The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Trump and Tropical Hyperborea
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

trump-tropical-hyperborea

Trump fights the good fight for Tropical Hyperborea… erm, I mean for Pittsburgh, not Paris.

Meanwhile, the kremlins see it fit to backstab him on this of all issues.

“President (Vladimir) Putin signed this convention in Paris. Russia attaches great significance to it.

“At the same time, it goes without saying that the effectiveness of this convention is likely to be reduced without its key participants.”

Note that this is a couple of days after Macron publicly humiliated Putin in Paris, telling him that RT.com and Sputnik are propagandists to his face.

Global warming will be great for Russia, a warming of several degrees will put an end to its endless struggle against permafrost and allow it to feed billions of people.

Instead, the kremlins are sucking up to people who won’t even thank them for it. For that matter, many Westerners think the Kremlin is behind a lot of global warming denialism anyway.

There is only one explanation for this: The kremlins are cucks. Sovok cucks. Sovcucks!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Cuckoldry, Global Warming 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. This is the most upset I’ve ever seen the Left

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/trump-and-tropical-hyperborea/#comment-1891954
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. That’s a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren’t necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like “Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!” – at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen – this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material (“Look at those immoral, materialist Americans…they don’t care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!”).

    Read More
    • Agree: AP, melanf
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    The ONLY way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions is to reduce the human population, but the Left says that we can't do that because it's racist.

    Call us when you are serious about fighting climate change and not just ensnaring the US in shitty international agreements.
    , @neutral

    Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren’t necessarily left-wing or liberal issues
     
    This is another good example of how the old ideas of what is left or right no longer are very meaningful. Draw a Venn diagram of who supports global warming, Muslims, mega corporations, mass third immigration and race denialism, the Venn diagram will basically be a one mega blob with very tiny fringes on the outside for the non overlapping parts. The people that believe in global warming are the globalists, the "global" part obviously being key to this.

    If my enemies (Soros, The Economist, snarky US liberal comedians, Merkel, etc) support global warming then massive alarm bells are ringing. Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.
    , @for-the-record

    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole
     
    My 2 basic reasons for supporting Trump (although as an ex-citizen obviously I couldn't vote) were as follows:

    1. hoping but by no means convinced that he would carry through with his "pro-Russian" and non-interventionist pledges

    2. knowing that he would almost certainly alienate the rest of the world, thereby depriving the US of the leadership of the "Free World".

    At least he is on track for No. 2.
    , @unpc downunder
    That's the wonderful thing about political parties in the modern era, they make it impossible to make rational choices as a voter.

    I want to vote directly for the heads of government departments, starting with the immigration department, then the foreign policy department. That would be a meaningful way to vote. Not voting like a moron for BS political parties with their political happy meals.

    , @Thea
    I don't believe any human endeavor can stop the atmospheric feedback loop. Even if warming is real and man made, there is likely not a thing that humanity is capable of doing to fix it. That would require a Herculean united effort and a lot of discomfort.

    If it is real, then that cake is already baked, the egg is cracked.

    , @anon

    pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
     
    global warming is a con - that's why they changed the name to "climate change"

    the ClimateGate emails told the whole story but the media have never reported it honestly

    the sequence was
    1) measured temperatures rose for c. 15 years until around 1998 when it stopped
    2) the people in charge of providing the data believed it was just a temporary lull so they rigged the data for 15 years
    3) during those years millions of people were persuaded global warming was true and scores of thousands of people got well-paid jobs that were in some way entangled in the global warming hoax
    4) after 15 years of rigging the data one of the scientists involved leaked the truth

    so

    there was warming and then there wasn't warming which means it's not man-made (as CO2 emissions increased the whole time)

    so

    the science is not settled

    either

    1) it's man-made but in an unexplained way
    2) it's man made but the increased CO2 led to more greenery/plankton which absorbed it
    3) IT'S THE SUN AND ALWAYS WAS THE SUN
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. We thought Putin to be a Putler, but he was only a Putlet.

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @German_reader
    The Indians and the Chinese have also declared their intention to stick to the Paris agreement from what I've read...Putin's right to do the same, it makes him look like a responsible actor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Daniel Chieh
    We thought Putin to be a Putler, but he was only a Putlet.

    The Indians and the Chinese have also declared their intention to stick to the Paris agreement from what I’ve read…Putin’s right to do the same, it makes him look like a responsible actor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    The ONLY way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions is to reduce the human population, but the Left says that we can’t do that because it’s racist.

    Call us when you are serious about fighting climate change and not just ensnaring the US in shitty international agreements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, of course the population explosion in Africa is the issue no one is willing to talk about in relation to global warming, totally true. But hasn't Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy (because there aren't enough Africans already...ah well, I guess they can all be adopted by nice evangelicals)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Matra says:

    The Indians and the Chinese have also declared their intention to stick to the Paris agreement

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?

    Also, does the agreement have mechanisms in place to ensure the corrupt Indians and Chinese stick to their commitments?

    I genuinely have no idea about these things as I stopped caring about “environmental” globaloney after Kyoto when it became clear that everybody involved was pushing rent-seeking rackets of one kind or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?
     
    I suppose not, but then their argument would probably be that they haven't contributed as much to the problem as the US has done.
    Anyway, I don't have much of an opinion on the Paris agreement itself (was it more a statement of intentions which nobody will act upon anyway, or did it actually have clear mechanisms for how it would work in practice? I don't really know either), but imo Trump's action is at least bad optics for the US. If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.
    Maybe he should concentrate on other issues for a while (like building that wall on the Mexican border).
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The Chinese have to fix their environmental issues anyway and need to promote sales of renewables, where they dominate the solar production markets in. They really aren't sacrificing anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Matra
    The Indians and the Chinese have also declared their intention to stick to the Paris agreement

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?

    Also, does the agreement have mechanisms in place to ensure the corrupt Indians and Chinese stick to their commitments?

    I genuinely have no idea about these things as I stopped caring about "environmental" globaloney after Kyoto when it became clear that everybody involved was pushing rent-seeking rackets of one kind or another.

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?

    I suppose not, but then their argument would probably be that they haven’t contributed as much to the problem as the US has done.
    Anyway, I don’t have much of an opinion on the Paris agreement itself (was it more a statement of intentions which nobody will act upon anyway, or did it actually have clear mechanisms for how it would work in practice? I don’t really know either), but imo Trump’s action is at least bad optics for the US. If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.
    Maybe he should concentrate on other issues for a while (like building that wall on the Mexican border).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matra
    If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.

    Maybe, but as long as he retains power it doesn't matter what disarmed Germans and their lapdogs within the increasingly irrelevant EU think. What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think. Will they show more respect or not?
    , @Daniil Adamov
    America is already seen as an unpredictable rogue nation. Nothing to lose and nothing to do with Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Greasy William
    The ONLY way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions is to reduce the human population, but the Left says that we can't do that because it's racist.

    Call us when you are serious about fighting climate change and not just ensnaring the US in shitty international agreements.

    Yes, of course the population explosion in Africa is the issue no one is willing to talk about in relation to global warming, totally true. But hasn’t Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy (because there aren’t enough Africans already…ah well, I guess they can all be adopted by nice evangelicals)?

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    But hasn’t Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy
     
    Yes he did. I cannot stand those people but we have to throw them a bone some times.
    , @Felix Keverich
    This is horrifying! Was US the only nation that provided funding for family planning in Africa? Someone else needs to step up!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @German_reader
    Yes, of course the population explosion in Africa is the issue no one is willing to talk about in relation to global warming, totally true. But hasn't Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy (because there aren't enough Africans already...ah well, I guess they can all be adopted by nice evangelicals)?

    But hasn’t Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy

    Yes he did. I cannot stand those people but we have to throw them a bone some times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Matra says:
    @German_reader

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?
     
    I suppose not, but then their argument would probably be that they haven't contributed as much to the problem as the US has done.
    Anyway, I don't have much of an opinion on the Paris agreement itself (was it more a statement of intentions which nobody will act upon anyway, or did it actually have clear mechanisms for how it would work in practice? I don't really know either), but imo Trump's action is at least bad optics for the US. If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.
    Maybe he should concentrate on other issues for a while (like building that wall on the Mexican border).

    If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.

    Maybe, but as long as he retains power it doesn’t matter what disarmed Germans and their lapdogs within the increasingly irrelevant EU think. What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think. Will they show more respect or not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think.
     
    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it's clear another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Matra
    If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.

    Maybe, but as long as he retains power it doesn't matter what disarmed Germans and their lapdogs within the increasingly irrelevant EU think. What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think. Will they show more respect or not?

    What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think.

    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it’s clear another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matra
    Sorry, I was referring to the Paris agreement, not the nuclear one with Iran. I doubt any non-white countries really care about it unless there's some gravy train involved. Neither Russia nor China will be bothered one way or another whether Paris succeeds or fails. Dying white bourgeois liberal Europeans (and I guess their North American counterparts) care but they aren't that important to Trump or anyone else so the loss of reputation with them that you referred to doesn't matter much.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.
     
