“Mitigation has had far more attention than adaptation…. So thanks to various people who alerted me to a new guide to the often-ignored subject of adaptation….” (- David Shukman, below)

The failure of climate mitigation policy grows ever more obvious. It was 36 years ago (1988) that the debate began on the front pages of the New York Times and other leading newspapers, and look where we are now. A tripartite fossil fuel boom … grassroot backlash against wind and solar installations … growing federal budget deficits with Green Energy bribes … and a significant divide in regard to nuclear and geoengineering as ‘climate fixers’.

If the crisis is upon us, then the ‘climate dollar’ must go toward resilience and adaptation (R&A), not mitigation that has no effect on global climate for decades.…

“The climate movement is dealing with a host of problems of its own making. The anti-CO2 crusade will have fewer and fewer defenders as reality continues to strike back.”

The Climate Industrial Complex wants to tax, regulate, and subsidize, not debate (“report, block, don’t engage,” says Michael Mann). But Climate Week NYC, hosted by Climate Group, allowed (a precious few) alternative voices to alarmism and forced energy transformation at its more than 600 advertised events and activities.

The hard core was upset. “Fossil Fuel Presence at Climate Week NYC Spotlights Dissonance in Clean Energy Transition,” complained Inside Climate News. “Blah, Blah, Blah,” wrote Liza Featherstone in TNR. She noted:

… instead of being an urgent call to action, it is now the closest thing the climate movement has to a trade show, a week of fancy lunches and private drinks and flashy presentations announcing new investment funds, new green pledges from businesses and states, and thought leaders taking the opportunity to show their climate bona fides.

“The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.)” – David Appell to author, March 5, 2014

If temperament and dramatis personae matter, the climate alarmists lose resoundingly to their scientific critics. I have gotten to know the quite reasonable, friendly Roy Spencer, John Christy, Craig D. Idso, Richard Lindzen, and other leaders of the so-called climate realist, global lukewarming school. And Marlo Lewis et al. (CEI); James Taylor, Sterling Burnett, et al. (Heartland); Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, et al. at CFACT; and many more on the advocacy side.

All of “us” know the difference between straight analysis and advocacy versus ad hominem argumentation. Our side is polite … but tough on naked pleas for government authoritarianism or civil disruption by climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists.…

“Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized by the climate crusade. It sure is hard being ‘nuclear green’.”

Being active on social media with several thousand followers, I actively engage with my critics for fun and profit. I learn much, and those who have chosen to follow me (6,400+) might also. But I have also attracted scorn, some of the worst kind. My foes are typically wed to an energy dependent on special government failure. The ideological, deep-ecology, Church-of-Climate types spare little invective about how I am a threat to the future. Arguments failing, ad hominem often follows,

I employ plenty of analysis and link to a variety of sources.…