How Donald Trump’s Presidency Could Inadvertently Lead to a Far Less Powerful Washington D.C.

Before I get started, I want to make it completely clear up front that while I will be discussing the Paris climate change agreement in this post, I am only doing so to make a much broader point about where we are as a species and where I think we need to go. In a nutshell, I believe a large percentage of people on this planet posses a slave mentality which essentially revolves around authority worship. I consider this to be comparable to a mental illness. It doesn’t matter whether that authority is Trump, Hillary or the UN, the sickness manifests itself in the same ways. There’s this conception that big government bodies, or powerful elected political figures, are indispensable when it comes to telling us what to do or how to think. Too many people prefer not work on themselves as individuals, and would rather be told what to do by an authority figure. This is perverse, unhealthy and it stunts the growth of the species.

I’m not in the camp that sees these United States as hopelessly divided. In fact, on many issues of existential importance, such as imperial militarism abroad, crony capitalism, Wall Street bailouts, the two-tiered justice system and some others, I think most Americans are very much on the same page. That said, there are definitely certain issues Americans are emphatically and passionately divided on, and divisiveness on these issues tends to prevent widespread unity on the others. Climate change, what causes it, how to stop it (or even if we can) is one of those issues.

It’s important to read the rest of this post without obsessing over your own personal opinions on the topic of climate change. The reason I am bringing it up at all, is to highlight the different ways people have responded to Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement. We see both a productive response, and a lunatic response.

First, let’s take a look at the lunatic response (and my response to that response), courtesy of billionaire Tom Steyer.

If anything, that sort of commentary will push people on the sidelines of the issue in the exact opposite direction. When it comes to climate change, the views of Americans are very much divided by political party, which in turn tends to divide at the state level, which then divides even further at the local level. The point is, there are pockets of communities within the country overwhelmingly in favor of renewable energy mandates, and pockets vehemently opposed to them.

Communities can have a lot to say on the subject, so having the Federal government decide one way or the other should not be seen as the end all be all for this issue (or most others), but a starting point. Indeed, it is far more empowering to have grassroots movements take action at the local level on a range of issues as opposed to expecting the corrupt and unrepresentative federal government to do anything useful.

Cannabis legalization is the best example in modern times. The Feds weren’t about to do anything about it, and still cling on to the absurd categorization of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug with zero medicinal benefits. Us Coloradans were warned of doom and gloom when the people passed Amendment 64 by referendum, but here’s what actually happened…

For proponents of clean energy, the best action is to stop hyperventilating about Trump and get off your ass and do something. This is particularly important if you think the ocean is about to swallow up half the world’s landmass. If you really expect this, there’s a better use for your time than lecturing Republicans who aren’t listening anyway about how they’re “anti-science.”

Interestingly enough, that’s exactly what some communities are doing and I applaud them for it. I applaud them for the type of action being taken, and the lessons we can learn in order to apply the tactic with regard to other issues. Rather than endlessly lecturing others on why they’re stupid and dumb, go ahead and walk the walk yourself. Lead by example, not by coercion. If you want more renewables, rally your community and build more renewables. Stop obsessing so much about the UN, Donald Trump and red states.

This is in fact happening, as reported by The New York Times:

Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations.

By redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.

It was unclear how, exactly, that submission to the United Nations would take place. Christiana Figueres, a former top United Nations climate official, said there was currently no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full parties to the Paris accord.

I find that part funny. Stop worrying so much about submitting paperwork to the UN and just do your thing. Bureaucracy worship doesn’t die easily.

Still, producing what Mr. Bloomberg described as a “parallel” pledge would indicate that leadership in the fight against climate change in the United States had shifted from the federal government to lower levels of government, academia and industry.

Mr. Trump’s plan to pull out of the Paris agreement was motivating more local and state governments, as well as businesses, to commit to the climate change fight, said Robert C. Orr, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris agreement as the United Nations secretary-general’s lead climate adviser.

On Thursday, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, all Democrats, said they were beginning a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord.

“The electric jolt of the last 48 hours is accelerating this process that was already underway,” said Mr. Orr, who is now dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. “It’s not just the volume of actors that is increasing, it’s that they are starting to coordinate in a much more integral way.”

But in a draft letter to António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, Mr. Bloomberg expressed confidence that “non-national actors” could achieve the 2025 goal alone.