    Iran knows damn well, that Russia will do what's necessary to prevent regime change in Iran.
    , @Greasy William

    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it’s clear another regime change project is coming.
     
    This is typical Euro over-estimation of the political power of American Jews.

    There will NEVER be a US attack on Iran. It will absolutely, positively never happen under any circumstances ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @German_reader
    Yes, of course the population explosion in Africa is the issue no one is willing to talk about in relation to global warming, totally true. But hasn't Trump done something stupid in that regard as well, like cutting funding for family planning programmes in Africa, because he wanted to make some of his stupid Christian fundie supporters happy (because there aren't enough Africans already...ah well, I guess they can all be adopted by nice evangelicals)?

    This is horrifying! Was US the only nation that provided funding for family planning in Africa? Someone else needs to step up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. inertial says:

    1. Putin was right not to take Macron’s bait.

    2. At this point, the only real way Kremlin could backstab Trump would be to publicly agree with him on anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @Matra
    The Indians and the Chinese have also declared their intention to stick to the Paris agreement

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?

    Also, does the agreement have mechanisms in place to ensure the corrupt Indians and Chinese stick to their commitments?

    I genuinely have no idea about these things as I stopped caring about "environmental" globaloney after Kyoto when it became clear that everybody involved was pushing rent-seeking rackets of one kind or another.

    The Chinese have to fix their environmental issues anyway and need to promote sales of renewables, where they dominate the solar production markets in. They really aren’t sacrificing anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Also the Paris agreement doesn't bind China to anything until 2030 (when its emissions merely have to peak).

    In fairness, ergo for Russia; though it needs to do a deep reduction in CO2 output, the reference point is 1990 (i.e. the peak of Soviet industrial production and pollution), so just keeping CO2 emissions flat - which is currently almost happening anyway - will automatically fulfill its commitment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Daniel Chieh
    The Chinese have to fix their environmental issues anyway and need to promote sales of renewables, where they dominate the solar production markets in. They really aren't sacrificing anything.

    Also the Paris agreement doesn’t bind China to anything until 2030 (when its emissions merely have to peak).

    In fairness, ergo for Russia; though it needs to do a deep reduction in CO2 output, the reference point is 1990 (i.e. the peak of Soviet industrial production and pollution), so just keeping CO2 emissions flat – which is currently almost happening anyway – will automatically fulfill its commitment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. neutral says:
    @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren’t necessarily left-wing or liberal issues

    This is another good example of how the old ideas of what is left or right no longer are very meaningful. Draw a Venn diagram of who supports global warming, Muslims, mega corporations, mass third immigration and race denialism, the Venn diagram will basically be a one mega blob with very tiny fringes on the outside for the non overlapping parts. The people that believe in global warming are the globalists, the “global” part obviously being key to this.

    If my enemies (Soros, The Economist, snarky US liberal comedians, Merkel, etc) support global warming then massive alarm bells are ringing. Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    To some extent I can understand that, there certainly is a real danger that global warming could be used as a pretext for the dismantling of national sovereignty, and maybe there are good, legitimate reasons for the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement (some of the details mentioned by AK above might indicate so).
    But still, I don't think that you have to be a globalist to believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is probably going to be a serious problem, at least for some countries (especially poor ones in the global south...it will undoubtedly be used as justification for mass immigration...there already is talk about "climate refugees"). The question is of course what should be done about it, or if anything can be done about it. I don't know what Trump's exact position on this is...but I don't think a modern right-wing movement can afford to just totally dismiss environmental concerns. There must be at least some people who want mass immigration to end, dislike Islam etc., but are still worried by this and repelled by Trump's general attitude (same with many other issues).
    But anyway, I'm kind of annoyed by Trump not least because he's managed to make Merkel look like some grand stateswoman (even though her lecturing and talk about "Europe" becoming independent from the US is pretty ridiculous).
    , @ussr andy

    Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.
     
    if it's true though, denying it altogether will make one look like a cretin. case in point, Darwinism & the religious right.

    it's very important though on whose terms GW will be fought - liberals' or normal people's. to continue with the Darwinism analogy, it's the difference between "we're monkeys with morals" vs "we're monkeys, therefore gay marriage."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole

    My 2 basic reasons for supporting Trump (although as an ex-citizen obviously I couldn’t vote) were as follows:

    1. hoping but by no means convinced that he would carry through with his “pro-Russian” and non-interventionist pledges

    2. knowing that he would almost certainly alienate the rest of the world, thereby depriving the US of the leadership of the “Free World”.

    At least he is on track for No. 2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    1. was one of the reasons why I was in favour of Trump as well (Clinton with her insane ideas for no-fly-zones in Syria, comparing Putin to Hitler etc. seriously scared me). Other reason for me was I hoped (and still hope to some degree) the US under Trump would cut down on mass immigration which could have a positive effect on the situation in Europe as well.
    As for your 2nd reason, I sometimes have similar thoughts as well...though on the other hand, who knows what could replace US hegemony? Might be pretty unpleasant as well, possibly a lot worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @neutral

    Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren’t necessarily left-wing or liberal issues
     
    This is another good example of how the old ideas of what is left or right no longer are very meaningful. Draw a Venn diagram of who supports global warming, Muslims, mega corporations, mass third immigration and race denialism, the Venn diagram will basically be a one mega blob with very tiny fringes on the outside for the non overlapping parts. The people that believe in global warming are the globalists, the "global" part obviously being key to this.

    If my enemies (Soros, The Economist, snarky US liberal comedians, Merkel, etc) support global warming then massive alarm bells are ringing. Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.

    To some extent I can understand that, there certainly is a real danger that global warming could be used as a pretext for the dismantling of national sovereignty, and maybe there are good, legitimate reasons for the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement (some of the details mentioned by AK above might indicate so).
    But still, I don’t think that you have to be a globalist to believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is probably going to be a serious problem, at least for some countries (especially poor ones in the global south…it will undoubtedly be used as justification for mass immigration…there already is talk about “climate refugees”). The question is of course what should be done about it, or if anything can be done about it. I don’t know what Trump’s exact position on this is…but I don’t think a modern right-wing movement can afford to just totally dismiss environmental concerns. There must be at least some people who want mass immigration to end, dislike Islam etc., but are still worried by this and repelled by Trump’s general attitude (same with many other issues).
    But anyway, I’m kind of annoyed by Trump not least because he’s managed to make Merkel look like some grand stateswoman (even though her lecturing and talk about “Europe” becoming independent from the US is pretty ridiculous).

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "But still, I don’t think that you have to be a globalist to believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is probably going to be a serious problem ...."
     
    From a pure logical standpoint, your statement is correct: You don't have to be a globalist to believe AGW is real and is a threat. But you should have sound scientific basis for drawing that conclusion. Despite the mantra that 97% percent of scientists believe the statement as you have framed it

    1) the statistic itself is false and based on unsound methodology;
    2) while a large number of scientist would buy into the first part of the statement to a certain degree (mankind is changing the enironment ... duh, that's pretty much what all organisms do), the data is inconclusive as to whether mankind is causing unnatural warming, and there is nowhere near consensus that it could cause catastrophic impact to the planet.
    3) at least 31,000 persons who purport to be scientists have flatly rejected that statement as you frame it. How many scientists are in the world?

    Like "Bill Nye The Science Guy" I am/was an engineer; but I was an aerospace engineer, where he was a mechanical engineer, which is certainly a lower form of engineer and one less likely to appreciate the complexity of fluid and thermal dynamics. I would not trust that man or the other clowns who are running the Climate Change kabuki theatre to correctly diagnose the problems of planet Earth, much less prescribe an appropriate course of treatment.

    What should we do about it? Find good ways to reduce and diversify the by-products of human life so that they don't cause irreversible damage, but do we really need a global accord and a grand Climate Politburo to help us figure out how to do that? Or do we let the little people tinker around the edges in the same way that we arrived at the industrial age and the electronic era and all the problems we have to this point identifed and to some extent already started correcting?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Matra says:
    @German_reader

    What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think.
     
    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it's clear another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.

    Sorry, I was referring to the Paris agreement, not the nuclear one with Iran. I doubt any non-white countries really care about it unless there’s some gravy train involved. Neither Russia nor China will be bothered one way or another whether Paris succeeds or fails. Dying white bourgeois liberal Europeans (and I guess their North American counterparts) care but they aren’t that important to Trump or anyone else so the loss of reputation with them that you referred to doesn’t matter much.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @for-the-record

    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole
     
    My 2 basic reasons for supporting Trump (although as an ex-citizen obviously I couldn't vote) were as follows:

    1. hoping but by no means convinced that he would carry through with his "pro-Russian" and non-interventionist pledges

    2. knowing that he would almost certainly alienate the rest of the world, thereby depriving the US of the leadership of the "Free World".

    At least he is on track for No. 2.

