So, CNN held a Climate Town Hall

and GOP campaign operatives recorded every second of the 7 hours for ads next fall.

People forget that President Trump was not elected because people mistook him for the reincarnation of George Washington, but because he was running against the Wicked Witch of the East, and it appears that he will be running against whichever of her flying monkeys the Democrats choose between in the primaries.

Once again, I will disregard Napoleon’s warning to never distract an opponent when he is busy destroying himself.

If the Democrats want to win, they should sent ALL of these loons home and start over with Democrats with some grasp of reality.


21 thoughts on “So, CNN held a Climate Town Hall

  1. More “thoughts” from the bubble apparently. I did not see anything substantive in the invective you linked to. Just a lot of smarmy and condescending name-calling.

    Your reference to Napoleon’s dictum is very familiar. You used it over and over again in the lead-up to the 2018 election which, if you recall, turned out to be a debacle for the GOP.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Debacle?

      Trump did better in his first midterm than either Clinton or Obama.

      Kamala Harris pledged to destroy the US energy sector by executive order on her first day in office and the rest pledged to outdo her. Wait until a price tag is hung on that promise in the campaign.

      But by all means, keep right on going. I wouldn’t want to distract you.


      1. “price tag” ??

        If you think the people in Fl. Ga. Sc. Nc. who just stared a Cat 5 (trump, gee, I didn’t know there was such a thing?) in the face are going to object to funding the survival of the human race, you are sadly mistaken.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. “Did you both to look at how OLD the data in your video was?”

            Of course not. Which is why Birmingham faced the wrath of Dorian. Like leader, like minion.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Old data?

            What has changed other than more recent studies showing the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is likely less than previously believed.

            Everything new only makes Lomberg’s assessment more true.


      2. The mid-terms of 1994 and 2010 were debacles for the Democrats. The mid-terms of 2018 was a debacle for Republicans. The fact that there have been other debacles does not change the fact that this was one as well.

        Of course, the point I was making was that your from-the-bubble Napoleonic predictions apparently based on a remarkable degree of being out-of-touch with political reality fizzled in 2018. They will do so again. In 2016, Trump was a magical black box. Now that we have seen him in action he is clearly what the Democrats will enjoy running against.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Sanders has it right and most people outside of the denial bubble know it. Utilities should have been publicly run all along. Unless we seriously address the growing climate catastrophe we are yesterdays fossils. This issue is second only to accessible healthcare among voters polled. Time for addressing it effectively is running out.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. You forget that the Wicked Witch lost because she ran a horrible campaign, particularly by ignoring Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as reliables. And she only lost those by less than .5%. And she still won by almost 3 million votes in the popular count.

    I am not too worried. The GOP circus of candidacy in 2016 was pretty sorry as well as all over the place. Hard to rally behind a crowd when waiting for a single standard bearer.

    Trump’s “trump” card is not looking too good for now. The one time bonuses are done. Manufacturing is slipping. Employment numbers are low, particularly when you take out the temps for the census. The GDP growth is below Obama’s.

    He is desperate for a “win” so the Wall is now priority one. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, actual immigration reform are going to take a back bench to the friggin Wall. He, as POTUS and leader of the free world, is involved in design and paint color of the Wall. Really? That’s like Putin selecting flower arrangements for May Day celebrations.

    True, the Democrats can muck this up. Right now, however, they are wrestling with debates and primaries. They also have a small contingent of “rebels” in the House. But unlike Boehner and Ryan, the Dems actually have a strong Speaker. That’s why Trump keeps trying to make the “squad” the face of the party. Desperate move.

    As the Chinese say in troubling years, “we live in interesting times”.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. “Survival is not at issue” Not for us.

    Only the passage of time will actually answer the question.

    It’s easy to be certain about an outcome when you have no skin in the game.

    The science is not in our (humans) favor.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What “the science” are you referring to? I am aware of no real science indicating an existential threat. Everything I have seen indicates we have a choice of adaptation and a hopeless (short of genocide) effort at controlling temperature.

      The great increase in CO2 required to drive the RCP8.5 scenario does not come from us, it comes from an exploding population accompanied by rapid industrial growth in the developing world, mostly Africa.

      Short of nuking them, we can’t stop them.

