Energy revolution turns Big Green green with grief

Walter Russell Mead:

...

Again, for people who base their claim to world leadership on their superior understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, greens prove over and over again that they are surprisingly naive and crude in their ability to model and to shape the behavior of the political and economic systems they seek to control. If their understanding of the future of the earth’s climate is anything like as wish-driven, fact-averse and intellectually crude as their approach to international affairs, democratic politics and the energy market, the greens are in trouble indeed. And as I’ve written in the past, the contrast between green claims to understand climate and to be able to manage the largest and most complex set of policy changes ever undertaken, and the evident incompetence of greens at managing small (Solyndra) and large (Kyoto, EU cap and trade, global climate treaty) political projects today has more to do with climate skepticism than greens have yet understood. Many people aren’t rejecting science; they are rejecting green claims of policy competence. In doing so, they are entirely justified by the record.

...

Another thing that has caused them to lose credibility has been the failure of their models to predict accurately what happens as we produce more CO2.   Their assumptions are not being proven by events so they are becoming more hysterical with each summer weather event they deem to be an anomaly.  Winter weather anomalies not so much.

They tend to misread the skeptics and accuse them of being "deniers" when in fact the skepticism is about their dire predictions.  Based on events, the skepticism makes more sense that the Gaia theories propounded by the true believers of "climate change."

Mead's piece is worth reading in full.