    1. was one of the reasons why I was in favour of Trump as well (Clinton with her insane ideas for no-fly-zones in Syria, comparing Putin to Hitler etc. seriously scared me). Other reason for me was I hoped (and still hope to some degree) the US under Trump would cut down on mass immigration which could have a positive effect on the situation in Europe as well.
    As for your 2nd reason, I sometimes have similar thoughts as well…though on the other hand, who knows what could replace US hegemony? Might be pretty unpleasant as well, possibly a lot worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    though on the other hand, who knows what could replace US hegemony? Might be pretty unpleasant as well, possibly a lot worse.

    You (presumably) being a former West German I can understand your residual sympathy for the US "hegemon" (Berlin Airlift, etc.). I, on the other hand, have in my old age come to see my former country as the greatest cause of instability and destruction in the post-WWII era and only hope to live long enough to see the end of its hegemony.

    While I detest Kissinger he is almost certainly right -- a multi-polar world is far preferable to a uni-polar one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. What’s the source for those numbers and what are they based on?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe. And if he can gain some support (or at least moderate the Russophobia) among the European left (think Greens) all the better.

    He can laugh all the way to the bank, as they say, since Russia will be by far the single largest beneficiary of global warming, the projected figures are truly amazing.

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099

    Russia +419%
    Canada +247%
    Sweden +210%
    Germany +63%
    UK +42%
    France +10%
    Italy -26%
    Japan -35%
    USA -36%
    China -42%
    Australia -53%
    Brazil -83%
    India -92%
    Saudia Arabia -96%

    (the only countries with larger % increases than Russia are Mongolia, Iceland and Finland but in absolute terms Russia is by far the greatest beneficiary)

    Source: MIT Technology Review, December 2016

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603158/hotter-days-will-drive-global-inequality/

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Interesting, thanks for that.
    Pretty worrying though...obviously Africa, the Near East and South Asia will be especially badly affected. This is perfect as justification for endless mass immigration in the name of global justice.
    , @Ivan K.

    I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe.
     
    I think the situation is way past brownie points from the West being substantially relevant. Kremlin should better focus on making qualitative changes, rather than on improving performances within conceptually flawed systems. *

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099
     
    I recall reading about forecasts of the economic effects of the UK entry to the European Communities in the early 1970s. Remarkably, that both pro- and con- sides were quite wrong. With that in mind, I observe that the flaws of the MIT economists here should be multiplied by flaws in climate science https://judithcurry.com . Cite not just MIT, cite teams of Nobel prize winners, it matters little: fate has its own ways.

    * A good deal of the constraints on Russia seem to be in the kremlins' own minds.

    , @Veritatis
    My husband has been receiving MIT's TR for quite a few years. He likes the new technologies part, and I will occasionally look through it. But it changed, it seems to me, a few years (maybe 5?) ago, much lighter in content, and with a lot of politically correct editorial line, for example, single Latin teenage mom that went on to triumph at MIT.

    I'm not saying the basic argument (disparate impact on southern countries of global warming) is wrong, just that it is probably presented to serve an agenda.

    I kind of like Trump, but I agree with some commenters here that he's acting unnecessarily brash. Or can be perceived that way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @for-the-record
    I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe. And if he can gain some support (or at least moderate the Russophobia) among the European left (think Greens) all the better.

    He can laugh all the way to the bank, as they say, since Russia will be by far the single largest beneficiary of global warming, the projected figures are truly amazing.

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099

    Russia +419%
    Canada +247%
    Sweden +210%
    Germany +63%
    UK +42%
    France +10%
    Italy -26%
    Japan -35%
    USA -36%
    China -42%
    Australia -53%
    Brazil -83%
    India -92%
    Saudia Arabia -96%

    (the only countries with larger % increases than Russia are Mongolia, Iceland and Finland but in absolute terms Russia is by far the greatest beneficiary)

    Source: MIT Technology Review, December 2016

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603158/hotter-days-will-drive-global-inequality/

    Interesting, thanks for that.
    Pretty worrying though…obviously Africa, the Near East and South Asia will be especially badly affected. This is perfect as justification for endless mass immigration in the name of global justice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Exactly. A likely nightmare scenario:

    1. Developed nations caused climate change, leading directly to the expansion of the Sahara and inability for Africans, Indians and other people to feed themselves.

    2. Tens if not hundreds of millions of Africans will starve as a result of what the developed West did. The trickle of refugee boats now ,will become an unprecedented massive flood as tens of millions of people fight for their survival.

    3. Only way to stop this flood will be largecale bloodshed (massacring refugee boats) and/or extensive containment, in which armed forces from the developed world force people to stay in the undeveloped hot areas and watch them starve by the tens to hundreds of millions (kind of like what Hitler had in store for the Slavs he wanted sent to Siberia, actually). Does anybody think the developed world collectively has the stomach to do this to people whose plight will be largely seen as the developed world's own fault?

    So the likely result will be massive resettlement of northern areas by equatorial peoples, probably at least 100 million of them, if not more. I wonder if there will be fights about where to send them - will Canada or Russia be somehow compelled to take them in, given that those areas will have more room? BTW the Africans most likely to be affected by climate change are northern sub-Saharans - Muslims (Ethiopians being the only exception). We can add Boko Haram to ISIS and expand both exponentially.

    If the global center becomes uninhabitable the population will shift. This wouldn't be the first mass migration into Europe or North America.

    I don't know enough about the details of the Paris deal to comment on its particular effectiveness, but dismissing climate change and its effects seems like a foolish strategy by any western conservative.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Glossy says: • Website

    The kremlins are cucks. Sovok cucks. Sovcucks!

    Cold-War era USSR was a proud superpower. Sucking up to liberal sensitivities – in the Russian context that’s anti-Sovietism. Wanting to be cuckolded, like all sexual perversions, is anti-Soviet as well. The USSR was wholesome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. utu says:

    Note that this is a couple of days after Macron publicly humiliated Putin in Paris, telling him that RT.com and Sputnik are propagandists to his face.

    Perhaps Putin took it as a compliment for the efficacy of RT and Sputnik. I so he is greatly mistaken. RT and Sputnik are very poor and ineffective. Not on par with the ruthless MSM propaganda machine of the West. I keep following RT and Sputnik for last several years and I see they keep missing opportunities of scoring good point over and over again. They are way too timid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    That's my impression as well, from occasionally catching RT on Youtube and visiting Sputnik about once in a month. They simply don't know what they're doing :)
    I have to say Russia Insider and Duran also fall short of understanding what's it all about, with their "Putin squashed" "Busted!", "look at the hypocrisy," "here's why," .....

    A predictable question: So, what's it all about, then?

    Surely not about polite, logical, civilized discourse.... Nor for trying to insinuate into Western pop culture with "hot Russian" this-and-that.

    , @Philip Owen
    Russia Today had a much smaller audience than RT but it had more influence on people who mattered to Russia such as businessmen and politicians who watched it for news about Russia. (I know they did from first hand. I can point to investments made due to Russia Today programmes). Coverage of the Georgian war could be forgiven.

    The trouble was the war increased viewing figures greatly. Quality was about zero but quantity was huge. Russia Today became RT and sought conspiracy theorists and agitprop causes everywhere. The news desk is still reasonable but for the rest of the station, entertaining conspiracy theorists overwhelms any other consideration. Even efforts to promote Russian national interests like coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, ramping the gold price or encouraging anti-fracking campaigns pick up this tone and the effort of trying too hard. RT has become a lost opportunity. Al Jazeera shows the way to do it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Climate Destruction. That’s how I view this feel good political BS. Its appeal is aimed directly at those who find it difficult to think objectively.

    Global warming is an ingroup-outgroup moral stratagem created by lefties to lay the foundation for world government. The left always gets crushed by economics and this is all they’ve got. It is an attempt to frame an (unprovable) argument as saving the planet and its life against those who are evil enough to question it. Ingroup good, outgroup evil, and nations, borders, dissenters, and economics be damned. Trust the true believers and salvation will be had.

    They’re never wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. JW Bell says: • Website

    I’m sensing some resent in this post. Russia and Canada would both benefit greatly from global warming. About 10F would be perfect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @German_reader

    Do they have to sacrifice as much as the Americans to commit to the agreement?
     
    I suppose not, but then their argument would probably be that they haven't contributed as much to the problem as the US has done.
    Anyway, I don't have much of an opinion on the Paris agreement itself (was it more a statement of intentions which nobody will act upon anyway, or did it actually have clear mechanisms for how it would work in practice? I don't really know either), but imo Trump's action is at least bad optics for the US. If he does something truly stupid like tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran, the US will be seen as an unpredictable rogue nation.
    Maybe he should concentrate on other issues for a while (like building that wall on the Mexican border).

    America is already seen as an unpredictable rogue nation. Nothing to lose and nothing to do with Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    That’s the wonderful thing about political parties in the modern era, they make it impossible to make rational choices as a voter.

