Reaction to Trump taunting "Drop Dead, World!" from @wattsupwiththat

Over at WUWT, eight of the nine most recent articles are celebrating Trump's decision to abdicate his responsibilities to people in the USA (see here). As you'll have heard, he has declared his intention to isolate the USA even further than he has already. In particular, at WUWT they are celebrating Trump declaring that he refuses to fulfil US obligations to mitigate global warming.

Let America and the world go jump, is the cry at WUWT. We live for the moment. If tomorrow we drown, starve or burn, at least we'll have shown those libtards what we think of them. We don't give a damn about people in far flung places, or the fact that the USA is responsible for more global warming to date than any other country on Earth.

(The picture shows how Trump's recklessness is viewed elsewhere in the world, by Der Spiegel. H/t Brian L Kahn.)

Alarmism from professional disinformer Paul Driessen

The most recent WUWT article (archived here) was by a professional disinformer, Paul "bring back smog" Driessen. He's paid to write disinformation for an extremist right wing propaganda machine in the USA, CFACT. Paul churns out lies day after day for a living and Anthony lets him use WUWT as a freeby publisher. (I don't think he would pay Anthony an advertising fee when it's probably not necessary. Anthony plays the role of useful idiot for CFACT.)

Here's an example of Paul Driessen's hogwash:

President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.

From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.

Notice CFACT is a right wing authoritarian organisation. It is pro-Trump, the demagogue. Deniers are in raptures that finally, though not within his promised 100 days, finally, Donald Trump has kept a promise. They were getting edgy, with no "repeal and replace" in place to kill off all the people who were so reckless as to get sick or have an accident. No wall to keep everyone from moving to Mexico; no tax deductions for the rich paid by the poor; no stopping of visitors from the middle east and other places that scare the pants off racist xenophobic right wingers; and no stopping climate science yet, though the smog lovers are encouraged by the dismantling of the EPA and delighted they are now allowed to pollute waterways to their hearts content.

Notice too the mixed up second paragraph. Paul doesn't say who made suggestions that "Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era". It certainly isn't supported by climate science so I'd say he just made that up out of thin air. It makes a good lie and who at WUWT would question it. After all, wasn't Greenland so green and balmy they grew pawpaws there?

Then there's Paul's disbelief that we can control the amount of carbon dioxide we pour into the air each year. He's got to be faking that. No-one could be that ignorant about the current shift to renewables.  It looks as if he's a greenhouse gas denier too, hinting that CO2 has nothing to do with climate, though he doesn't say that outright.

How about him claiming that "the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria". He must know that's not true. In all his years of fabricating climate propaganda I find it hard to believe that he hasn't come across some paleoclimate studies, and hasn't heard of surface weather stations, satellites, or Argo floats. And if he really and truly thinks that hysteria is a scientific instrument (or maybe that it causes weather to change), then he's pretty well certifiable, wouldn't you say?

There's lots more. Paul Driessen is not merely a shameless liar, he is a raving ratbag alarmist, claiming that modernising the energy sector would have this result: "Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit."

Is the world better off with Trump on the outer?

Anthony Watts was very daring in a couple of the articles he copied and pasted. I say that not because of his fans, for whom no rational article would dent their insane rejection of climate facts, but because they would inform stray lurkers who unwittingly stumble upon WUWT without knowing beforehand that it's a conspiracy blog.

One of them was a commentary article by Luke Kemp  in Nature Climate Change. Anthony only copied and pasted a fairly short excerpt (archived here), which included this comment on a table presented, about a "rogue US":

The modified matrix of risks posed by a recalcitrant US administration summarized in Table 1, and explored in detail below, highlights the paradox of US participation: a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the agreement.

In the full article, Luke Kemp suggested the world may be better off with the US federal government out of the way, rather than having them, for example, water down the Paris agreement. I see that he put forward a notion I wrote about in my last but one article, too, saying:

There are positive opportunities that could arise from US withdrawal. One is the re-emergence of climate trade measures, such as border carbon adjustments. The idea of instituting a carbon tax of 1–3% on US imports in the event of withdrawal was raised by former French presidential nominee Nicholas Sarkozy13. Trade measures are risky maneuverers that could trigger negative impacts such as a trade war14. However, trade measures have tended to be a key component of successful international agreements, such as the 1987 Montreal Protocol15, and institutions like the World Trade Organisation. Even the occurrence of a trade war or other perverse effects would likely result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and greater political salience.

A trade war is preferable to a world war, and may prevent one.

I feel a little sick

Counters to the argument that the US is better out than in while Trump is President can be found all over. On the one hand Trump's actions have definitely spurred people and many countries to make a greater effort to mitigate global warming. Conservative columnist at the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker, wrote about how US cities and states are forming alliances and committing to action. On the other hand, Donald Trump is pitting himself against the entire world, and wrecking not just the scientific fabric of the USA but the environment we need for our very survival. Trump could even be considered an existential risk.

Another article worth reading is by Andrew Freedman and Maria Gallucci at Mashable. They quote the renowned climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer:

Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University, said that Trump’s decision and the echoes it will send throughout the business and international communities will put the 2-degree target further out of reach than it already was.

"I’ve worked on this issue for 35 years and I feel a little sick," he said. "In one fell swoop he [Trump] took the air out of the balloon."

Freedman and Gallucci make the point that if a rational responsible US President was elected in 2020 then there's still hope. On the other hand, if the nightmare of a second Trump term happened, then there is a huge risk that global warming will escalate quickly. If that happened the world will be facing enormous damage and costs next decade and those following.

Trump weather disasters

The authors also wrote:

While you won’t be able to blame a specific heat wave on Trump’s decision, any move that forestalls emissions cuts, as the Paris withdrawal does, will serve to worsen climate impacts in the coming decades. This includes changes in the distribution of rainfall, an increase in the frequency and severity of heat waves, more hydrological extremes such as droughts and floods, and greater amounts of sea level rise.  

I suppose I agree with that. However it won't prevent me and lots of other people from blaming Donald Trump for future weather disasters. Just as one measures likelihood of a weather event with or without global warming now, I can see articles (perhaps peer-reviewed, perhaps not) attributing weather events to the Trump factor.

That's enough for now. I'm still easing back into the swing of writing about climate and those woeful deniers after being distracted by other things in my life. Nice to be back here with you all though :)