Henninger on Democrats and climate

September 19, 2019

by John McClaughry

In the Wall Street Journal a week ago columnist Daniel Henninger described the Democratic presidential candidates in that marathon CNN climate debate.

Said he, “While it’s understood by now that Donald Trump routinely issues outrageous claims to keep the fact-checkers’ union employed, the Democratic candidates’ lurch into fantasy during the CNN town hall on “the climate” was something to behold. The only thing missing was a Texas cattle auctioneer to conduct the bidding.”

“Elizabeth Warren bid $3 trillion to save the planet, and Beto O’Rourke upped that to $5 trillion. Andrew Yang matched his $5 trillion and Julián Castro raised the bid to $10 trillion. Naturally Kamala Harris matched his $10 trillion. Then Bernie Sanders blew away the bidding with $16 trillion, which he said would “pay for itself.”

“[Most Democrats over 40] would most likely agree the sanest thing said in that climate town hall’s seven hours came from Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar: ‘I think you’ve got to be honest with people about how you’re going to get the money and what you’re going to spend it on, or it’s going to be really hard to bring along those people that we need to win in the middle of the country’.”

“Oh, them. She means all the millions of blue-collar workers whose jobs are in some way connected to energy production, and who will re-elect. Trump if their alternative is a Democrat nominated by the Sunshine Movement.”

John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

Thaddeus Cline September 20, 2019 at 10:00 pm

I fail to see with all the things going against your side on climate change .
Why it is that you can’t fact check science ?
It’s fine if your getting upset about political issues , either side can claim that the other side is wrong . And obviously we get no where .
But science is rarely about opinion it can change when more information is available or new facts become available. But pretty much it’s about the facts we have . And what they mean . ( am I wrong on that?)
If your right and we have nothing to fear from climate change . Then show us the science .
Believe me if your right I and most on my side got better things to do they get up set at something that’s not true . And waste time getting out of school or work to complain .
I just spent a ton of my retirement money on solar panels and a whole house batteries.
If I’ve just wasted all the vaccinations I could have gone on from that money .
Then please for crying out load let me know it was a waste , so I can worn others .
If you can’t for some reason than at least tell me why .


William Hays September 22, 2019 at 2:15 am

“For crying out load”, Taddie-poo! Time to go back to remedial GRAMMER school, but not on the taxpayer’s dime!


