“‘An inability to tolerate views different’? ‘Rage reactions’? Can we apply this mental health standard to Joe Romm and James Hansen, not to mention Paul Ehrlich in his diatribes against Julian Simon?”
“This is ironic to those of us who have encountered angry neo-Malthusians trying to wake us up to the coming food famine (1960s warnings), resource famine (1970s warnings), and, most recently, climate alarmism. Does this standard apply to them as it does to all things Trump?”
I have resubscribed to the New York Times. I received a 50 percent discount, and with Trump’s upset win in November I wanted to better understand what the intellectual/media elite were thinking. (And the answer is … they still don’t get it.)
In the Letters section of February 14th edition, I encountered “Mental Health Professionals Warn About Trump.”…
“On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism…. We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.”
The UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a growing force in UK (and US) climate scholarship and related public policy. Given their relevance in the Trump era, a short history from GWPF’s website follows:
—————
The Global Warming Policy Foundation was launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords – in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
Introducing the new think tank, Lord Lawson explained its origin:
“Last year I brought out a book on global warming which (rather to my surprise) generated an enormous feedback, almost all of it positive.…
Upon the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, the UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton 3rd Viscount of Brenchley proposed a plan for fundamental reform of climate science and climate policy.
With climate disengagement becoming a clear Trump priority, Monckton’s guide is more pertinent than ever.
—————-
1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The President of the United States should invite the Secretary of State to serve upon the Secretary General of the United Nations, qua Depositary, immediate notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change and from all protocols or agreements thereunder, including the Paris climate agreement, in terms of Article 25 [withdrawal] of the Convention, which provides for a year’s delay before the withdrawal takes effect.…