      Even then, the models the IPCC uses exaggerate the effect of CO2 by a factor of 2 to 3.

      I have 5 grandchildren and that is plenty of skin in the game. But a world of poverty and endless war is not something I wish to pass on to them, and that is really what we would have to do. (Other than simply not provide them the capital to develop, which is what the Paris Accord would do)


          1. Curry’s blog has research (by Kummer and others) that she cherry picks to support her position(s).

            And yes I read my own link, I stated it was even handed and actually supported some of what you contend.

            Not every thing is an attack on your position. I both read and think about what you and others say and post as my positions on many things evolves.

            Taking a position and defending it mulishly in the face of new information is intellectually dishonest.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “I am aware of no real science indicating an existential threat. ”

      As the science continually improves, the risk assessments continually become more favorable. As a result, I doubt that global warming and climate change per se are much of a threat.

      But if they were, plenty of mitigation strategies are available. And therein lies a “tell.”

      If we really were facing an existential threat, scientists everywhere would be screaming for big technical projects to avert it. For example, we might seed the atmosphere with reflective particles to block out sunlight and cool the globe.

      Instead, scientists are letting politicians and media make all the noise on this issue doing what politicians and media do, which is muck up the world by exploiting public fears to gain power.

      By their inaction, the scientists reveal they are complacent. So should the rest of us be.


  5. “I am aware of no real science indicating an existential threat.”

    Always raising the ante? Now the science is in human’s favor unless we can prove an extinction event is coming? Does massive suffering, megadeaths, famine, wars, drought, mass migrations and destruction of coastal cities not count? There is plenty of “real science” that such calamities are probable if we stay on the same destructive path.

    Whatever the sources of dangerous fossil fuel usage we have an obligation – as a supposedly leading and prosperous nation – to take the lead in the search for solutions and we should be doing that on an emergency basis comparable – at the very least – to the Manhattan or Apollo projects.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. First, we aren’t the problem and we are leading. Emissions for the US peaked in 2007 and have declined since, per capita emission peaked even earlier. The RCP8.5 is based on the developing world growing and developing rapidly and NOT following our example. Proper leadership would be to help them develop fracking.

      Telling them they cannot have affordable electricity will certainly lead to hardship and war. We can’t afford wind and solar, so how can we expect the developing world to forgo fossil fuels? The best we can do is to get them to use natural gas instead of coal.

      The alternative is to simply kill them.


  6. We are not the problem? The people who produce the most per capita greenhouse gas emissions than just about everyone else? And are second only to China in total tons emitted?

    And, I think you missed the point. It is not necessary that we be the problem. The point is we have the wealth and the ability to fund major technological improvements in energy production and consumption. We have a moral obligation to others – around the world and in the future – to do our very best. Instead of shirking our responsibilities as we are now doing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. We have a moral obligation to lead? Actually we don’t but it’s a good idea to do so. And we are.

      It’s just not the path you want.

      The path to lower emissions is to use natural gas as a bridge to nuclear and eventually fusion.

      It does the world no good for use to pioneer a path the developing world cannot follow. Even if we could afford to get a substantial amount of power from wind and solar, they are so capital intensive that the developing world could not follow that path if they wanted to.

      Refer to the Kummer article and look at projected coal use. Coal is cheap to use. Only natural gas and nuclear(unimpeded by the litigation costs) can compete. (Exception, the Congo River has enormous hydroelectric potential, but political instability prevents the outside capital from investing there)

      But wind and solar cannot power the developing world under any scenario. Being a leader on that path only makes is the first lemming over the cliff.

      Better we lead the way on a path they can follow, That means sharing fracking technology and nuclear power, sold to them at a profit, of course.


      1. Yeah, I get it. Moral obligations are an alien concept in your dog eat dog, Devil-take-the-hindmost Libertarian world you live in. But, as the people who have benefited the most from the past centuries of despoiling the natural environment we in the wealthy nations DO have a moral responsibility to use some of that wealth to mitigate the damage we have done. IMHO.

        Your entire response to my suggestion that we need to go for technical breakthroughs in sustainable energy production on behalf of humanity is to point out problems with existing technology. I guess that is based on the assumption that there are no improvements to be had that could make a difference. Oh ye of little faith!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s