mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Will Trump Make Greens Smarter?
Features Icon
show comments
  • Spencer

    I don’t recall Greens taking this approach 2001-06, I can’t see them doing so now.

  • KremlinKryptonite

    There’s no chance. The Starbucks Marxists rage on their iPhone against mining and capitalism. There is no hope for those sad souls.

  • LarryD
  • Fat_Man

    Won’t happen. “Environmentalists” are not trying to solve problems. They are trying to enact the rituals of their pagan religion.

  • rpabate

    Note to TAI: It’s not about the environment. It’s not about climate change. If these were the concerns “alarmists” would back nuclear and hydro, both energy sources that produce no carbon dioxide emissions. It’s all about negative growth, reducing world population through shorter life spans. It’s all about creating a world government.

    Chrisitiana Figueres Former Executive Secretary of U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) at a news conference in February 2015 in Brussels admitting that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change” by Michael Hart has one of the best and most complete analysis of this entire issue.

    The climate change has given rise to “post normal science” best described by the late climate scientist Stephen Schneider:

    Stephen H. Schneider, October 1989 interview with Discover magazine

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    One of the best statements regarding the sorry state of the science was made by the late Hal Lewis when he resigned from the American Physical Society over it position on this issue and refusal to call for research into the natural causes of climate variation.

    Hal Lewis’s resignation letter

    From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

    To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

    6 October 2010

    Dear Curt:

    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    To quote one of the early leaders of the environmental movement, Maurice Strong:

    “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

    “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

    More to come. It’s way more than climate change a.k.a. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!

  • Andrew Allison

    Let us not forget that those jobs are a result of, hence paid for by, enormous subsidies from the taxpayer. Their net contribution to the economy is probably close to zero.

  • Disappeared4x

    The dilemma is that greens’ dogma is a commitment to low economic and below-zero population growth; homo sapiens is one of many species. Perhaps regulation reform can reset their Lawfare.

  • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

    That growth is unsustainable. If we calculate kWh/job from data here ( and here (, we find that to replace all hydrocarbon-derived power with wind and solar, we’d need not 360,000 jobs, but 6,750,000. (less the 375000 employed by the hydrocarbon industry would leave us at 6,375,000).

    Who here thinks there are 6 million able-bodied workers qualified to work in those fields?

    Even if there were, the labor costs alone for green energy are a factor of 18 higher than those of hydrocarbon. So we could expect around a ten-fold increase in energy prices.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service