Paul Kenyon September 21, 2019 at 12:48 am

Thaddeus, great question. I’ve been asking that myself. Where’s the data? That is, where is the data showing that CO2 is driving climate. I’ve been asking that question for years. No answer. I’ve also been asking how much CO2 all our solar panels cause to be avoided on the modern grids where they are installed. No answer. Same for wind turbines. How much CO2 do these things get rid of? These are pretty simple questions. After all, we’ve been in this solar PV and wind turbine game for nearly 40 years or something. I’d argued that when we put in Searsburg (I helped put it in) we ought to put instruments on it, or however that’s done, so we could learn how well it’s doing at what it has been installed to do. Wouldn’t that be a sensible thing to do? They didn’t. I don’t know why they didn’t. I can guess, but that would be guesses. When I’m in a bad mood, I guess that they didn’t because they know darn well it’s nearly zilch. When I’m in a more generous mood, I guess I’m never going to find out and that it’s all over my head and that it’s all for the good because they, who ever they are, would never do anything behind our backs or be dishonest about anything and we’ve gotta save the planet. Guess which mood is the more realistic.
I’ve been asking the questions because when I’ve looked for data about the CO2 thing I discover that to think that adding 1.2 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere is suddenly driving the climate to a crisis seems nuts. That is what going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is…adding 1.2 molecules per 10,000. If the climate were that sensitive to CO2, we’d see CO2 driving climate in lock step all through the ages in all of the proxy data and in the instrument record and from the satellites. Well, so let’s look. Al Gore’s film showed a chart of what turns out to be a version of the Vostok ice core graph, about half if it, going back 400,000 years, encompassing 5 interglacials. It shows CO2 marching in lock step with global temperature, but there’s a catch. A close look shows that it’s temperature that is leading CO2, not the other way around. How odd. In fact, temperature leads CO2 (goes first pulling CO2 with it) by between 400 and 1200 years. So, okay, I look for other graphs. I didn’t make the graphs and so I wonder but they seem legit. What I see is one that covers the last 10,700 years. Both CO2 and temperature are shown. Temperature goes all over the place. There are 4 warm periods including the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods and The Little Ice Age that goes from 1350 or so to about 1800, the coldest period being around 1750 when there are paintings of people ice skating and having winter carnivals in London, England on the Thames River. You can’t do that today. It’s all wet all the time now, melted. CO2 is shown below in the graph pair I now have before me. CO2 wanders gently from between 255 ppm and 265 ppm like a sleepy sine wave. That’s like hardly moving at all. At least per this graph pair, CO2 appears to have had nothing to do with climate shifts. The graphs are from Greenland (GISP2) temperature, and Antarctica (EPICA Dome C.) Now, it’s not cricket to compare data from two different places like that, but CO2 is said to be evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere so, from that I think it’s fair to assume that CO2 can pretty much be measured from anywhere over a reasonable time period and it’ll apply to the whole globe.
But I’m not sure. I’m not a climate scientist and I’m bound to be misled or to slip up somewhere. But when someone like Mike Mann can produce a “hockey stick graph” that shows CO2 and global temperature looking like a hockey stick eliminating the Little Ice Age (and trashing that painting of the Thames London ice festival) and then refuse to let anyone see his data and computer modelling (scientists are supposed to (gladly, gracefully, gratefully) let anyone who asks have their data and computer models used in their research so their science can be, yes, questioned, and, yes, tested…I mean, that’s science, right?…something fishy’s going on. Mann’s statistical technique was shown to produce a hockey stick graph if random data is put in it. I mean, skuze me?And the IPCC presented Mann’s hockey stick as proof that we’re as good as toast for at least two of their Assessment Reports, (for some reason allowing it to slip into the back pages in the third and then out of existence, I think, later.) The IPCC Assessment Report climate bibles, never pretending to be interested in a thorough assessment of climate drivers, only man’s contribution (it’s on the first page of their website, or was last I looked…it’s been a while) run to 2000 pages each. I’ve had climate alarmists tell me to go find the data I’m looking for somewhere in one of the Assessment Reports. It’s an errand that’s sure to put a researcher out of action for a lifetime and more. But what’s so hard with coming up with the data that show that CO2 is driving “Climate Change?” It should be a piece of cake. There’s a 97% consensus of scientists. Surely those scientists did not allow themselves to be counted as a part of the consensus without having seen that data themselves. That would be unconscionable. The data’s there. It has to be. And, given how busy scientists are, it’s got to be pretty easy to find and present. So I’m fairly sure it’s just my poor research techniques that has not yet led me to it. Given that we’ve put over 200 billion dollars into climate research and the renewable technologies that are dedicated to deliver us from the climate frying pan, that evidence should cover about a single page, type written, double spaced with a large figure or graph taking up half the page. I’ve just not found it. I’ll keep looking. Here somewhere. Must be right under my nose. Something that obvious.
Funny thing. I’m an engineer. I was born into an engineering family. My dad once told me, “Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.” That’s the first bit of advise I got from engineers. In my engineering work later on there was a second bit, a saying I learned. It’s, “Did you believe what they told you or did you go look for yourself.” The suggestion, then, is to go and ask your own questions and not take what you’re told as truth. As a design engineer I learned third bit: that if you don’t have solid facts to base your design on, nature is going to eat your lunch. So, to put all these wind machines and PV arrays all over the landscape because they keep CO2 from being emitted from the fossil plants on the same modern grids like ours without that solid data would be kind of criminal. The data’s got to be there. Or poo’s going to hit the fan if nature has anything to do with it. And this is all about nature. It’s in nature’s face. Right up nature’s alley.
My research did reveal a little something else (if I can trust it) and that is that for 95% of the time over the last 12,000 years, Earth’s temperature has been warmer than it is today. Dr. Amy Leventer (Hamilton College at the time of her talk) gave a lecture at Middlebury College…on October 30th, 2014…and in the middle of her talk, with no introduction to this little tidbit of information–she was telling us about new experiments she was doing in Antarctica…she’s does ice core studies; that’s her career, her science–that it was warmer on Earth 5000 years ago than it is today. The students in the room were stunned. They’d never heard any such thing. One recovered enough to put up her hand and ask if Dr. Leventer would elaborate. She would not. So I went up to her after the lecture and asked if she knew what caused it. She said, as she was hastily gathering her papers and computer and almost running out of the room, “Well, we know what didn’t cause it.” And by that she meant man’s activities. There does seem to be some question out there in science land about this CO2 driving climate thing. And I suppose, thinking logically, that if there really is data, the data we keep hearing about, supporting the notion that CO2 is the Earth’s primary climate driver–and, therefore, that we can stop the climate from warming by stopping using fossil fuels–it would be held aloft, underlined in red, shouted from the rooftops. Instead what we get is this odd refusal of the Climate Establishment to debate skeptics.
Did I mention that skepticism is at the very heart of science…and that consensus has nothing to do with science at all? Consensus is a political tool. Seems to me that when you hear skeptics being branded as “deniers” (maybe I should capitalize that,) something else is going on. Something’s up. There is a stink in all this. The relationship between science and skepticism is being turned on it’s head, at least in the rhetoric we’re so persistently hearing from the primary news outlets. And that is an awful lot like what happened in the book, 1984, isn’t it. In fact, the odd change from CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming…i.e. it’s a catastrophe, we’re causing it, it’s global and it’s a warming,) which was at least clear and honest, to something as fuzzy as “Climate Change” which I’ve been criticized for putting in caps and quotes so we can tell it apart from climate change, the change climate has always been doing since the beginning, is also an Orwellian trick. One thing’s for sure, there’s a lot going on. This is interesting stuff. So, like I said in the beginning, great question. Good luck getting a solid answer.