“While the executive branch of the U.S. government speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of foreign affairs, it does not determine many aspects of whether and how the United States takes action on climate change,” he wrote.

“The bulk of the decisions which drive U.S. climate action in the aggregate are made by cities, states, businesses, and civil society,” he wrote. “Collectively, these actors remain committed to the Paris accord.”

Cities and states can reduce emissions in many ways, including negotiating contracts with local utilities to supply greater amounts of renewable energy, building rapid transit programs and other infrastructure projects like improved wastewater treatment. Similarly, corporations can take measures like buying renewable energy for their offices and factories, or making sure their supply chains are climate-friendly.

Governor Inslee said that states held significant sway over emissions. Washington, for example, has adopted a cap on carbon pollution, has invested in growing clean energy jobs and subsidizes electric vehicle purchases and charging stations.

“Our states will move forward, even if the president wants to go backward,” he said in a telephone interview.

Jackie Biskupski, the mayor of Salt Lake City and a Democrat, said her administration had recently brokered an agreement with the local utility to power the city with 100 percent renewable energy by 2032.

Whether you agree with the platform or not, this is localized political action and we could use more of it. It’s an example of states and communities playing the role they were supposed to play in this Republic, but rarely do in our misguided era of federal government authority worship. It doesn’t matter what you think on the climate issue, those pushing for renewables in a more grassroots manner are doing it in a localized and empowering way.

Voluntary action is far more healthy and sustainable than bureaucratic mandate or coercion. These are the right tactics to use for change. More decentralization and experimentation is needed at the local level across the U.S. in red states and blue states. The key thing is we need to urgently move away from the centralized one-size fits all approach of hopelessly corrupt and entirely disconnected Washington D.C. Such experimentation will lead to spectacular failures but also and incredible achievements. This is, after all, how human beings evolve and learn.Which brings me to what may end up being the most unexpected consequence of a Trump Presidency (assuming no major terrorist attack).

The upside case to Trump’s election was always that previously clueless citizens could no longer ignore the facts and pretend that everything’s fine. Everything’s not fine and it hasn’t been fine for a very long time. The mask is finally off and reality must be faced by scores of people previously living in denial. While incredibly ironic, it may end up that Donald Trump’s Presidency inadvertently results in an unintentional explosion in decentralized political movements which effectively erode centralized power in D.C. and move it closer to the people where it belongs.

Now wouldn’t that be something.

If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

46 thoughts on “How Donald Trump’s Presidency Could Inadvertently Lead to a Far Less Powerful Washington D.C.”

  1. Decentralizing power away from DC is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, the left will only be for it while there is a Republican in the White House.

    Reply
    • And if decentralizing power supports re-localization of production, agriculture, eldercare, education and every other aspect of culture then we might have a chance for a survivable crash landing from the fossil fuel flight we are on.

  2. Surely President Trump is aware of the coming SunCell brought to us by Brilliant Light Power since they just added Mr. Bill Palatucci to their advisory board. One of his former jobs was on the presidential transition committee for Pres. Trump. This new invention will end our contribution to global warming. Check it out.

    Reply
    • Solar is good for 4 to 6 hours a day when there are no clouds. So you have to multiply the stated cost by 4X to 6X. Then there are the batteries for the other 20 hours. Assuming you can get enough solar to recharge them the next day.

      Intermittent power is not the solution.

      I like Polywell Fusion.

  3. This is exactly why Trump was the right candidate to vote for. It’s not about the next 4 years. Its about discrediting politics, reshuffling narratives, weakening the two parties, etc. He’s on track to the be most “productive” president of my lifetime…albeit inadvertently.

    Reply
  4. I find myself wondering if Trump’s stance on the Paris Accord will actually galvanize way more people to act on the climate change issue than would have otherwise. People are getting fired up about it in a way I’ve never seen before. Thanks, Mr. President.

