mann? Wah.
Mann is more like a dung beetle; rolling up balls of shit and calling it science. The stink allows us to see what it's really made of.
I understand Mann was featured in a study of prominent tweeters analyzing the relative content of "us vs them" statements. He won a top five showing in a league with Trump
It's fair to mention that this is hearsay as I find I'm not able to find the particular analysis
Call me old fashioned but I happen to believe actions speak louder than words. We used to believe: "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."
Now it's been changed to:
"sticks and stones may break my bones but ONLY words can hurt me."
Trump is an entertainer, a bit of a blowhard, and out of the volumes of his improvised or unscripted rhetoric, it's is easy to pick out odd statements that sound like he is advocating violence or oppression against certain groups. Contrast this with the brief, highly scripted, comments of the establishment puppets, like Harris, who don't really believe anything, they are just spokespersons for their handlers.
In reality we are seeing unconscionable levels of violence & oppression by the establishment against "their enemies" which include us serfs who actually believe we have fundamental human rights. Didn't see that in the Trump administration. I fully expect to see far, far worse if the "nice talking bunch" get elected. These monsters will destroy an entire nation and kill a million people, including tens of thousands of children while using such syrupy gentle rhetoric.
Speaking of grotesque environmental violence, maybe we should be discussing how the Biden puppet regime blew up $20B of Russia-Germany gas pipelines, leading to a severe recession in Europe and de-industrialization. While deviously creating a proxy war with Russia using Ukrainian chumps as surrogates. "We will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian", being their motto. A war that has not only killed a million people already, but destroyed a once great nation & people, and pushed us within inches of Global Nuclear War. These are sick, sick people. Psychopaths. I could care less about Trump's occasional meanie rhetoric.
As another example of the violent fantasies explored in cli-fi is the 2022 indie movie "How to Blow Up a Pipeline." From IMDB: "Theo and Xochitl, lifelong companions from Long Beach, California, a city riddled with pollution from multiple oil refineries, are now in their twenties. After Xochitl's mother passes away during an unexpected heatwave that she attributes to climate change, she becomes disillusioned with the sluggish pace of her college divestment campaign. Seeking more aggressive environmental action, she shares her thoughts with Theo, who is battling leukemia. Together with Theo's girlfriend Alisha and five strangers driven by their own motives, they devise a scheme to detonate an oil pipeline in West Texas."