Climate Obsession weakens China policy

WSJ: China will demand concessions for climate promises

and they will never keep those promises anyway.

By tipping his hand on climate issues as part of foreign policy, Biden has put China in the power position on negotiations on everything else.

22 thoughts on “Climate Obsession weakens China policy

  1. John Bolton feels about China the way you feel about HRC. His opinion here is in line with yours in terms of
    “Don’t try” because it may not work. Meh.

    Every journey as they say….and someone has to take it.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I wouldn’t characterize Bolton’s “reasoning” as wrong. I think he makes some good points about the difficulty of “compartmentalizing” any issue when dealing with China. The Chinese leaders understand how to use leverage and will do so with the climate issue.

        I think he is overly pessimistic about the possibilities for success, but regardless of the degree of difficulty it is a task that must be undertaken if we are to survive as a species.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. ” must be undertaken if we are to survive as a species.”

          There is no evidence of an existential threat, nor is there any supporting consensus for such.

          It is politically useful to characterize it as such, but the reality is that there are costs to adaptation that must be balanced against the cost of attempting mitigation, which would require a genocidal war to accomplish.

          You’re smart enough to know better. Seriously, read Lomberg’s book and check his references.

          Then step back and look at the issue in a more balanced fashion.


          1. Don, I’ve gone down climate model rabbit holes with you before and you refuse to acknowledge any position other than your own.

            I simple choose not to waste my time. Conclude what you wish.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “Where is Bolton’s reasoning wrong?”

        Bolton reasons very well from the bag of assumptions that he brings to every issue. For example he assumes China will demand something in order for it to join in the global effort on climate. That is the way that HE thinks. (And, that is the way YOU think). China has every bit as much at stake in the global effort to moderate climate change as we do. More actually.

        What we really have in this piece is over eager sniping by a disgraced has been with just about zero credibility. The ad hominem fallacy in formal logic is an attempt to refute a statement of fact by attacking the person stating it. When it comes to rejecting opinions, the source is not irrelevant. In this case, Bolton is advancing HIS opinions about what other people will do and what other people think. The weight we should give those opinions is rightly influenced by his record and his known biases. IMHO.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “When it comes to rejecting opinions, the source is not irrelevant.”

          Of course it is irrelevant. Good grief, that’s just Logic 101.


          1. Good grief! Is the distinction between facts and opinions too hard for you?

            Formal Logic is about rules for determining True or False statements. Opinions are neither True nor False. THAT is Logic 101.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Is the distinction between facts and opinions too hard for you?”

            Apparently the distinction is too hard for you.

            True and false are not the only categories. Opinions, for example, can be based on fallacious or valid reasoning. The difference cannot be proved on the basis of the source alone.


          3. Uh, I never said that the complete evaluation of an opinion offered can be based on knowledge of the person offering it. I simply said it is relevant because, you know, it is. If John Bolton says . . . “Iran is a threat to our security” and I know he is yearning for a war with Iran, it is rational to challenge the source.

            You are the one who claims superior knowledge of logic but seem to think that statements of fact are equivalent to expressions of opinion. They are not the same. There is no real reason to debate facts – though when engaging with “conservatives” it seems to happen a lot.

            When debating opinions then, of course, supporting evidence and sound logic are more persuasive – except maybe to “conservatives” – than “alternative facts” and broken logic.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. You said, “When it comes to rejecting opinions, the source is not irrelevant.”

            I say it is (irrelevant), because rejecting or accepting an opinion must depend on the evaluation you bring to it independently of the source. That’s what Dr. Tabor was asking for, and reasonably so.


        2. Well, you are wrong. Rational people do not put a lot of weight on the opinions of someone known to be an opinionated jackass with an axe to grind. Like Bolton.

          As for other reasons besides the source I noted what a very questionable assumption that Bolton was bringing to the table. You can argue anything you want starting with false premises.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. John Kerry said: “The stakes on climate change just simply couldn’t be any higher than they are right now. It is existential.”

    That in itself is a debatable proposition, possibly a dubious one. That’s why climate change diplomacy has to be compartmentalized from other issues. It is to prevent foolishness from contaminating real diplomatic interests.


  3. BTW. I’ve been researching climate science (both hobby and motivated self-interest) for years and read Lomberg’s latest the same evening you suggested it. I found it to be as well reasoned and researched as his prior works. And, as usual, it was thought provoking if not overly persuasive.

    Perhaps the one who needs “balance” when taking in information is not me?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I added a link to the previous post to Curry’s analysis of worst case scenarios.

      I became interested in Climate when Jerry Pournelle sent me a copy of the First order draft of the IPCC second assessment report in 1994 in response to a comment I made at Chaos Manor. I immediately noticed that the current(at that time) version of the hockey stick started at 1400AD, conveniently excluding the Medieval Warm Period. The cited data went back 2000 years.

      That’s when I knew the IPCC as out to bamboozle the public.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Jerry Pournelle sucked me back in, her work with Niven produced some worthy Sci-fi. As a polymath he is more of a dilettante than anything else, but one hell of an intellect.

      As to the rest: no “bamboozle” just hyperbole (on BOTH sides) to what the science suggests is a very real threat. Yes, I know you disagree.

      Liked by 1 person

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 )

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