    Reply
  5. My response to propaganda by Mises Institute article by Ryan McMaken, I think that Ryan is McFaken!
    Why are you lying? These are the most socialist countries in the world:
    China
    Denmark
    Finland
    Netherlands
    Canada
    Sweden
    Norway
    Ireland
    New Zealand
    Belgium

    Are you an idiot or a lying propagandist?
    There are currently 24 countries listed as social democracies. Many of them are far better off in most respects than this exceptionally idiotic country.
    http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_democratic_socialist_parties_which_have_governed

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/danielrunde/2016/08/29/social-safety-nets-and-developing-countries-a-chance-to-get-it-right/amp/

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare

    https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17256-pure-capitalism-is-pure-fantasy

    http://capitalism.org/capitalism/historically-has-a-pure-capitalist-society-ever-existed/

    Z

    Reply
  6. Oh boy. Here we go again, all wasted words, again. With all due respect sir, you need to study up on the history of mans’ creation back to the beginning but don’t stop there. Look at the cities and plains and all the peoples who came before us and how they met their doom; all scientifically found, studied and authenticated. THEN tell us God doesn’t have the final say in our weather, our length of days and yes, our eventual climate control. Can you fix it, change it, amend it? Uhhh….NO. It is HE who shakes the foundations of the earth, fills our oceans, rivers and streams an stocks them; makes all the little snowflakes, plants all the wildflowers, creates our caverns, hills and mountains and not we ourselves. Foolish man. He has it all in perfect sync just the way he wants it. I submit that He laughs at our toal derision and much mockery of His handiwork.

    Reply
    • Why don’t we look back on history as you suggest in reference to this. The first windmill was invented thousands of years ago. The first cars were electric. The first plane that Lockheed developed for the DoD was a hydrogen aircraft. It is the brainwashing by every government in the world that we need fossil fuels. Every government profits from it. It is the biggest conspiracy on earth. Fossil fuels are completely unnecessary but too many in power are getting obscenely rich and obscenely powerful from them so I guess that awards you sheeple of the week for your complicity in this.

  7. I find it rather amusing that, because of the Hitlerian beast Trump-p-p-p, fanatical revolutionary leftists are now adopting the same strategic goals that their much-hated nemesis Dr. Ron Paul advocated 8 years ago! Of course, secession in the face of a political nemesis is classical Democrat behavior–they did precisely the same thing in 1860. Look how that turned out. But certainly, decentralization is the common response to hopeless corruption at the center of the web. It happened to China after the Manchu dynasty fell — with much chaos from the warlords and Japanese, of course. It happened with the Soviet Union — with ethnic strife that simmers to this day. Who can tell where decentralization will lead We The People of the Lone SuperPower of the World?

    Reply
  8. Trump is right that the Paris agreement is a bad deal for America!
    I am solidly in the 100% renewable energy camp because the pollution and the life blood costs as well as the economic costs to the war for oil economy have destroyed us! This POS legislation is deliberately written in an evasive manner as to just how destructive it would be to America. Those backing either didn’t read it, or have a screw loose! America would be financing developed nations and in case you are unaware, we happen to have a $20 national debt! It also allows developing nations to continue increasing their greenhouse gas out put, while punishing America for not reducing ours. The fact is that technology currently exists and it is far cheaper for a nation that is still in the development process to simply start using renewable energy technology, whereas it is extremely costly for America to recreate our entire system. I still do favor that America does that anyways though at the state and local level which is currently underway in 15 US cities.
    1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.
    https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

    https://weather.com/science/environment/news/clean-energy-cities

    Reply
    • Intermittent power will not replace continuous power in a modern industrial civilization. Try doing aluminum production with 4 hours a day of electric power.

      People who believe in renewable power today are not cognizant of how the grid works. One millisecond of inadequate power and the grid crashes.

      And that does not even take into account the large blocks of cement every wind turbine requires.

      Will all this get sorted some day? Maybe. Until then the crash program to roll out “alternatives” is just a subsidy to crony capitalists.

  9. It is high time for the incessant lying on the right and left to stop! I’ve completely had it with the total bullshiters on both sides! It’s time to call a spade a spade! We now have a uniparty system of neonazis! Anyone who supports or defennds the DNC or RNC are brainless sleepwalking zombies! Both parties are in collusion to maintain the indefinite suspension of the Bill of Rights in a false flag government induced state of emergency! Both parties advocate for the nonstop unwinnable wars with no goal in sight and no exit plan which kill civilians by a ratio of 2/1 and cost a trillion a year and the mathematically challenged elite are spending $688 million to kill a terrorist when you do the math! Both parties back the crony corporate communist system with 190,000 corporations absurdly listed as defense contractors! This is not a two party system! This is a fucking corporate corruption central bank free for all for the elite!

    I love Mike Krieger because he isn’t one of the liars!