    I want to vote directly for the heads of government departments, starting with the immigration department, then the foreign policy department. That would be a meaningful way to vote. Not voting like a moron for BS political parties with their political happy meals.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. reiner Tor says: • Website

    My only beef with this issue is that Trump is again wasting precious political capital on an issue that is of at best secondary importance relative to the demographic transformation and mass migration issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Global warming will be great for Russia, a warming of several degrees will put an end to its endless struggle against permafrost and allow it to feed billions of people.

    Right. And signing a piece of paper is going to ruin that.

    The kremlins are cucks.

    I don’t know what that means, but my idea of good kremlin-bashing would be to call them gangsters. One gang in the global gangland, fighting for a better seat at the table, for a higher status in the global gangland hierarchy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @German_reader
    1. was one of the reasons why I was in favour of Trump as well (Clinton with her insane ideas for no-fly-zones in Syria, comparing Putin to Hitler etc. seriously scared me). Other reason for me was I hoped (and still hope to some degree) the US under Trump would cut down on mass immigration which could have a positive effect on the situation in Europe as well.
    As for your 2nd reason, I sometimes have similar thoughts as well...though on the other hand, who knows what could replace US hegemony? Might be pretty unpleasant as well, possibly a lot worse.

    though on the other hand, who knows what could replace US hegemony? Might be pretty unpleasant as well, possibly a lot worse.

    You (presumably) being a former West German I can understand your residual sympathy for the US “hegemon” (Berlin Airlift, etc.). I, on the other hand, have in my old age come to see my former country as the greatest cause of instability and destruction in the post-WWII era and only hope to live long enough to see the end of its hegemony.

    While I detest Kissinger he is almost certainly right — a multi-polar world is far preferable to a uni-polar one.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Ivan K. says:
    @for-the-record
    I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe. And if he can gain some support (or at least moderate the Russophobia) among the European left (think Greens) all the better.

    He can laugh all the way to the bank, as they say, since Russia will be by far the single largest beneficiary of global warming, the projected figures are truly amazing.

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099

    Russia +419%
    Canada +247%
    Sweden +210%
    Germany +63%
    UK +42%
    France +10%
    Italy -26%
    Japan -35%
    USA -36%
    China -42%
    Australia -53%
    Brazil -83%
    India -92%
    Saudia Arabia -96%

    (the only countries with larger % increases than Russia are Mongolia, Iceland and Finland but in absolute terms Russia is by far the greatest beneficiary)

    Source: MIT Technology Review, December 2016

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603158/hotter-days-will-drive-global-inequality/

    I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe.

    I think the situation is way past brownie points from the West being substantially relevant. Kremlin should better focus on making qualitative changes, rather than on improving performances within conceptually flawed systems. *

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099

    I recall reading about forecasts of the economic effects of the UK entry to the European Communities in the early 1970s. Remarkably, that both pro- and con- sides were quite wrong. With that in mind, I observe that the flaws of the MIT economists here should be multiplied by flaws in climate science https://judithcurry.com . Cite not just MIT, cite teams of Nobel prize winners, it matters little: fate has its own ways.

    * A good deal of the constraints on Russia seem to be in the kremlins’ own minds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Darin says:

    Tropical Hyperborea? Russia is low lying and flat like table, look here what would be left of the motherland in PETM like climate.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Building a series of dams around Saint-Petersburg, between the Black and Caspian sea will largely solve this problem for us. Also, think of all the useless land in Siberia and the Far East that will become habitable due to climate change. Kamchatka is practically empty of people, but with warmer climate, it could become a great place to live.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    It will take thousands of years for sea levels to rise that high.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Ivan K. says:
    @utu
    Note that this is a couple of days after Macron publicly humiliated Putin in Paris, telling him that RT.com and Sputnik are propagandists to his face.

    Perhaps Putin took it as a compliment for the efficacy of RT and Sputnik. I so he is greatly mistaken. RT and Sputnik are very poor and ineffective. Not on par with the ruthless MSM propaganda machine of the West. I keep following RT and Sputnik for last several years and I see they keep missing opportunities of scoring good point over and over again. They are way too timid.

    That’s my impression as well, from occasionally catching RT on Youtube and visiting Sputnik about once in a month. They simply don’t know what they’re doing :)
    I have to say Russia Insider and Duran also fall short of understanding what’s it all about, with their “Putin squashed” “Busted!”, “look at the hypocrisy,” “here’s why,” …..

    A predictable question: So, what’s it all about, then?

    Surely not about polite, logical, civilized discourse…. Nor for trying to insinuate into Western pop culture with “hot Russian” this-and-that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    One example of missed opportunity for English language Russian media: Starting in August 2016 they should have made a big issue of Seth Rich murder and keep it near the front burner.

    Or what about the gas attack in Syria. It took Putin two months to speak about it unequivocally as he just spoke. But RT and Sputnik should have been insinuating allegations that it was a false flag on the day one starting on April 4.

    Or Trump attack on Syria. Instead of minimizing the effect of the attack and alleging that many missiles never made there they should have had reporters on the ground covering losses and killed civilians.

    RT and Sputnik indolence is inherited from the culture of Soviet media. The media in authoritarian systems main purpose is to make the higher ups happy, so they will minimize losses and even the effects of natural disasters. Everything suppose to be perfect because our great leaders are in control. During WWII German media were minimizing losses due to bombing of their cities. They did not want to look weak but by doing so they missed great opportunity to evoke sympathy for what was being done to them by British and Americana force. After Syria bombing by Trump Russian media behave exactly this way: look, we are not afraid of American missile, they can't shoot straight, the missiles are defective....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. reiner Tor says: • Website

    Meanwhile, the kremlins see it fit to backstab him on this of all issues.

    It’s not backstabbing. They never owed Trump a thing.

    Meanwhile, all of Russia’s allies sided with the Europeans on this issue. Countries like China or India. It would’ve been backstabbing, had Putin decided to come out against them.

    Besides, of course it’s inconsequential anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. ussr andy says:
    @neutral

    Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren’t necessarily left-wing or liberal issues
     
    This is another good example of how the old ideas of what is left or right no longer are very meaningful. Draw a Venn diagram of who supports global warming, Muslims, mega corporations, mass third immigration and race denialism, the Venn diagram will basically be a one mega blob with very tiny fringes on the outside for the non overlapping parts. The people that believe in global warming are the globalists, the "global" part obviously being key to this.

    If my enemies (Soros, The Economist, snarky US liberal comedians, Merkel, etc) support global warming then massive alarm bells are ringing. Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.

    Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.

    if it’s true though, denying it altogether will make one look like a cretin. case in point, Darwinism & the religious right.

    it’s very important though on whose terms GW will be fought – liberals’ or normal people’s. to continue with the Darwinism analogy, it’s the difference between “we’re monkeys with morals” vs “we’re monkeys, therefore gay marriage.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy
    libs wanted evilution to become an identity issue and it did, but it never should have. this gave them a convenient excuse to ignore conservatives on this issue or any other. they were pushing liberal values all the while the traditional majority was busy trying to disprove Darwin and looking for backmasked satanic messages in pop music - what a waste of manhours.
    , @German_reader
    Yes, I agree...denying anthropogenic global warming makes right-wingers look anti-science and like stupid dupes of oil corporations and the like. There's a discussion to be had what can or should be done about it...obviously I'm not in favour of some leftie eco-dictatorship either...but just denying the issue is real (when the fact of rising temperatures is an obvious change even over the lifespan of many people alive today) is a dumb move.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. ussr andy says:
    @ussr andy

    Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.
     
    if it's true though, denying it altogether will make one look like a cretin. case in point, Darwinism & the religious right.

    it's very important though on whose terms GW will be fought - liberals' or normal people's. to continue with the Darwinism analogy, it's the difference between "we're monkeys with morals" vs "we're monkeys, therefore gay marriage."

    libs wanted evilution to become an identity issue and it did, but it never should have. this gave them a convenient excuse to ignore conservatives on this issue or any other. they were pushing liberal values all the while the traditional majority was busy trying to disprove Darwin and looking for backmasked satanic messages in pop music – what a waste of manhours.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. 1) If they were serious about the science of climate change, they would focus on reducing the emissions of water vapour. Carbon is only an issue because it is something the scammers can ably quantify, commoditise, trade, and use fleece the proles by claiming it is their fault for generating it in the course of living;

    2) Everyone looks up to the French for some unknown reason, and the French tend to shit on everyone. Hooray for Trump for not being seduced by Paris, but at the same time he is not running from the Accord with the appropriate alacrity;

    3) The fact that the entire EU high command and the global elite and their subsidised stooges, and particularly the Weather Channel, are aghast is a sure sign that Trump is moving in the right direction. What did Putin miss?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. AP says:
    @German_reader
    Interesting, thanks for that.
    Pretty worrying though...obviously Africa, the Near East and South Asia will be especially badly affected. This is perfect as justification for endless mass immigration in the name of global justice.

    Exactly. A likely nightmare scenario:

    1. Developed nations caused climate change, leading directly to the expansion of the Sahara and inability for Africans, Indians and other people to feed themselves.

