The Long Goodbye

I have now said farewell to readers a bazillion times–from Examiner.com, from The Liberal Skeptic, from 3000 Quads and at least once from here. Here’s the appropriate reaction to this farewell:

I’m moving permanently to Shanghai and won’t have access to WordPress. I’ll still be able to comment via email, but my next post will be an open thread that will be my last post for a while–not forever, mind you, just until I take a business trip to someplace without a Great Firewall.

I wish I could leave on a note of brilliance or even vehemence. But honestly, the Climate Wars are at least on pause, if not over. In case you missed it, the climate lost. Lots of people are still beating this dead horse, but the alarmists cried wolf once too often and what James Hansen called ‘stalled temperatures’ busted them.

It’s a real pity. CO2 emissions continue to rise, and we won’t have this confluence of minimal solar activity, flipped AMO/PDO cycles and who knows what else going in the opposite direction of the secular trend forever. And it’s going to bite our children in the butt. My guess is still for 2075 when we actually are forced to take climate change seriously.

And I don’t blame the skeptics. In my mind there is a special place in hell reserved for the alarmist jerks who refused to do what was needed to seal the deal. In 1976 when temperatures started to climb, the environmental movement was the most respected on earth–more than religion, more than political movements–even more than Star Wars. And arrogance, complacence and misguided contempt for the rest of the world caused them to lose a fight that needed to be won. By trotting out third grade scare stories and boogeymen, by refusing to speak to people as adults, by treating opponents as criminals they led us to we are today.

Let’s call the roll: Michael Mann, shoddy workman, arrogant child, power hungry jerk. Go to hell. Peter Gleick, thief, liar and fool–you too. Stephan Lewandowsky, charlatan, pimp and village idiot–begone,wretch.

Nah,can’t go on. It’s too depressing. You all can finish the list for me.

I’ll toss up an open thread in a day or so and say a last good-bye. Lots of people I want to thank for their support and others I want to thank for their contribution to the climate blogosphere overall. Nominations for that category also welcome.

 

17 responses to “The Long Goodbye

  1. BTW, in case you don’t know, there is a post by email feature of wordpress. You simply have to turn it on in the admin section.

  2. By any measure- Mann, Gleick and Lewandowsky are an unpleasant trio of self interested alarmists.

  3. It comes to mind that Al Gore has become the Al Sharpton of climate.
    All of those at the AGU who promoted Gleick deserve a seat on that bus to hell, as well.
    And Trenberth- the cheerful hypocrite- deserves special recognition…..

  4. Screw the fracking protesters. Natural gas is cleaner, less pollution particulates, less CO2. There’s plenty of it. It should be hailed as a savior, a way to relax a bit and slow down on solar and wind. But noooooooo…there’s methane and mini quakes and now something called airborne silica. Give those guys a tree to hug like the old days and ship ’em off into the forest.

  5. Tom, I hope to see you on twitter.

  6. Enjoy China!
    FWIW, I don’t think “the climate lost” so much as the Easter Bunny lost. Easter Bunny solutions never had much of a chance in theory and now Europe has proven they don’t work.
    The climate “debate” has been strangled by it’s own alleged advocates. A climate sensitivity of 3C is no reason to do something that won’t reduce emissions. Screaming louder about the accuracy of the sensitivity estimate won’t change that. The debate is stuck:
    CS is 3C, build windmills!
    No, but will use natural gas.
    3C! 3C! Tipping point
    More importantly to the debate, IMO, are three things the center-left learned this decade- higher energy prices really do hurt economies, the welfare state is unsustainable without economic and population growth (and immigration doesn’t solve the latter), politicized science (resource depletion/peak oil, GMO, global warming, nuclear, social sciences) is genuinely and wholly unreliable.

  7. I agree, the environmental has lost it’s mo-jo. I mean, like gosh, when you wake up in the morning and discover that the largest environmental organization on the planet (WWF) is run by a Goldman-sachs alumni and gasp, so is the largest environmental group in the USA (Nature Conservancy) … well then I guess that means the Greens have become The Man.

