Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Climate hysteria in presidential debates RIP (1988-2008)

In the hot summer of 1988, James Hansen gave his notorious and by now perfectly discredited testimony in front of the U.S. Congress in which he has predicted approximately 1 °C of warming for the following 25 years. It was an election year in America and the the first one in which the "climate will dangerously change" meme has made it to the presidential debates.

As this video reminds us, the topic was discussed by the candidates in 1988 (especially the VP candidates; thanks, Gene!), 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. Six times. That's it. Thank God. The accumulating years of experience showing that a panic is unjustifiable, the public's growing knowledge of the climate science, the 2009 ClimateGate, and the natural aging process have teamed up to guarantee that the climate panic hasn't been mentioned once in the 2012 presidential debates:
US presidential debates' great unmentionable: climate change (Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg from the U.S.)
Well, of course, I am talking about the debates between the two candidates who have a material chance to win the presidency in two weeks.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, is still promoting the climate hysteria. She has reclassified Barack Obama as a climate denier – welcome to the club, Barack – which actually means that she has reclassified her own climate alarmist movement as an extremist movement, next to the Nazis and communists, that has nothing to do with mainstream U.S. politics anymore.

I think that the "soft landing" is a natural form of slow death for this opportunistic, frequently mutating disease of the mankind. The candidates don't really know whether it would help them to mention the topic in one way or another so they prefer to keep it safe and say nothing about the topic. In 2016, once this hysteria cools down a little bit more, the candidates may already possess the hindsight that some of us have had for decades – and they will build upon the wiser atmosphere in the society – needed to openly admit that this whole hysteria will have been (and already has been) a completely irrational mass hysteria that the world economy has paid a trillion of dollars for (but it could have been much much worse).

Barack Obama gets something like C– from the climate activists. So you may imagine they are split into various groups that disagree whether or not a candidate with such bad grades deserves to be actively supported against a candidate who may be getting a D from them now – but who has actually gotten an A from Al Gore just 17 months ago, an "achievement" that Obama may have never achieved.

At the same moment when the climate insanity dropped from the top U.S. presidential politics, some journalists and activists claim that a majority of Americans – perhaps up to 70 percent – endorse the talking points defining the global warming doctrine. The only problem with this claim is that the study backing it wasn't prepared by a credible polling agency but rather by the hired guns at Yale's Department for Climate Hysteria and General Environmentalist Propaganda – the "faculty" at that place includes people like porn writer and train dispatcher Rajendra Pachauri and others. So you may be pretty sure that this "study" has nothing to do with the reality and the candidates know it very well.

We're not there yet but once mainstream America becomes really detoxified of this global warming junk, we in Europe and elsewhere will be looking at the other side of the ocean with hopes that our U.S. friends will kindly help us to detoxify our top-tier political systems, too (especially the EU-level layer in our case of the old continent) – in a similar way as they did in 1944-1945 but perhaps with much smaller casualties. ;-)

Via Marc Morano

P.S.: Meanwhile, Czech president and global warming skeptic Klaus is as environmentally friendly – when it comes to walking the walk or, more precisely, biking the bike – as you can get. In China, he appeared on billboards promoting electricity-powered bikes. He didn't get any royalties; in fact, it was a surprise for him he's been used. ;-)


  1. It is possible that the Yale study’s 70% is fairly accurate but that climate hysteria is just not a priority for these misled folks. What is certain is that the professional politicians in both parties (and they are true professionals) know that votes will be lost if a candidate brings up the subject. That is what really matters, of course, and you can be sure that the whole world is watching this scenario.

    There are some voters, including myself, that would vote against either Romney or Obama if they were to tout climate alarmism. Even if we are only one percent of the votes we could easily swing the election.

    I think what we are seeing is the subtle genius of a democratic political system. Let’s hope that the Europeans are paying close attention.

  2. It sounds nice, but I would not be overly optimistic. Remember Australian prime minister Ms. Julia Gillard - she promised that carbon tax wouldn't be introduced if she were allowed to enter politics. And she held on that thought until she got elected, but not much longer.

  3. If the Yale study is accurate? We have had plenty of polls showing that it's absolutely not accurate. Huntsman, the most died in the wool AGW loonie of the presidential race, was dispatched almost immediately. Newt Gingrich was surveyed out of the race for the crime of sitting on a couch with global warming manipulator Nancy Pelosi.
    Those two guys don't get booted out if 70 % of Americans endorse the talking points defining the global warming doctrine.

  4. I think Lubos nailed the validity of the "Yale study".

  5. "...she has reclassified her own climate alarmist movement as an extremist movement, next to the Nazis and communists..."

    But Lubos, it was never anything else.

  6. The Yale study is, quite obviously, politically motivated and, therefore meaningless. Peoples' answers to any question vary greatly depending upon the setting and how the questions are asked. In one study at UC Berkeley, a professor found that just by turning up the thermostat in the room he could consistently increase the “yes” responses by more than ten percent of the class total. Clearly, if you asked the questions on a frigid winter day you would get very different responses. The authors present no evidence of a controlled interview environment or of randomly selected respondees. The report is garbage.

    What counts is how people vote; that’s why democracy works (most of the time). You are seeing democracy at work and that’s why neither Romney nor Obama talks about AGW. You ought to be happy about that.

  7. I don’t agree. The validity of the Yale study stands or fails on its own merits. Pointing out the “qualifications” of its authors is irrelevant. Lubos’ comments about the authors may explain why it falls but the worth of any report must, necessarily, be independent of authorship. Of course, as I explained above, the report is obviously pure garbage no matter who wrote it. Attaching a bunch of PhDs makes it neither better nor worse.

  8. How do you separate a report from its authors, Gene? Carl Jung proposed that experimenters unavoidably affect their experiments. I expect that reports are even easier to bias. This would be especially true in a "science" whose practitioners have been proven to bias their data to meet preconceived conclusions.

  9. I remember four years when Obama gave AGW no mention, and yet GE cronyism, EPA assault on capitalism, and Solendra type direct public ripoffs, continue a pace.
    Too often silence is cover for the crook, easing his way.