    2. Tens if not hundreds of millions of Africans will starve as a result of what the developed West did. The trickle of refugee boats now ,will become an unprecedented massive flood as tens of millions of people fight for their survival.

    3. Only way to stop this flood will be largecale bloodshed (massacring refugee boats) and/or extensive containment, in which armed forces from the developed world force people to stay in the undeveloped hot areas and watch them starve by the tens to hundreds of millions (kind of like what Hitler had in store for the Slavs he wanted sent to Siberia, actually). Does anybody think the developed world collectively has the stomach to do this to people whose plight will be largely seen as the developed world’s own fault?

    So the likely result will be massive resettlement of northern areas by equatorial peoples, probably at least 100 million of them, if not more. I wonder if there will be fights about where to send them – will Canada or Russia be somehow compelled to take them in, given that those areas will have more room? BTW the Africans most likely to be affected by climate change are northern sub-Saharans – Muslims (Ethiopians being the only exception). We can add Boko Haram to ISIS and expand both exponentially.

    If the global center becomes uninhabitable the population will shift. This wouldn’t be the first mass migration into Europe or North America.

    I don’t know enough about the details of the Paris deal to comment on its particular effectiveness, but dismissing climate change and its effects seems like a foolish strategy by any western conservative.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Thank you, that's a good outline of the scenario I fear as well. I don't really have an opinion about the Paris agreement itself either (don't know enough about the details), but just pretending there isn't a problem with potentially catastrophic consequences is pretty short-sighted imo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Darin
    Tropical Hyperborea? Russia is low lying and flat like table, look here what would be left of the motherland in PETM like climate.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2013/09/rising-seas/04-ice-melt-europe.adapt.1190.1.jpg

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

    Building a series of dams around Saint-Petersburg, between the Black and Caspian sea will largely solve this problem for us. Also, think of all the useless land in Siberia and the Far East that will become habitable due to climate change. Kamchatka is practically empty of people, but with warmer climate, it could become a great place to live.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Darin
    Thawed permafrost turns to swamps, or is washed away by the sea. Bad replacement for the black earth areas that would turn into deserts.

    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0753-vanishing-arctic-how-warming-climate-leaves-remote-permafrost-islands-on-the-precipice/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @ussr andy

    Whatever the real scientific merits or not on global warming, there is zero chance I could ever support their global warming agenda.
     
    if it's true though, denying it altogether will make one look like a cretin. case in point, Darwinism & the religious right.

    it's very important though on whose terms GW will be fought - liberals' or normal people's. to continue with the Darwinism analogy, it's the difference between "we're monkeys with morals" vs "we're monkeys, therefore gay marriage."

    Yes, I agree…denying anthropogenic global warming makes right-wingers look anti-science and like stupid dupes of oil corporations and the like. There’s a discussion to be had what can or should be done about it…obviously I’m not in favour of some leftie eco-dictatorship either…but just denying the issue is real (when the fact of rising temperatures is an obvious change even over the lifespan of many people alive today) is a dumb move.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @German_reader
    To some extent I can understand that, there certainly is a real danger that global warming could be used as a pretext for the dismantling of national sovereignty, and maybe there are good, legitimate reasons for the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement (some of the details mentioned by AK above might indicate so).
    But still, I don't think that you have to be a globalist to believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is probably going to be a serious problem, at least for some countries (especially poor ones in the global south...it will undoubtedly be used as justification for mass immigration...there already is talk about "climate refugees"). The question is of course what should be done about it, or if anything can be done about it. I don't know what Trump's exact position on this is...but I don't think a modern right-wing movement can afford to just totally dismiss environmental concerns. There must be at least some people who want mass immigration to end, dislike Islam etc., but are still worried by this and repelled by Trump's general attitude (same with many other issues).
    But anyway, I'm kind of annoyed by Trump not least because he's managed to make Merkel look like some grand stateswoman (even though her lecturing and talk about "Europe" becoming independent from the US is pretty ridiculous).

    “But still, I don’t think that you have to be a globalist to believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is probably going to be a serious problem ….”

    From a pure logical standpoint, your statement is correct: You don’t have to be a globalist to believe AGW is real and is a threat. But you should have sound scientific basis for drawing that conclusion. Despite the mantra that 97% percent of scientists believe the statement as you have framed it

    1) the statistic itself is false and based on unsound methodology;
    2) while a large number of scientist would buy into the first part of the statement to a certain degree (mankind is changing the enironment … duh, that’s pretty much what all organisms do), the data is inconclusive as to whether mankind is causing unnatural warming, and there is nowhere near consensus that it could cause catastrophic impact to the planet.
    3) at least 31,000 persons who purport to be scientists have flatly rejected that statement as you frame it. How many scientists are in the world?

    Like “Bill Nye The Science Guy” I am/was an engineer; but I was an aerospace engineer, where he was a mechanical engineer, which is certainly a lower form of engineer and one less likely to appreciate the complexity of fluid and thermal dynamics. I would not trust that man or the other clowns who are running the Climate Change kabuki theatre to correctly diagnose the problems of planet Earth, much less prescribe an appropriate course of treatment.

    What should we do about it? Find good ways to reduce and diversify the by-products of human life so that they don’t cause irreversible damage, but do we really need a global accord and a grand Climate Politburo to help us figure out how to do that? Or do we let the little people tinker around the edges in the same way that we arrived at the industrial age and the electronic era and all the problems we have to this point identifed and to some extent already started correcting?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @AP
    Exactly. A likely nightmare scenario:

    1. Developed nations caused climate change, leading directly to the expansion of the Sahara and inability for Africans, Indians and other people to feed themselves.

    2. Tens if not hundreds of millions of Africans will starve as a result of what the developed West did. The trickle of refugee boats now ,will become an unprecedented massive flood as tens of millions of people fight for their survival.

    3. Only way to stop this flood will be largecale bloodshed (massacring refugee boats) and/or extensive containment, in which armed forces from the developed world force people to stay in the undeveloped hot areas and watch them starve by the tens to hundreds of millions (kind of like what Hitler had in store for the Slavs he wanted sent to Siberia, actually). Does anybody think the developed world collectively has the stomach to do this to people whose plight will be largely seen as the developed world's own fault?

    So the likely result will be massive resettlement of northern areas by equatorial peoples, probably at least 100 million of them, if not more. I wonder if there will be fights about where to send them - will Canada or Russia be somehow compelled to take them in, given that those areas will have more room? BTW the Africans most likely to be affected by climate change are northern sub-Saharans - Muslims (Ethiopians being the only exception). We can add Boko Haram to ISIS and expand both exponentially.

    If the global center becomes uninhabitable the population will shift. This wouldn't be the first mass migration into Europe or North America.

    I don't know enough about the details of the Paris deal to comment on its particular effectiveness, but dismissing climate change and its effects seems like a foolish strategy by any western conservative.

    Thank you, that’s a good outline of the scenario I fear as well. I don’t really have an opinion about the Paris agreement itself either (don’t know enough about the details), but just pretending there isn’t a problem with potentially catastrophic consequences is pretty short-sighted imo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The problem is that, if you buy into their AGW argument as is, you commit yourself to accepting those refugees someday.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Veritatis says:
    @for-the-record
    I’m surprised with the criticism of Putin, really this was a no-brainer. Of course the Paris Agreement will never “work”, Putin knows that. But it costs Russia nothing to “support” the agreement and earn brownie points with the rest of the world, particularly Western Europe. And if he can gain some support (or at least moderate the Russophobia) among the European left (think Greens) all the better.

    He can laugh all the way to the bank, as they say, since Russia will be by far the single largest beneficiary of global warming, the projected figures are truly amazing.

    PER CENT CHANGE GDP PER CAPITA RELATIVE TO A WORLD WITHOUT GLOBAL WARMING, 2099

    Russia +419%
    Canada +247%
    Sweden +210%
    Germany +63%
    UK +42%
    France +10%
    Italy -26%
    Japan -35%
    USA -36%
    China -42%
    Australia -53%
    Brazil -83%
    India -92%
    Saudia Arabia -96%

    (the only countries with larger % increases than Russia are Mongolia, Iceland and Finland but in absolute terms Russia is by far the greatest beneficiary)

    Source: MIT Technology Review, December 2016

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603158/hotter-days-will-drive-global-inequality/

    My husband has been receiving MIT’s TR for quite a few years. He likes the new technologies part, and I will occasionally look through it. But it changed, it seems to me, a few years (maybe 5?) ago, much lighter in content, and with a lot of politically correct editorial line, for example, single Latin teenage mom that went on to triumph at MIT.

    I’m not saying the basic argument (disparate impact on southern countries of global warming) is wrong, just that it is probably presented to serve an agenda.

    I kind of like Trump, but I agree with some commenters here that he’s acting unnecessarily brash. Or can be perceived that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Thea says:
    @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    I don’t believe any human endeavor can stop the atmospheric feedback loop. Even if warming is real and man made, there is likely not a thing that humanity is capable of doing to fix it. That would require a Herculean united effort and a lot of discomfort.