    Reply
    • It comes as no surprise that both sides are calling the other sides Nazis. They are both correct! As soon as they wake up, they will realize that they are also supporting Nazis! Looks like Hitler won. We owe that to Sorros in large part who looked back on the Nazi occupation as the happiest time in his life! Go figure!

  10. Decentralization was also prevalent in early American history and is currently in Sweden where hamlets are given larger roles in society which is logical since every community has different needs and desires. A little bit of knowledge is dangerous, I reference those who frequently point to Venezuela as proof that socialism is incapable of succeeding.

    Reply
  11. Why aren’t you discussing the costs that Trump alleviated by not engaging int the agreement? Also, discuss the details of the agreement as it stands. This was not merely an attempt to reduce pollution but to control CO2 levels by an international group thus eroding sovereignty and by the way costing America maybe in the trillions. That is why Trump negated our support!!!

    Reply
  12. Hi Michael, thanks for the great article. It reminds me of the following (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/zen.html):
    There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbours came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

    “Maybe,” the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbours exclaimed.

    “Maybe,” replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbours again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. “Maybe,” answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbours congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. “Maybe,” said the farmer.

    Reply
  13. Good article. Enjoyed reading it. Provocative. Gotta love the law of unintended consequences. Obviously withdrawing from this agreement in my opinion is a good thing. I’m not sure how Obama got around the need for a two third vote in the Senate, because if it is a treaty, such is required. Not to mention the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate the environment.

    Reply
  14. Whether its Trump pulling out of the climate accord or cities bullying up to divorce themselves from his actions, none matters in the overall scheme of things. The mass extinction even we are already in is being fueled by over population of both humans and the cattle that are needed to feed them. Puny efforts made by the US under this agreement might make some of us feeeeeel good, but is so far outweighed by the pollution of India and China, that it will only be a faint memory in the dist bin of history 50 years from now. It would be nice to think that the shift of power away from Washington to the states and cities might be starting a trend, but the crazy left only does things like this when its convenient to their cause. But as soon as a democrat gets into office again, everything will revert back to Washington as it always has.

    Reply
    • The population of the Earth will peak around 2050 and then start declining.

      If you want to accelerate the decline educate women in very poor countries.

  15. I have spent more than a decade working out a plan to reduce co2 in buildings. This plan is mostly built in my imagination. Actually this is a good place to start as it keeps development costs down. I had two major false starts on this project. In hindsight the project wasn’t ready the first time around and some players in the team didn’t qualify the second time around. I’m in the process of trying to build out a network in the non-profit sector through the Nantucket Project. My project is called a “World Wide Energy Efficiency Building Standard”. It has the potential to reduce more co2 than all of America’s Solar Panel’s combined and for a fraction of the cost. I hold a U.S. patent on the use of a formula that calculates the fuel efficiency of a house or building.

    I focus on doing my part to make the world a better place. If more people did that, the world would actually become a better place.

    http://www.Savenrg.org
    http://www.comfortableHeat.com

    Reply
  16. trump represents nothing but corporatism in much the same way as every last president represents it only he has a much smaller circle of fraudsters around him.

    he did not pull out of climate change to help anyone, but the effects are that common sense will prevail.

    the paris climate agreement pledges to stop the world temperature from going up 2 degrees. that statement doesn’t even talk about climate change created by man. the accord is a signed agreement with nations pledging to stop the planets temperature from rising beyond 2 degrees. this has nothing of scientific value, it is a pledged statement by ‘govenrmnets’ that they will attempt to fight god himself regardless of the cause.

    the true values represented by the climate accord is internationalist nonsense which may or may not contain positive effort but it comes with guaranteed profiteering for banks and financializers and some taxers. and there are also costs of administration which itself will be ghuaranteed as contracts to private beauracracies.

    in a word, it is bullshit.

    the more people, and more institions are necessary to ‘accomplish’ something, the more likely the endeavor is bullshit.

    if the history of studying human effort has produced any valuable bits of wisdom, it is ‘keep it simple stupid’.

    if global warming is indeed about to destroy the world, a complex arrangement such as the paris climate agreement is perhaps the worst possible method to stop it because , at its very best, the agreement will allow participants to jam up the behavior of other signatories by malfeasance.

    the larger a complex agreement is, and the more number of people there are, the worse off the effects will be upon the honest actors.

    if you honestly believe the end of the world is coming due to climatepocolypse you have every reason provided to you by human history to believe that the only true solutions lie in smaller more focussed groups choosing to go their own way and fight the effects by direct action.

    in true fashion however, religous like figures are promoting the idea that the climate pocaclypse can only be fought , like ghehghis khan himself, —-by a large arrage of actors. people of all sorts are easily cowed into aquiescence by the religious presentation of these ultimatums. however, in true fashion of studying history———–even the presumptino that large coalitions can stop an evil demon is wrong.

    the khan’s armies were stopped by an egyptian force of super trained slave soldiers led by a singular and very capable leader who chose the appropriate place with which to make his stand against the hordes.
    a coalitiion didn’t work in that case either.

    the climatepocolypse is a giant lie, but even if it were true, ESPECIALLY IF IT WERE TRUE, the lessons of human history tell you the only way to stop it is to a hope a small band of capable and independent warriors finds the right chink in the armor of the demon.

    subjugating the various warriors of the world to the rule of a single emperor is without question going to lead to a situation where the mistakes of strategy propropogate throughout the entire force of people working to stop the demon. ‘swarms’ are more intelligent in their results stemming from independent action of the agents, —-then massive packs of directed actors could ever be——against a sophisticated demon like the climatopocylypse.

    Reply
  17. i bet vw are in favor of the paris accords. how many car makers were engaging in deceitful fraud regarding their emissions while paying lip service to signing the ‘paris accord’.

    garbage. and garbage media supports garbage corporatism.

    Reply
  18. I’m all for local initiatives as long as they aren’t being controlled with strings attached grant money or other guidelines which end up capturing the project. Under the ‘climate disruption’ criteria exemplified in this article if some cities or localities decide democratically to invoke Agenda 21 lifestyles have at it. Those not wishing to experience this lifestyle can vote with their feet. However, if entire states are wishing to implement the Paris Accord this to me smacks of Big Brother telling the people how they will live under ultimately violent authority, which is open to all the failings of human nature and for corruption to too easily take place. The larger the government’s jurisdiction the less representative it is of the general population while special interests hold almost complete sway.

    Reply
  19. Completely agree with the basic premise of decentralization.

    “For proponents of clean energy, the best action is to stop hyperventilating about Trump and get off your ass and do something. This is particularly important if you think the ocean is about to swallow up half the world’s landmass. If you really expect this, there’s a better use for your time than lecturing Republicans who aren’t listening anyway about how they’re “anti-science.”

    Beauty of a dead on smackdown, Michael. Don’t even know where to begin about how corrupt the “scientific establishment” has become over the last 30 years. It’s at the point now where if anyone starts trying the “anti-science” crap on me about any subject matter I make them look like the fool they are in less than a couple of minutes. There are very few so-called scientists that aren’t for sale. If you’re for sale, you’re not a Scientist, you’re just another money whore.

    Global warming, which has morphed into climate change for reasons that are incredibly obvious to anyone with a modicum of street sense, is no different than the Russia canard. Both of them bury the needle on any good bullshit detector.

    The fossil fuel problem is very slowly but surely going to correct itself as the overall worldwide market for energy sources of all kinds develops. We’re only 17 years into this century. The Exxon-Mobil’s of the world are not nimble and quick unless they absolutely have to be. But they are much more aware than most that their primary product is now a dwindling non-renewable resource. So they’re now really starting to do what needs to be done to adjust to that impending market reality.

    It will still take another 20-30 years to get where a lot of people wish we were now. However, the primary thing that drives the oil patch is cutting the cost of extraction down to the last penny. Fresh water is absolutely critical to the drilling and extraction process and fresh water is now the most scarce and therefore the most valuable resource on this planet. As a result the oil companies are now one of the biggest drivers of wastewater reclamation technology development.Which is also critical to economically efficient biofuel production. So there are positive aspects from an environmental perspective as a result of same.

    As to Mr.Steyer. He’s a billionaire because Farallon Capital has capitalized on multiple investment strategies. Many of which relied on industries that are 180 degrees from being “Green”. Tom the look how Green I am high profile charity specialist doesn’t want to advertise that fact, and the best defense is always a good offense. But “Traitorous act of war against the American people” is a Shark jump of epic proportions.That’s worthy of multiple self-importance penalty flags in any circle.

    Reply
  20. Whoa!!
    People need to learn how to do research. Learn to get at the real facts.

    So really scientists are all on the take. Do you know that they make almost no money. If a scientist was on the take they would not be stupid enough to stay a scientist. they would become a politician or go to work on wall street and make some real money. Show some respect for the scientific community or keep your mouth shut if you are going to talk about subjects that you have no knowledge in.

    Reply
    • Of course they’re not all “on the take”. It would be equally ridiculous to claim that they’re some class of saints immune from bias and concern for their own financial interests. The leaks of emails from East Anglia showed that little cliques of them were behaving like junior high school girls working to exclude and harm the careers of anyone who disagrees with them. There wasn’t a whole lot of dispassionate concern for the truth revealed in their interactions.

    • “So really scientists are all on the take.”

      Not “all”, John, just far too many. The competition for Grant money and old fashioned greed and avarice ensure that reality. If there is anything that exemplifies the prevalence of greed and avarice in the western scientific community it’s the multi billion dollar a year cancer industry. Which has provided a very good living for thousands of PhD’s who still to this day purposefully focus on treating the symptoms, instead of the causes of cancer, because that’s what enables the money spicket to keep flowing.

      “Show some respect for the scientific community”.

      I’ve never asked a scientist for their respect. Nor do I owe the scientific community any special type of respect. I was raised to have good manners, be polite to all people, and act in a respectful manner. A manner of acting that a hell of a lot of scientists I’ve interacted with over the years should adopt. But their self-importance doesn’t allow for that, so they act like a pedantic putz most of the time.

      Case in point:

      “or keep your mouth shut if you are going to talk about subjects that you have no knowledge in.”

      OK. Please enlighten me with your knowledge. How does anthropogenic global warming theory explain the medieval warm period?

  21. Well, Mike, Trump himself started the decentralizing as a large part of the intent of the “Paris Accord” was to set up supranational organizations governing individual nations. Without the U.S. to play the sucker in that particular game, are China and India going to play guilt ridden sugar daddy to third world countries? Not likely. They’ll have to work out their own problems. More decentralization.

    Reply
    • I read the same e-mails you did. First off I quickly scanned through them and quickly forgot them because I have better things to do with my life. Like actually accomplish the task of reducing CO2. The scientists were just worried how the deniers were going to spin the truth into conspiracies.

      I thought this was a place where enlightened people go to try and identify problems in our world to be solved. I guess I was wrong.

      If you are coming to this web site you should be smart enough to know how to research the truth. The educational system is definitely broken. It relies heavily on memorization. The one who learns to memorize best gets the top test scores. When I read replies here it helps me to realize people lack reasoning skills. They don’t teach inductive and deductive reasoning enough. People spend to much time reading articles and making a quick judgement. Often popularity plays a more important part in there reasoning. Of course charisma too. Hitler was very charismatic, many followed him.

      The internet is an excellent choice for education but reasoning skills are extremely important, most of what is published in simply untrue. This countries biggest problem is in the people’s ability to reason properly. They simply lack the skill set.

  22. If 100 people had read those emails I would guess that 75-90 of them would have come away shocked at how juvenile and unprofessional the behavior of those scientists was. The best thing for those scientists was that the mainstream media refused to touch the story.

    The way that those scientists behaved was very similar to what you could read in the book The Hockey Stick Illusion which was the story of how Steve McIntyre, a canadian mining engineer debunked Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick graph. The only guy in that story behaving like a scientist was the mining engineer not the titled scientists. Mann did everything possible to avoid giving out the data and information about how it was processed. So much for open inquiry and duplicating results. Eventually it’s confirmed why, because his study was an abject fraud. Another scientist named Briffa was found to have based a study proclaiming past and future climate fluctuations on a single tree in Siberia. Another was found to have reversed the results of the data of studies of sediments to achieve a result supporting the theory of AGW when the actual data would have opposed it.

    But to me, the biggest eye opener was that when McIntyre first tried to satisfy his curiosity about some studies and asked the editors of journals in the climate science field for the data and information to try to duplicate the results claimed, one editor told him that no reviewer had ever asked for them. The concept of peer review which I, as an engineer and not a scientist, had always just assumed meant a rigorous review turns out to often mean quite a bit less.

    Yes, I think this is a place where people can go to discuss problems and try to understand them better. Part of that is being willing to encounter views different from your own without veering off into broad brush denunciations and seguing into talk of Hitler.

    Reply
    • I have read quite a few of your comments and it appears you are a smart guy, so as a climate disruption causation skeptic I welcome your expressed point that there is indeed a debate taking place within the scientific community regarding the causes of climate warming.

      In this day and age of ‘weaponized’ everything. including and especially science, to get anywhere near the truth of a matter I use mainly two axioms of inquiry; cui bono and follow the money. When applied to the controversy on climate science my search results have pointed to two axis of intent. The first is as a control mechanism for the indoctrination and manipulation of the general population towards a pre planned societal construct that suits those at the highest levels who plan such outcomes. The second is the desire of the highest levels of society for a planetary universal source of taxation centered around taxing CO2 emissions because if global warming should turn out to be largely a natural effect the case for imposing such a universal tax and supporting structure becomes much more difficult to justify in mitigating planetary warming.

      Other points of interest spin off from this central thesis such as the human destruction of the planetary ecosystem by pollution and the rapacious rate with which our monetary and capitalist interwoven systems are eating through the natural resources of our planet. Every year more resources must go to produce product and product to landfill to maintain this ponzi like economic system. This points to the desire in some circles to drastically reduce the human population rather than change the parameters under which the human economy operates. All these parts fit together quite nicely if one views the forest rather than just the different species that make up that forest, with the reduction in human inquiry into how to manage our existence here severely curtailed by those who orchestrate society’s construction and direction in their own interests.This is exemplified by the Paris Agreement entered into by their political sycophants.

  23. Getting into a debate on Global Warming here and teaching reasoning skills to help you comprehend is beyond a few posts here. Its kind of like asking a black belt to teach you what he knows of karate in 10 minutes.

    It isn’t going to work.

    I never put serious thought into teaching a reasoning class. Reasoning has helped me to accomplish a lot in life. Technically I have achieved more success than I ever would have imagined when I was younger. Reasoning has been a huge part of that.

    But I am very busy with many projects that need to get completed. The last thing I need is to add one more to my plate.

    Reply
  24. One shouldn’t posture about reasoning skills while refusing to look at a book, not a web site but a book that presents information you apparently don’t have because it conflicts with your point of view. It makes the posturing risible.

    Reply
  25. I knew you guys would drag me into this. Here we go on lesson’s in reasoning. I am going to squeeze in time so you better appreciate it.

    Lesson number 1) It is who you learn from the counts. Technically speaking you want to learn from the best to become the best.

    My credentials? Check out my website ComfortableHeat.com. At one time I was a Goat (Greatest of All Time) in designing and building Radiant Heating Systems. Lesson number 1 was the biggest reason I got there. I learned from the best. I also put my own life in my hands many times as a Adrenalin Junky. I”m 52 years old and I drop in and skateboard bowls still. If one of my theory’s is wrong and I’m 16ft up on a vert ramp, it is going to be very painful. So I’m sure that my theories are accurate before I drop into a concrete bowl. At 52, I dont enjoy falling as much as I did when I was 22.

    Lesson 2) Theory’s are never absolute fact. It is important to keep an open mind because based on new information you have to change your theory’s. Basically look at every fact as a Theory with odds. If the theory has a 99% chance of being true, it is to be counted on with more weight then a Theory that has a 10% chance of being true.

    Do you guys want me to go on?

    Reply
  26. BRF,

    There is no debate in the scientific community and there hasn’t been in over 10 years. They believe solidly that the earth is warming and man is the cause. Scientists have moved long past debating and on to finding solutions to the problem.

    The debate is among a few fringe scientists and the public or non-scientific community on the internet and in politics.

    With more lessons in reasoning skills you will be drawing the same conclusions.

    Reply
  27. Lesson number 3) It takes a lot of reasoning and brain power to draw a proper conclusion. It is better to concentrate on knowing a lot about a few subjects then a little about everything,

    A lot of people try and learn a little bit about everything. So there expertise is spread thin. They end up making judgments about a bunch of different subjects. There knowledge is thin and there judgement is poor because of it.

    With a bunch of these people working together, the judgments become a popularity contest. The internet has become this popularity contest between people that don’t know enough about the subject to fully understand what they are talking about. Since the “know it alls” chime in on all subjects they out number the experts. This drowns out information from the real experts that you should be listening too.

    In order to make a proper judgement it takes time and energy to properly research the facts. Give advice on a few subjects that you know well and shut your mouth on the things you know little about. Do this and the internet will be a more valuable educational tool.

    Reply

Leave a Reply