    The environmental movement once had a few things going for it….. It’s analysis of rampant consumerism and gold-rush capitalism as a threat to future generations was spot-on, but just because you have the analysis right does not mean you have activism or the solutions right.

    It never could come up with a coherent plan of action. On the activist side, it was nothing more than leftist temper-tantrums. On the solutions side – well, we all know about Solyndra.

    The movement needs to get back to basics. It needs to win back the respect of hunters, farmers, suburbanites and people who have to drive a long way to work long hours at dirty jobs.

    In short, it needs to grow up and get real.

    • GregS,
      A good place for the enviro-activist industry to start its long road back to credibility would be stop the politics completely. Drop the high cost overhead. Start spending money on actual projects, instead of lobbying for government goodies funded by tax payers. Stop promoting apocalyptic clap trap. But I doubt if the current NGO culture, which is corrupt to its very core, would even recognize the advice at all.

      • I couldn’t agree more, hunter. Their obsession with politics is much like that of the religious right.. When you can’t convince people to do what you want, you use government to compel them.

      • GregS,
        Only big green is a LOT more successful and more destructive than the religious right has ever been.

  8. Take care!

  9. Did Tom know the jig was up? Good time to stop blogging about climate change and endorsing a carbon tax. You know I won’t forgive you for that Tom. I am soon to be back in the Bahamas with no worries about freezing to death.

  10. I haven’t visited this blog for many moons. What a pity that it shut down because it was one of the few places where warmists and skeptics talked to each other like adults.

    Tom, your prediction that everything will go pear-shaped by 2075 is eminently reasonable, but remember that nothing was ever achieved by the reasonable man.

    You base your prediction on the seemingly simple fact that today’s world is not very unlike the world of fifty years ago. Back then we had cars and televisions and telephones,. and computers were becoming commonplace. Therefore, tomorrow’s world will not be very unlike today’s world. Nothing major will have changed, and current trends can safely be extrapolated into the future.

    I beg to differ.

    Technology is changing the face of the planet so rapidly we can almost see it happen, like trees greening in spring and shedding their leaves in autumn. Techies joke, “If it works, it’s obsolete already.”

    I have faith in the future. I know that new technologies will make it possible for humanity to control climate, and I know that these new technologies will also bring even greater problems than the imagined ones we believe we are facing now.

    In the future, technology will be omnipresent. Couch potatoes won’t have to get up to get a beer from the fridge. The fridge will come to you. What we can say with certainty about the future:

    –the only thing that won’t change is human nature, and
    –our pessimistic predictions are absolutely, diametrically, irrevocably, and unequivocally wrong!

  11. Thanks for the assessment of Mann, et al. I am in occasional debate with someone I love who calls me a “denier” because I say the hockey stick math is not quite right, that the temperature adjustment trend has outpaced the raw temperature trend, and that “peer review” was used as a synonym for “let’s protect our own” (for example).

    I am a scientifically literate engineer, and want to puke every time some lamebrain activist touts the 97% consensus trope, says it’s OK to exaggerate because we’re saving mankind, or says it’s OK for newspapers to refuse to print letters from skeptics because “the science is settled”.

  12. Tom,

    Thanks for reminding me of the environmental movement. Going back a few years, it has been an opportunity that has been squandered.

    It was a good, moral argument that resources should be conserved for the sake of conservation and future generations. And that the environment should not be polluted for the sake of the future. Walt Kelly’s words resonated; “We have met the enemy, and he is us…”

    Sometime since then,authoritarianism took over. And hypocrisy. (I don’t see how high-mileage frequent flyers, and eco-tourists, can be conservationists.)

    Thanks, Jim Z

  13. I too hope you find a way to continue Tom. I am a frequent lurker here and enjoy this site. Even though many of you here believe that CO2sensitivity is twice what I believe it is! I have learned here! and that’s what matters.
    I have faith that by ’75 we will have the tech to adjust to adapt to what changes happen. I don’t believe control of climate is possible at any point, and remember its a balance of regions that makeup climate. Acting all in one accord is counter to human nature, and even if one region could optimize their weather, the energy balance will be maintained a could possibly create climate he’ll for some other region….lawyers would love it.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s