William Hays September 22, 2019 at 2:27 am

Great post, Paul, but methinks it is lost on “Thad de Loon”, who is good at asking questions, but…


Rachel Williams September 27, 2019 at 11:09 am

Great post Paul. No citations needed in a reply post – that’s a typical ploy to try to discredit and when that person is not serious in exploring/researching things for themselves. “Do your own homework” is my response. And relying on Google searches? That’s laughable, along with Wikipedia. If one has not found the truth on this matter (fraud), one has not seriously looked.


Thaddeus Cline September 21, 2019 at 5:31 pm

Paul Kenyon first off your not sighting your sources . I can’t fact check with out them . So please provide all of them sir .
Second there’s a very lager amount of data on the harm any alternative energy system has . So I suggest you look at that first and if you find some data points that really show how harmful they can be please post .
A simple google search shows 7 results on CO2 causing climate change .
So I would suggest that you compare your sources to those on the google search’s first to save us both time .
I will when I have time go over your arguments point by point . And whatever better sources you send me .
But before I start sir . I’m curious why when you most know that 90 plus % of scientists say CO2 caused by mankind , is causing climate change . That you think those scientists don’t police them selfs on there research . Why they wouldn’t be doing independent study of each other’s research and results. ? And why if they did find things that showed the research was wrong . Why that would not send shock waves threw out the scientific community. And the mainstream press. ?
I’ve been reading Scientific American for about 30 years now . And I’ve been on one of there science cruise’s were I got to meet and talk to several top scientists in several fields . And I’ve been been reading the science section of the New York Times since they started putting it in on Tuesday’s .
The only things I ever seen where they had to change results is when they’ve figured out that climate is worse then when the original research was done .
What objective source is saying they are wrong sir , and if they are why aren’t the rest of us hearing about it ? I could see if it was a minor issue why that could be the case . But when you have all the scientists around the world saying the same things . I really wonder why , you don’t wonder why so many of them can be so wrong .
Dose the alternative energy company’s have more money to spend on convincing people on my side that we are are right. Over the oil and gas companies have more money to convince your side that your right . Do collages and research organizations have more money then those companies?
I’d really like to see any information that shows the oil and gas companies have less money to spend then the alternative energy companies. That alone to me anyway would be a bomb shell .


William Hays September 22, 2019 at 2:32 am

Sorry, Thad. I just can’t stomach wading thru your posts, done in really crappy English. Time for you to go to “collage”. May I suggest ‘Green Mountain’?


Rachel Williams September 27, 2019 at 11:01 am

Why some scientists remain silent on junk climate science –


Robert Roper September 22, 2019 at 3:05 pm

Thad, can you at least agree that when James Hanen, renown climate scientist, predicted in 1989 that the West Side Highway in NYC would be under water in 20-30 years (2019 at the most), he was wrong.

Can you agree that when renown climate scientist David Viner of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University predicted in 2000 that snow would virtually disappear “within a few years” from Great Britton (it’s been nearly 20), he was wrong.

Can you agree that when Hansen again in 2008 predicted that the Arctic will be free of ice in “five to ten years” (time’s up), he was wrong.

Can you agree that when Al Gore made a similar prediction about Arctic ice being gone by 2014 he was wrong.

Can you agree that when Nature magazine predicted Arctic ice would be gone by 2015, they were wrong.

Can you agree that when renown climate alarmist Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1970 that “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” (That would be 1980), he was wrong.

Can you agree that when Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any,’” he was wrong.

Can you agree that when Noel Brown, senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, predicted entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000, he was wrong.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...