    If it is real, then that cake is already baked, the egg is cracked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @German_reader
    Thank you, that's a good outline of the scenario I fear as well. I don't really have an opinion about the Paris agreement itself either (don't know enough about the details), but just pretending there isn't a problem with potentially catastrophic consequences is pretty short-sighted imo.

    The problem is that, if you buy into their AGW argument as is, you commit yourself to accepting those refugees someday.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @German_reader

    What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think.
     
    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it's clear another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.

    another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.

    Iran knows damn well, that Russia will do what’s necessary to prevent regime change in Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. There is only one explanation for this: The kremlins are cucks. Sovok cucks. Sovcucks!

    Really? Name one reason why Putin shouldn’t support the ridiculous Paris (((agreement))).

    (Well, besides the intellectual satisfaction of rejecting an obviously false leftoid cult.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Why the negative opinion on Putin signing the Paris agreement or not falling for Macron’s bullcrap? To fall into Macron’s provocations was going to cause more harm than good.
    Of course, one would expect some no-nonsense, anti-estabilishment, leadership behavior from him like the so-called alt-right likes to wetdream about, but given the way how russophobia is afloat even without the US having to pander it, Putin has to play it safe. When it comes to domestic policy, he is indeed a Putlet many if not most of time, but for foreign matters his behavior is well suited to show how russian affairs don’t fall into the “Red Menace” or authoritarian imperialist ways. Although a bit more proactivity from him in international affairs would be welcomed.
    .
    Aside from the fact global warming is happening (but not in the alarmist, sole man-made ways the MSM tries to impose), Russia is just playing the game according to the situation. The West would expect the East to not comply with the agreement and be confrontational with that, but then they realize it’s all okay with them. But America as the bulwark (and master) of the West is struggling to its ideologies. It’s the West that’s falling apart, not the East. Trump is supposedly trying to lead America out the establishment-friendly ideas, but in a very clumsy way.
    .
    I don’t think russians in power are unaware of the benefits of global warming on their land, instead they believe, as any other with clear knowledge, that these climate agreements are just one of the many fancy meetings they realize to pretend they have some concern for each other and reassure global community everything is fine. No serious measure is actually going to be imposed. It’s not like they are denying more land and water to them, it’s just that these meetings are only to keep appearances and for them is a way to build a nice reputation. Of course it isn’t that easy or effective, but Russia can afford receiving less flak than intended while the US keeps fueling anger around the world.
    .
    China is all happy to push some environmental agenda despite their own “post-apocalyptic” like problems in their cities, nor the fact solar power isn’t that reliable and manufacture of panels aren’t that “green”. To pretend they are going to implement in their own country all the while selling the technology cheap to other countries (like the US buying lots of it just to stay stashed unused in warehouses) is just marketing ploy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Anatoly, all I can say is: good for Putin! He has signed an unenforceable, symbolic agreement, which not only puts him on the same side as the Europeans and makes the US look bad, but also requires Russia to do basically nothing out of the ordinary. Meanwhile, Trump is arousing anti-American sentiment among the Europeans … and to that I also say: good! That’s the only way we’re ever going to get a sufficient number of Europeans to demand that their governments pull out of NATO and the other ‘global’ institutions run by Washington and Wall Street.

    Look, I wish we lived in a universe where rational argument counted for something; a universe where you could sit Europeans down and calmly, logically explain to them why belonging to an outmoded, warmongering Delian League such as NATO is not in their countries’ best interests–but alas, we don’t live in such a universe. The only thing that works in this universe is inciting powerful passions, and the only passion that Europeans seem have left that is powerful enough to even stand a chance of overcoming their fear of going it alone is anti-Americanism. I mean, what is NATO itself trying to do to justify its own perpetual existence if not inciting anti-Russianism? So, even if anti-Americanism makes us Americans uneasy at an emotional level, if we are true patriots who don’t just want to feel good about ourselves, but really want to put an end to the NWO that is destroying our country (along with so many others), then we should suck it in and do what is necessary.

    After Trump, let’s elect the biggest buffoon imaginable! Let us utterly, totally, and completely discredit the US political system in the eyes of the Europeans. Let’s pick a president who, not only questions global warming, but also questions evolution and women’s suffrage! A president who wants to make gun ownership mandatory! Let us become Europe’s worst nightmare, play on every dark caricature or stereotype of the ‘ugly American’ that they have so as to drain this putrid, malevolent mafia in Washington of whatever lingering credibility it may enjoy abroad. Let us force the Europeans to run away from us as fast they can, screaming in mortal terror! Let us bite the bullet and do it.

    Someday, their descendants (along with ours) will thank us.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record
    • Replies: @German_reader
    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda, and help anti-national creatures like Merkel and Macron...with his boorish behaviour Trump could do a lot to discredit national sovereignty and immigration restriction. It's sad that some other candidate with greater eloquence, intelligence and self-restraint couldn't run on his issues and win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Seamus Padraig
    Anatoly, all I can say is: good for Putin! He has signed an unenforceable, symbolic agreement, which not only puts him on the same side as the Europeans and makes the US look bad, but also requires Russia to do basically nothing out of the ordinary. Meanwhile, Trump is arousing anti-American sentiment among the Europeans ... and to that I also say: good! That's the only way we're ever going to get a sufficient number of Europeans to demand that their governments pull out of NATO and the other 'global' institutions run by Washington and Wall Street.

    Look, I wish we lived in a universe where rational argument counted for something; a universe where you could sit Europeans down and calmly, logically explain to them why belonging to an outmoded, warmongering Delian League such as NATO is not in their countries' best interests--but alas, we don't live in such a universe. The only thing that works in this universe is inciting powerful passions, and the only passion that Europeans seem have left that is powerful enough to even stand a chance of overcoming their fear of going it alone is anti-Americanism. I mean, what is NATO itself trying to do to justify its own perpetual existence if not inciting anti-Russianism? So, even if anti-Americanism makes us Americans uneasy at an emotional level, if we are true patriots who don't just want to feel good about ourselves, but really want to put an end to the NWO that is destroying our country (along with so many others), then we should suck it in and do what is necessary.

    After Trump, let's elect the biggest buffoon imaginable! Let us utterly, totally, and completely discredit the US political system in the eyes of the Europeans. Let's pick a president who, not only questions global warming, but also questions evolution and women's suffrage! A president who wants to make gun ownership mandatory! Let us become Europe's worst nightmare, play on every dark caricature or stereotype of the 'ugly American' that they have so as to drain this putrid, malevolent mafia in Washington of whatever lingering credibility it may enjoy abroad. Let us force the Europeans to run away from us as fast they can, screaming in mortal terror! Let us bite the bullet and do it.

    Someday, their descendants (along with ours) will thank us.

    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda, and help anti-national creatures like Merkel and Macron…with his boorish behaviour Trump could do a lot to discredit national sovereignty and immigration restriction. It’s sad that some other candidate with greater eloquence, intelligence and self-restraint couldn’t run on his issues and win.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda
     
    How can anti-Americanism benefit the globalist agenda? America is the epicenter and the main driver of the globalist agenda. Anti-Americanism can only weaken it, although it probably doesn't matter much: it's all decided among the elites anyway.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    There is no globalism without the 'Atlantic Bridge', and there is no Atlantic Bridge without the US. Europe's rulers will not be able to keep the same policies in the Middle East and Russia going all by themselves. Moreover, without the US propping it up, the EU would quickly collapse under its own weight. Even now, more and more countries in Europe are becoming annoyed at Merkel's love of austerity and refugees. Without Washington backing her up, these policies would become completely unsustainable.

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn't matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a 'fascist', 'racist', etc. Indeed, if he were a master at public speaking, the comparisons to Hitler might even seem more apt! If you doubt what I'm saying, consider the cases of Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen. Neither of them is known for their malapropisms--Farage, in fact, is actually an excellent public speaker--yet both are given the exact same treatment by the MSM as Trump.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Darin
    Tropical Hyperborea? Russia is low lying and flat like table, look here what would be left of the motherland in PETM like climate.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2013/09/rising-seas/04-ice-melt-europe.adapt.1190.1.jpg

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

    It will take thousands of years for sea levels to rise that high.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. utu says:
    @Ivan K.
    That's my impression as well, from occasionally catching RT on Youtube and visiting Sputnik about once in a month. They simply don't know what they're doing :)
    I have to say Russia Insider and Duran also fall short of understanding what's it all about, with their "Putin squashed" "Busted!", "look at the hypocrisy," "here's why," .....

    A predictable question: So, what's it all about, then?

    Surely not about polite, logical, civilized discourse.... Nor for trying to insinuate into Western pop culture with "hot Russian" this-and-that.

    One example of missed opportunity for English language Russian media: Starting in August 2016 they should have made a big issue of Seth Rich murder and keep it near the front burner.

    Or what about the gas attack in Syria. It took Putin two months to speak about it unequivocally as he just spoke. But RT and Sputnik should have been insinuating allegations that it was a false flag on the day one starting on April 4.

    Or Trump attack on Syria. Instead of minimizing the effect of the attack and alleging that many missiles never made there they should have had reporters on the ground covering losses and killed civilians.

    RT and Sputnik indolence is inherited from the culture of Soviet media. The media in authoritarian systems main purpose is to make the higher ups happy, so they will minimize losses and even the effects of natural disasters. Everything suppose to be perfect because our great leaders are in control. During WWII German media were minimizing losses due to bombing of their cities. They did not want to look weak but by doing so they missed great opportunity to evoke sympathy for what was being done to them by British and Americana force. After Syria bombing by Trump Russian media behave exactly this way: look, we are not afraid of American missile, they can’t shoot straight, the missiles are defective….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @German_reader
    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda, and help anti-national creatures like Merkel and Macron...with his boorish behaviour Trump could do a lot to discredit national sovereignty and immigration restriction. It's sad that some other candidate with greater eloquence, intelligence and self-restraint couldn't run on his issues and win.

    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda

    How can anti-Americanism benefit the globalist agenda? America is the epicenter and the main driver of the globalist agenda. Anti-Americanism can only weaken it, although it probably doesn’t matter much: it’s all decided among the elites anyway.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @German_reader
    There are different kinds of anti-Americanism. I'm a nationalist, I dislike the US (or at least much of its dominant culture) for its pretensions to global hegemony, its misguided military interventions and its export of the whole multiculti/nation of immigrants ideology. Many "anti-Americans" who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same...they think the US isn't true enough to its "values".
    Mainstream anti-Americanism in Europe is also often just dumb and takes its talking points from US liberals (which is why it often focuses on issues like alleged "racism", gun rights, the death penalty)...some "anti-Americans" are totally Americanized themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda
     
    How can anti-Americanism benefit the globalist agenda? America is the epicenter and the main driver of the globalist agenda. Anti-Americanism can only weaken it, although it probably doesn't matter much: it's all decided among the elites anyway.

    There are different kinds of anti-Americanism. I’m a nationalist, I dislike the US (or at least much of its dominant culture) for its pretensions to global hegemony, its misguided military interventions and its export of the whole multiculti/nation of immigrants ideology. Many “anti-Americans” who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same…they think the US isn’t true enough to its “values”.
    Mainstream anti-Americanism in Europe is also often just dumb and takes its talking points from US liberals (which is why it often focuses on issues like alleged “racism”, gun rights, the death penalty)…some “anti-Americans” are totally Americanized themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Many “anti-Americans” who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same…they think the US isn’t true enough to its “values”.
     
    What you need to do is convince those left-wing anti-Americans that importing those "values" is going to turn your country into a bad copy of America--crime, guns, neo-liberalism and all. It's a package deal. And I do mean left-wing, not centrist or liberal. Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists. Obviously, this will take some work, and the pro-establishment centrist/liberal types are going to use every opportunity to drive a wedge between you; but as neither the alt-left nor the alt-right by itself has the power to overthrow the establishment on its own, there's no other realistic option.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @German_reader
    The problem with this is that the anti-Americanism Trump is likely to provoke will benefit the globalist agenda, and help anti-national creatures like Merkel and Macron...with his boorish behaviour Trump could do a lot to discredit national sovereignty and immigration restriction. It's sad that some other candidate with greater eloquence, intelligence and self-restraint couldn't run on his issues and win.

    There is no globalism without the ‘Atlantic Bridge’, and there is no Atlantic Bridge without the US. Europe’s rulers will not be able to keep the same policies in the Middle East and Russia going all by themselves. Moreover, without the US propping it up, the EU would quickly collapse under its own weight. Even now, more and more countries in Europe are becoming annoyed at Merkel’s love of austerity and refugees. Without Washington backing her up, these policies would become completely unsustainable.

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn’t matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a ‘fascist’, ‘racist’, etc. Indeed, if he were a master at public speaking, the comparisons to Hitler might even seem more apt! If you doubt what I’m saying, consider the cases of Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen. Neither of them is known for their malapropisms–Farage, in fact, is actually an excellent public speaker–yet both are given the exact same treatment by the MSM as Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn’t matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a ‘fascist’, ‘racist’, etc.
     
    That's certainly true, the mainstream media would seek to destroy anyone with even a vaguely "nationalist" programme. It's just that I'm not convinced Trump has what it takes to fight effectively against that opposition. His election campaign was an impressive achievement in some ways, but as president he comes across somewhat like a bumbling oaf imo, which creates a lot of opportunities for the malicious media. I just hope he doesn't do anything really stupid like starting another Mideast war.
    , @fnn
    And Enoch Powell before that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @German_reader
    There are different kinds of anti-Americanism. I'm a nationalist, I dislike the US (or at least much of its dominant culture) for its pretensions to global hegemony, its misguided military interventions and its export of the whole multiculti/nation of immigrants ideology. Many "anti-Americans" who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same...they think the US isn't true enough to its "values".
    Mainstream anti-Americanism in Europe is also often just dumb and takes its talking points from US liberals (which is why it often focuses on issues like alleged "racism", gun rights, the death penalty)...some "anti-Americans" are totally Americanized themselves.

    Many “anti-Americans” who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same…they think the US isn’t true enough to its “values”.

    What you need to do is convince those left-wing anti-Americans that importing those “values” is going to turn your country into a bad copy of America–crime, guns, neo-liberalism and all. It’s a package deal. And I do mean left-wing, not centrist or liberal. Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists. Obviously, this will take some work, and the pro-establishment centrist/liberal types are going to use every opportunity to drive a wedge between you; but as neither the alt-left nor the alt-right by itself has the power to overthrow the establishment on its own, there’s no other realistic option.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists.
     
    I doubt such an alliance would be possible, and I'm not even sure left-wing anti-imperialists are really a significant force in Europe nowadays. I don't have any hard data to prove this, but my impression is the radical left in Europe today is really into open borders and refugees welcome, other issues are pretty much secondary for them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Seamus Padraig
    There is no globalism without the 'Atlantic Bridge', and there is no Atlantic Bridge without the US. Europe's rulers will not be able to keep the same policies in the Middle East and Russia going all by themselves. Moreover, without the US propping it up, the EU would quickly collapse under its own weight. Even now, more and more countries in Europe are becoming annoyed at Merkel's love of austerity and refugees. Without Washington backing her up, these policies would become completely unsustainable.

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn't matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a 'fascist', 'racist', etc. Indeed, if he were a master at public speaking, the comparisons to Hitler might even seem more apt! If you doubt what I'm saying, consider the cases of Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen. Neither of them is known for their malapropisms--Farage, in fact, is actually an excellent public speaker--yet both are given the exact same treatment by the MSM as Trump.

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn’t matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a ‘fascist’, ‘racist’, etc.

    That’s certainly true, the mainstream media would seek to destroy anyone with even a vaguely “nationalist” programme. It’s just that I’m not convinced Trump has what it takes to fight effectively against that opposition. His election campaign was an impressive achievement in some ways, but as president he comes across somewhat like a bumbling oaf imo, which creates a lot of opportunities for the malicious media. I just hope he doesn’t do anything really stupid like starting another Mideast war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. fnn says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    There is no globalism without the 'Atlantic Bridge', and there is no Atlantic Bridge without the US. Europe's rulers will not be able to keep the same policies in the Middle East and Russia going all by themselves. Moreover, without the US propping it up, the EU would quickly collapse under its own weight. Even now, more and more countries in Europe are becoming annoyed at Merkel's love of austerity and refugees. Without Washington backing her up, these policies would become completely unsustainable.

    As far as being eloquent is concerned, even if Trump were the greatest orator since Winston Churchill, it wouldn't matter as long he were pushing the same policies that got him elected. The MSM would still demonize him as a 'fascist', 'racist', etc. Indeed, if he were a master at public speaking, the comparisons to Hitler might even seem more apt! If you doubt what I'm saying, consider the cases of Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen. Neither of them is known for their malapropisms--Farage, in fact, is actually an excellent public speaker--yet both are given the exact same treatment by the MSM as Trump.

    And Enoch Powell before that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. utu says:

    the kremlins are sucking up to people who won’t even thank them for it

    Is the sucking up Machiavellian or it reflects the collective state of Kremlin’s mind? I am afraid it is the latter. Russia’s oligarchs want to make a deal with their counterparts in the West and Putin is their reluctant negotiator and spokesman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @Seamus Padraig

    Many “anti-Americans” who are now bashing Trump are totally fine with all this and actually want more of the same…they think the US isn’t true enough to its “values”.
     
    What you need to do is convince those left-wing anti-Americans that importing those "values" is going to turn your country into a bad copy of America--crime, guns, neo-liberalism and all. It's a package deal. And I do mean left-wing, not centrist or liberal. Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists. Obviously, this will take some work, and the pro-establishment centrist/liberal types are going to use every opportunity to drive a wedge between you; but as neither the alt-left nor the alt-right by itself has the power to overthrow the establishment on its own, there's no other realistic option.

    Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists.

    I doubt such an alliance would be possible, and I’m not even sure left-wing anti-imperialists are really a significant force in Europe nowadays. I don’t have any hard data to prove this, but my impression is the radical left in Europe today is really into open borders and refugees welcome, other issues are pretty much secondary for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Exactly. Thank you. The Left does not care about anti imperialism or socialism anymore. In fact, they think that imperialism and corporations are good for pushing their agenda.

    There are some old school Leftists remaining, but most of them either go along with the Globalist Left mainstream (Chomsky, Bernie) while the remaining have fractured off into total political irrelevance (Stein).
    , @Seamus Padraig
    I fear you may be right. If so, then Europe is doomed. But we in America still have to save ourselves; we can't carry Europe forever. So one way or another, Trump struck exactly the right tone for the occasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @German_reader

    Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists.
     
    I doubt such an alliance would be possible, and I'm not even sure left-wing anti-imperialists are really a significant force in Europe nowadays. I don't have any hard data to prove this, but my impression is the radical left in Europe today is really into open borders and refugees welcome, other issues are pretty much secondary for them.

    Exactly. Thank you. The Left does not care about anti imperialism or socialism anymore. In fact, they think that imperialism and corporations are good for pushing their agenda.

    There are some old school Leftists remaining, but most of them either go along with the Globalist Left mainstream (Chomsky, Bernie) while the remaining have fractured off into total political irrelevance (Stein).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @German_reader

    What matters is what Russia, China and, to some extent and for various reasons, certain Middle Eastern countries think.
     
    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it's clear another regime change project is coming. I doubt that will find support in Russia or China.

    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it’s clear another regime change project is coming.

    This is typical Euro over-estimation of the political power of American Jews.

    There will NEVER be a US attack on Iran. It will absolutely, positively never happen under any circumstances ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    There will NEVER be a US attack on Iran.
     
    I sure hope so, it's a really bad idea imo.
    Maybe you're right and it really is unlikely...but I don't think it's impossible. And not just because of pro-Israel lobby groups. Quite a few of Trump's advisers are reportedly obsessed with Iran (Mattis and McMaster, according to some reports, would like to get "revenge" for Iran having caused the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq), and Trump has clearly taken the Saudi-Arabian/Sunni side in the intra-Islamic conflict during his recent trip.
    So I don't know if open US-Iran war is really unthinkable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Greasy William

    Russia and China are part of the nuclear agreement with Iran; and in any case, if the US unilaterally tears up that agreement, it’s clear another regime change project is coming.
     
    This is typical Euro over-estimation of the political power of American Jews.

    There will NEVER be a US attack on Iran. It will absolutely, positively never happen under any circumstances ever.

    There will NEVER be a US attack on Iran.

    I sure hope so, it’s a really bad idea imo.
    Maybe you’re right and it really is unlikely…but I don’t think it’s impossible. And not just because of pro-Israel lobby groups. Quite a few of Trump’s advisers are reportedly obsessed with Iran (Mattis and McMaster, according to some reports, would like to get “revenge” for Iran having caused the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq), and Trump has clearly taken the Saudi-Arabian/Sunni side in the intra-Islamic conflict during his recent trip.
    So I don’t know if open US-Iran war is really unthinkable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. I will never cease to be amazed at the extent that people will continue to believe liars.

    It’s like they have a mirror neuron system for lying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Darin says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Building a series of dams around Saint-Petersburg, between the Black and Caspian sea will largely solve this problem for us. Also, think of all the useless land in Siberia and the Far East that will become habitable due to climate change. Kamchatka is practically empty of people, but with warmer climate, it could become a great place to live.

    Thawed permafrost turns to swamps, or is washed away by the sea. Bad replacement for the black earth areas that would turn into deserts.

    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0753-vanishing-arctic-how-warming-climate-leaves-remote-permafrost-islands-on-the-precipice/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Darin says:

    If you are tired of global warming doom, check this for optimistic “hyperborean paradise” vision of hothouse Earth.

    http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM

    Rather old, from the year 2003, but well done. Not much of Russia is left, but what is left is very green and pretty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Medvedev says:

    Yet, no one dares to talk about elephant in the room. All those measures are worthless without population control.
    - USA, Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan – all of these regions/countries have sub-replacement fertility, curbed pollution and gradually turn to renewable energy. Many countries are losing population and many would be losing if it wasn’t for immigrants.
    - China- sub-replacement fertility. Doesn’t matter that their economy (and pollution) is growing rapidly, the economy will have its limits and share of renewable energy is growing to.
    - Latin America and India – most countries have fertility close to replacement level (India 2.4, Brazil 1.7, Argentina 2.3, Mexico 2.2, Colombia 1.8, Venezuela 2.3 etc).

    Meanwhile, Africa, which had 221 million people in 1950, is set to quadruple by the end of the century and reach 4.3 billion people.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    That's a smart move by Putin. Concern over global warming and environmentalism aren't necessarily left-wing or liberal issues, of course the question remains what exactly should be done, but pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.
    Anyway, while I would probably have voted for Trump if I were American, I have to say this is another thing that makes him look like a major asshole (and the people who are cheering him on for this as well). Coupled with statements like "Selling all those weapons to Saudi-Arabia will be great for American jobs!" - at a time when Saudi-Arabia is causing what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen - this would make it very easy to paint America First as selfish, immoral cynicism of the worst kind. If the Russians (or some other actor) ever decide to run a truly anti-American campaign, this would provide a lot of material ("Look at those immoral, materialist Americans...they don't care if Bangladesh will be submerged because of global warming, as long as they can drive their gas-guzzling monster cars!").

    pure denialism is a stupid idea for right-wingers or conservatives.

    global warming is a con – that’s why they changed the name to “climate change”

    the ClimateGate emails told the whole story but the media have never reported it honestly

    the sequence was
    1) measured temperatures rose for c. 15 years until around 1998 when it stopped
    2) the people in charge of providing the data believed it was just a temporary lull so they rigged the data for 15 years
    3) during those years millions of people were persuaded global warming was true and scores of thousands of people got well-paid jobs that were in some way entangled in the global warming hoax
    4) after 15 years of rigging the data one of the scientists involved leaked the truth

    so

    there was warming and then there wasn’t warming which means it’s not man-made (as CO2 emissions increased the whole time)

    so

    the science is not settled

    either

    1) it’s man-made but in an unexplained way
    2) it’s man made but the increased CO2 led to more greenery/plankton which absorbed it
    3) IT’S THE SUN AND ALWAYS WAS THE SUN

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @German_reader

    Ultimately, the goal should be an alliance between right-wing nationalists and left-wing anti-imperialists.
     
    I doubt such an alliance would be possible, and I'm not even sure left-wing anti-imperialists are really a significant force in Europe nowadays. I don't have any hard data to prove this, but my impression is the radical left in Europe today is really into open borders and refugees welcome, other issues are pretty much secondary for them.

    I fear you may be right. If so, then Europe is doomed. But we in America still have to save ourselves; we can’t carry Europe forever. So one way or another, Trump struck exactly the right tone for the occasion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @utu
    Note that this is a couple of days after Macron publicly humiliated Putin in Paris, telling him that RT.com and Sputnik are propagandists to his face.

    Perhaps Putin took it as a compliment for the efficacy of RT and Sputnik. I so he is greatly mistaken. RT and Sputnik are very poor and ineffective. Not on par with the ruthless MSM propaganda machine of the West. I keep following RT and Sputnik for last several years and I see they keep missing opportunities of scoring good point over and over again. They are way too timid.

    Russia Today had a much smaller audience than RT but it had more influence on people who mattered to Russia such as businessmen and politicians who watched it for news about Russia. (I know they did from first hand. I can point to investments made due to Russia Today programmes). Coverage of the Georgian war could be forgiven.

    The trouble was the war increased viewing figures greatly. Quality was about zero but quantity was huge. Russia Today became RT and sought conspiracy theorists and agitprop causes everywhere. The news desk is still reasonable but for the rest of the station, entertaining conspiracy theorists overwhelms any other consideration. Even efforts to promote Russian national interests like coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, ramping the gold price or encouraging anti-fracking campaigns pick up this tone and the effort of trying too hard. RT has become a lost opportunity. Al Jazeera shows the way to do it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Starting 2019 we are due for about 50 years of reduced solar output. Time to invest in insulation manufacturers and corner supplies of snow clearing machines.

    But meanwhile, there’s nothing wrong with solar energy when it is price competitive – at utility scale it often is. If it is very cheap, battery or flywheel storage to supply night time peak loads might be worth it in countries without hydro. (Not worth it for nukes because the owners negotiate high guaranteed prices).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. blob says:

    Time to move to Russia with the projections from this(partially srs). Btw Anatoly are you using BAP’s style on purpose?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS