Trump: “our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has expressed strong skepticism about anthropogenic climate change, suggesting human influence is a “minor effect”, and that there are other priorities which deserve more attention.

HIATT: Last one: You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?

TRUMP: I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not – I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room – but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

STROMBERG: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?

TRUMP: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

The other leading Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, has also expressed strong skepticism about anthropogenic climate change, and has made genuine efforts to hold climate scientists to account for their alarmist statements.

Nuclear weapons, particularly terrorist nukes, are, or should be, a growing concern. As WUWT detailed in a previous post, once a substantial amount of fissile material is in circulation, the threat it poses may hang over all of our heads for hundreds of years. Refining fissile material is incredibly difficult, but once produced, weapons grade fissiles are horribly easy to smuggle across international borders. When the material arrives at its intended target, assembling the fissile material into a nuclear bomb is something which could be performed in a normal suburban basement. Several rogue states with dubious links to terrorist organisations, appear to be doing everything in their power to produce fissile material which falls into this dangerous category.

Republican voters are in a fortunate position. While the leading presidential candidates are both strongly skeptical of the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change, Republicans had a real choice on this issue. There were other Republican candidates on offer, who expressed very different views about climate change – they had their opportunity to make their case.

Democrats have not been presented with a comparable set of options. Despite strong evidence that many Democrats are growing tired of their leadership putting climate corporate welfare ahead of jobs and the economy, as far as I can tell, the Democrat presidential candidate positions on climate change appear to be uniformly alarmist.

213 thoughts on “Trump: “our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons”

  1. According to polls AGW is at the bottom of the voter problems list facing Americans. Then why are we wasting money/time/people/resources/angst on it? Neither side wants to make it an issue because with AGW they are being PC. Very few politicians understand it beyond the hype and propaganda. Cruz understands the AGW reality more than most.

      • Nice try Seth.
        The link you posted goes to a poll showing an increased concern among Americans about climate. It makes no mention at all of how they rank that concern compared to other issues. When asked in the context of things like the economy, war, and so on, climate tends to rank very low if not last. You’ve provided no evidence to counter markl’s claim.

        As for your candidates and climate graph, it is meaningless without knowing who the 8 scientists are. If I get to pick the scientists, I can make the graph say the exact opposite. You’re just posting propoganda. But thanks for playing.

      • davidmhoffer
        Good try but if you are going to use current thinking in the field of climate science as represented by the IPCC, then Cruz is locked into the bottom slot and Trump is not going to do much better. Of course you can find some random scientists (probably right wing free marketers like Roy Spencer) who think Cruz is on the money, but they are very much on the outer. Having said that, even Roy thinks some of the warming is ours and that it is continuing, so Cruz doesn’t even have him in his team. My challenge to you is find a current scientist who thinks the warming has stopped and that there is no risk at all.

      • davidmhoffer wrote:Nice try Seth.

        Why thanks david. Same to you.

        davidmhoffer wrote:The link you posted goes to a poll showing an increased concern among Americans about climate.

        Well spotted David. Yes it does. That is also implied by the text I used to link to the poll, which is also the headline used by Gallup in the link.

        davidmhoffer wrote:It makes no mention at all of how they rank that concern compared to other issues.

        Also true. It shows that current concern about climate change is at an 8 year high, and that 64% of U.S. adults say they are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about global warming, up from 55% in only one year.

        davidmhoffer wrote:When asked in the context of things like the economy, war, and so on, climate tends to rank very low if not last.

        Are you sure that’s still the case? Concern about climate change has increased a lot in the last year alone.

        davidmhoffer wrote:You’ve provided no evidence to counter markl’s claim.

        What I’ve provided evidence of is that concern about climate in the US has risen significantly in the past year.

        davidmhoffer wrote:As for your candidates and climate graph, it is meaningless without knowing who the 8 scientists are.

        To try to eliminate possible bias, the candidates’ comments were stripped of names and given randomly generated numbers, so the professors would not know who made each statement they were grading. Also, the scientists who did the grading were chosen by professional scientific societies.

        davidmhoffer wrote:If I get to pick the scientists, I can make the graph say the exact opposite.

        I doubt it. What evidence have you got of that claim? I assume you haven’t done it. This was done, so it is much more convincing that your blustering but unsubstantiated supposition.

        I suspect that any climate scientist could tell an incorrect statement by a politician about climate science from a correct one.

        davidmhoffer wrote:You’re just posting propoganda. But thanks for playing.

        No David, I’ve posted evidence. You’re countering with empty rhetoric. Get some evidence, and try again, ok?

      • Simon says
        Good try but if you are going to use current thinking in the field of climate science as represented by the IPCC

        Aw, Simon wants to play too. His gambit is to appeal to authority (the IPCC) and constrain choice of scientists to those who agree with the IPCC. Here’s the thing Simon, the IPCC is a political organization that has been tasked with politicizing climate science. Despite which they’ve backed themselves into a corner and admitted that their models run too hot, they can no longer arrive at a consensus sensitivity estimate, and they rank everything from aging to lifestyle as being not just a larger impact on our lives than climate change, but a MUCH larger impact. So, if we boiled down the what the IPCC science actually says instead of what gets wildly misreported and exaggerated by the political discourse, we’d get a rather different result.

        That said, my personal guess is that if you confronted the lot if them with a 1st year physics exam, not one of them would core more than a few percentage points.

      • davidmhoffer wrote: Here’s the thing Simon, the IPCC is a political organization that has been tasked with politicizing climate science.

        No, David, you’re making that up too.

        Why don’t you get into the habit of including links to evidence of your posts? You’re batting 0/3 on plausible in this thread alone.

        It was established … to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

      • Seth says;
        It was established … to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

        There are dozens of threads on this site that deal with the politicized nature of the IPCC. A simple reading of their own reports compared to their summaries for policy makers alone exposes the politicization. And one need go no further than what their own scientists have said about their own work at the IPCC:

        ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
        Stephen Schneider,
        Stanford Professor of Climatology,
        Lead author of many IPCC reports

        Climate change is too important to be left to scientists
        Mike Hulme, a professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia

        “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
        ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

      • davidmhoffer
        “not one of them would core more than a few percentage points.” What about you with a simple spelling test?

      • Seth
        March 21, 2016 at 10:45 pm

        Not according to this colored chart made up by 8 political hacks.

        Your leader Phil Jones admitted in the Feb 2010 BBC don’t go to jail interview he faked every last 10th of warming he ever added to a database since 1998.

        Your leader Mike Mann sued a guy who said he’s a liar, and lied in the court filing claiming he won a Nobel Prize. When he never did that. He just lied.

        Your leader James Hansen said the law of thermodynamics written for atmospheres doesn’t work on atmospheres, and that there’s magic effects on Venus. While Steve Goddard shows hundreds right here on WUWT how easy it is to calculate the temperature of Venus, Mars, Earth – all right on the nose – all with no green house gas effect at all.

        Your leader James Hansen is the one who said he would be coming in and out of his office window going home down the streets of Manhatten in a rowboat.

        Your leader Keith Briffa got caught claiming 6 trees notorious for unreliable ring conformation told him the temperature of the entire world. 6 trees. In a swamp in Norway or somewhere.

        Your leader Kevin Trenberth’s the one whose wacko screams about ”unstoppable accelerating global warming” signals in CERES data were simply held up in print next to the CERES data from years before: and when he said that. They were so near identical it could put a wall street analyst to sleep. Nothing unusual Trenberth’s just a KooK.

        Your leader Steven Schneider is the idiot who wrote that he had ”written a program on Excel that finally allows man to calculate temperature from wind speed alone: and that mankind would soon no longer use any heat sensors just his Excel program.” (The Answer Is Blowing In The Wind) paper.

        Your leaders have the additional problem that they can’t predict which way a thermometer will go, told the correct answers ahead of time.

        Your brightly colored chart might stir some long lost urge to have gotten yourself an education but the fact is, you bit hook line and sinker, into a story about magic gas making the sky hot if someone uses fire.

        A miles deep global
        oceanic pool of chilled-to-liquid, phase change refrigerant,
        a frigid self refrigerating gas bath, blocking light to a sun warmed rock,
        to wash the reduced energy off an overall colder larger combined, total mass,

        Is a giant heater, your ”scientist leaders” told you.
        That is going to get hot and make a whole bunch of catastrophes
        if we use fire wrong; so we have to be sure to buy our fire,
        from the ”right”
        international
        fire cartel.

        Or Al Gore will be really, upset.
        Al Gore is really upset he lost the presidential election,
        and his wife. And all credibility as a functional intellect who claims he thinks the sky really is a magic heater.

        He did make himself fantastically rich, manipulating energy markets by telling you: the low information public, that – the sky’s a magic heater
        and climate sin,
        obligates your grandma to pay him for using fire.
        And you’re in here sure it’s all gotta be true.

        Who cares Phil Jones was seen saying ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

        Who cares he confessed to the BBC in his Feb 2010 don’t go to jail interview that it hadn’t warmed one whit since 1998, he made the entire thing up. In fact it had cooled a little bit.

        Who cares his employer who suspended him for not telling about it not warming for a dozen years, then issued their own Press Release 3 years after they took stock of the enormous mess he left the records in – ”The Recent Pause in Warming”

        where they wrote three papers, talking about the ”15 year pause Global Warming” since 1998, and how the whole world looked like it was the end, so they just said it was, but it wasn’t really; and they weren’t gonna correct those fake records.

        You’re here pointing to colored pictures about what 8
        government employee ”scientists” who think the sky is getting hot
        think
        after being shown day after day, their intellectual leadership, confessing to faking their data; and caught lying in court when suing about whether they’re liars.

        People say ”Hey when your guy confesses he faked ALL the warming for 12 years – that’s a hint,
        he faked the warming the past 12 years.”

        Things like ”You know the guy who told congress some trees told him the world was gonna end, by talking to him from a computer program, accidentally put that computer program up online and – it makes hundreds, and hundreds, of hockey stick graphs,
        even from the calibration data.

        ”The trees told him, ”
        ”the world is gonna end. ”

        People remind you that a c r o s s the b o a r d
        scientists from every conceivable field of human endeavor
        have said these words: ”The whole AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics, coming and going.”

        And you’re telling us the guys who confessed they are faking the warming,
        are the ones who you really believe.

        The one the trees told, the world was going to end,
        and who sued a man who said he’s a Grade A KooK-TarD LiaR
        and he made up, that he was a Nobel Laureate, and put THAT in the lawsuit :
        that the man defamed a Nobel Laureate; who when checked on – doesn’t have one.

        So – your big colored picture is very pretty
        but the story of where you got it
        is a who’s who of
        kook-villian
        thermo-tards.

        Your leader who told you Magic
        made the law of thermodynamics written for the atmophere not work on Venus,

        stood by grandmothers’ cars at the gate of their job distributing heating supplies
        and screamed into their windows that they were

        “murdering millions by loading and unloading ‘Death Trains Like the Ones Going To Auchwitz.”

        You’re here as the kid with the tambourine and orange dress at the airport,
        chanting we should feel guilty you act like a morally, intellectually, disturbed nut.

        Who believes the world will end
        if the sky gets hot
        from using fire.

        It’s your story It’s not our fault your intellectual heroes are all kooks.

      • davidmhoffer says: There are dozens of threads on this site that deal with the politicized nature of the IPCC.

        You claimed that the IPCC was PCC “has been tasked with politicizing climate science.” I have shown what they were tasked with. You are mistaken.

        You did not claim that this (notedly anti-climate science) blog had made the claim that those summarizing the science were doing it wrong. If you had, it wouldn’t have counted for much though would it?

        davidmhoffer says: A simple reading of their own reports compared to their summaries for policy makers alone exposes the politicization.

        To be fair, I’ve spent more time reading the technical summaries, so you’ll need to be specific. But given that the IPCC don’t write the reports nor the summaries for policymakers (they get scientists to do that), I don’t see how your conclusion can follow. The SPM undergoes government review, but the chapters do not. Perhaps that is the source of your noted discrepancies?

        davidmhoffer says: And one need go no further than what their own scientists have said about their own work at the IPCC:

        ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
        Stephen Schneider,
        Stanford Professor of Climatology,
        Lead author of many IPCC reports

        I see you left off the last sentence to make so that it looks like he is encouraging a pay-off between being effective and being honest. That’s not very honest of you is it?

        And you left off the discussion of being accurate before that. You’ve managed to twist that quote quite a lot by leaving off the context, haven’t you?

        Here it is in full:

        On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

        The question I have, is why did you make the out of context quote? Have you been reading the propaganda blogs as your only source of information, and had no idea that you were being mislead? Or are you trying to mislead me? If the latter, it won’t work, I have google here. If the former, you look a fool: Why don’t you check the facts before posting?

        davidmhoffer says: Climate change is too important to be left to scientists
        Mike Hulme, a professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia

        What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy; it is whether we have sufficient foresight, supported by wisdom, to allow our perspective about the future, and our responsibility for it, to be altered. All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists – least of all the normal ones

        There’s nothing in that quote to suggest political agenda by the IPCC. Mike is saying we all need to be involved because we will all be affected.

        “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
        ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

        The original is:Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

        Trotzdem leidet die Umwelt unter dem Klimawandel – vor allem im Süden.

        You put your translation in quotes, which is dishonest. You take the context of the discussion away, which is dishonest, and you completely leave out “mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch”, from the middle of your last sentence, which makes it look dodgier that it is. The working group III is about adaptation. Africa needs development to to starve under climate change and Saudi Arabia must leave oil in the ground if we are to ameliorate climate change. That is “de facto das Weltvermögen um”.

      • “What about you with a simple spelling test?”

        As always when someone is at the losing end of a debate, they resort to nit-picking!

      • Africa needs development to to starve under climate change

        Grammar alert! An extra “to”:. This is much worse than a simple typo. Your credibility it now totally shattered.

      • davidmhoffer wrote:Grammar alert! An extra “to”:. This is much worse than a simple typo. Your credibility it now totally shattered.

        So we’ve learned a couple of things:

        1) The best evidence of “the politicized nature of the IPCC” are three quotes that are taken out of context, and in the case of the one in German, with parts of the middle missing. Utter propaganda.

        2) So there is no evidence that the IPCC are political, so we should assume that their objectives are the ones of their website.

        And you’ve learned one thing:

        1) A lot of the stuff you’re learned from “climate skeptics” is not specifically too correct, and you should google it before you base your arguments on it, or you will be called out for dishonesty.

      • Rest easy.

        When the trolls arrive on a site like this you know there will be a change in government.

        Bye bye baby. The only thing being heated here is Hillary Rodham whatshername. She’s toast and Seth and his trolling comrade Simon are having conniptions. Apoplexy.

        Get ready for the violence of the eco-fascists. That’s their next strategy. If they can’t have it their way they’ll try to wreck the joint.

      • There is a difference between politics and science.

        The politics have been the the public being bombarded by one-sided alarmist propaganda, Many major media outlets have dumped journalistic integrity and openly refused publishing contradictory views from anyone including scientists. And yet relative to other issues, Climate Change is at the bottom of the concern list. So even after being hit over the head with Climate Change sledge hammers the public realizes it is mostly BS.

        Removing the politics the science remains weak and in some cases arguably dishonest. See Manns hockey stick.

      • What a lame try, Seth. Polls of any kind are notoriously unreliable, so in a poll of 8 ‘scientists’ against a poll of 1000 citizens who wins. The folks do. They pay the bills.

        The UN and the IPCC have been wholly political from inception and by design:

        Notable is the fact that the major source on climate research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is not a scientific organization, but a politcal one. The Panel was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). The Convention was established by the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP) and the World Meteorololgical Organization(UN) which grew out of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972,

        The typically voluminous work of these UN efforts, in the usual high flown UN bureaucratese, started a new UN Bureau to direct mutiple programs on environment, population, international development, and along the way through the IPCC, to establish parameters for UN control of the world environment.

        From the IPCC website/history:

        “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

        In assuming it’s results before starting, “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”, the IPCC by definition does not do any scientifc work on understanding the climate and how it changes. It’s only purview is “risk of human-induced climate change”.

        So it is no wonder that the activities of the UN, the IPCC, and the WMO there has evolved quite a lot of controversy surrounding the earth’s climate and how it changes. The biased(by design) performance of the IPCC has generated much contrary opinion and research. Many scientists have obviously come to different conclusions than the IPCC and are rightfully skeptical of its reports, methods, and results. Many other people strongly disagree with its conclusions, the biased manner in making them, and the political policies implemented by the biased UN political process.

      • Talk about cherry picking. What Simon and the headline fails to mention is that the climate change survey shows that effectively U.S. Concern About Global Warming is the same as 26 years ago and was much higher in 1972.

        Not to mention the construction of the graph is goofy, It lumps “great concern” in with “fair amount of concern” as if they are close to meaning the same thing. Like a person having great concern of losing their job because their company is downsizing is the same having a fair amount of concern for their job because of slow national GDP growth.

        It’s all about how the survey is built and that is why they often are contradictory. For example, Gallop surveys show economic confidence is down but consumer spending is up. According to the surveys when people become more concerned about the economy they like to spend more.

      • Seth, I suspect ypi are a pro.But hey, I have a few minutes.

        Seth
        1) The best evidence of “the politicized nature of the IPCC” are three quotes that are taken out of context, and in the case of the one in German, with parts of the middle missing. Utter propaganda.

        There are dozens of similar quotes, which i imagine you would claim are all out of context. But they abound and added up, they are damning. Hansen committing to keep certain science papers out of the IPCC reports. Chariman Pauchauri admitting that knowingly wrong information about Himalayan glacier melt was left in because it would pressure governments to act even if untrue. The call to get rid of the MWP (which subsequent reports did. Richaard Tol’s resignation over his objections to the alarmist nature of the SPM when compared to the WG. I could go on, But if you want to get into a really damning and detailed expose of just how political the IPCC process is, I recommend a read through this:

        http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/

        2) So there is no evidence that the IPCC are political, so we should assume that their objectives are the ones of their website.

        You may assume no such thing. Actions speak louder than words, and the IPCC has suffered one scandal after another which exposes their political bent. But on top of that, the IPCC’s mandate is dictated by the UNFCC which directs the IPCC to study climate change as follows:

        Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

        So their mandate is clear. It is NOT to study climate, but to study human activity only. Thus, they must follow their political task matters and find exactly that. A more thorough write up can be found here:

        http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/

        1) A lot of the stuff you’re learned from “climate skeptics” is not specifically too correct, and you should google it before you base your arguments on it, or you will be called out for dishonesty.

        You’ve merely nit picked at minor details. We could go around in circles on them all night. Step back and look at the big picture and it becomes painfully obvious that the IPCC is a political organization that serves an agenda, that there is a politically driven divide between the science in the Working Groups and the science in the SPM, and that the IPCC is increasingly on the defensive in terms of maintaining an alarmist narrative in the face of observations and current research showing that sensitivity is much lower than originally thought and that we have many other real world problems that warrant considerably more of our time and attention than climate change. On this last statement, IPCC AR5 agrees with me. Find THAT in the SPM though!

      • Nice chart. The bottom is where we want a rational person to be. As I wrote downthread:

        The only intelligent, thoughtful CAGW skeptic in the Presidential race is Ted Cruz. He actually held a hearing in the Senate, called “Data or Dogma,” and invited John Christy, Mark Steyn, and Judith Curry to testify. A vote for Cruz is a vote for rationality and science.

        Donald Trump is a snake-oil salesman who will tell you whatever he thinks will make the sale—in this case, your vote.

        /Mr Lynn

      • 150 years ago, 4% of the lands surface was used by humans. total. agriculture and cities. today, 40% of the land surface is used for agriculture, and 4% for cities.

        this is where climate change is happening. when you change almost 1/2 of the land surface of the earth of course you are going to see changes.

        and yes, this change was made possible by fossil fuels. The mistake is in the nuclear bomb legacy. The preoccupation with radiation (GHG theory) as the explanation for everything.

        The reality is, you cut down a forest to build a city, or drain a swamp and convert it to farmland, or course you are going to change the local climate.

        And when you do this to almost 1/2 of the land surface of the planet, you have global climate change. And nothing the IPCC has proposed, nothing that countries in Paris have agreed, will change this.

      • “While Steve Goddard shows hundreds right here on WUWT how easy it is to calculate the temperature of Venus, Mars, Earth – all right on the nose – all with no green house gas effect at all.”

        I have asked a few times for the mechanism of warming a planet’s surface without the greenhouse effect, but I have not had an answer or a link. A planet without an atmosphere will reach a surface equilibrium temperature depending on incoming radiation. If you surround this planet with an atmosphere that is transparent to radiation, how will this change the temperature? All that can happen is that the atmosphere will warm up to the surface temperature. The only inputs to the system are radiation in and radiation out.

        Please either explain the mechanism or stop mentioning it.

      • Every poll that lists legitimate concerns for Americans and lists “climate change,” finds that we Americans aren’t concerned with climate Change. Why? Because the only thing that has “caused” visible warming in the climate has been “natural variability and el nino.” Every excuse for the lack of warming has been “natural variability,” so why would an intelligent person think that any prior warming was not also from natural variability.? I haven’t had my cup of kool aid in a long, long time, so I am actually able to look at data and make decisions for myself. The graphic is a BS as the IPCC and, it would appear, you. Sadly, with no actual data supporting your position, I am not willing to go back to chasing animals on foot with a club to try to survive nor am I willing to commit the lives of unborn generations to a life of dog eat dog so you can thump yourself on the back and say “let’s get this one for Gaia,” mostly because, you see Gaia doesn’t care what we do, and Gaia will change her climate according to the same forces that she always has yielded to. Stop trying to set up the die off of the human race through hypothermia due to lack of energy to warm homes, and starving the rest because you’ve converted farm lands to biofuels to puff up your ego.

      • seaice1
        March 22, 2016 at 7:34 am
        “While Steve Goddard shows hundreds right here on WUWT how easy it is to calculate the temperature of Venus, Mars, Earth – all right on the nose – all with no green house gas effect at all.”
        I have asked a few times for the mechanism of warming a planet’s surface without the greenhouse effect, but I have not had an answer or a link.
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/venus-one-more-time/
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/venus-is-hot-mars-is-not/
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/despite-high-levels-of-co2-mars-is-cold/

      • Seth —

        What you mistake for increased widespread concern about climate change is really just the usual suspects screaming louder and louder. The echo chamber you live in has, for that reason, gotten more deafening giving you a false sense of what is going on in the world.

        “Nobody I know voted for him” was supposedly said by a liberal to dispute the results of Nixon’s presidential win. You need to consider that your sources of information may be as non-inclusive.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • LOL You do realize people on here are smart enough to realize where you got the poll and what your effort is about. Wait, your actions showed the truth of your intelligence.

      • I’m late to the party.
        Seth, you’ve been asked for the names of these “eight scientist”. Unless I missed it, you never said. You or someone else did say something about the the politicians’ names being removed from their statements before being evaluated. But so what? It would take more than that to remove “The Great Eight’s” bias.
        Any bets that one of them was St. Michael Mann?
        (Maybe Bill Nye and Al Gore too!)

        Seth, their names please.

      • Out in the real world, the CAGW hoax is losing credibility fast.

        Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

        Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

        In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

        The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

        Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

        The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

        The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,722,020 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.

        http://data.myworld2015.org/

        Crying “WOLF!” can only work for so long, and as not a single one of the catastrophic predictions of the Warmist religion over the last 3 decades has actually happened – in fact in the majority of cases such as hurricane landfall frequency and polar ice disappearance they have been diametrically wrong – their credibility is rapidly approaching zero.

        Of course, most people realise that there are plenty of really clear and present dangers in the World without worrying about a superannuated scare story that hasn’t managed to get a single one of its apocalyptic predictions right since the 1980s and has now degenerated into crackpot prognostications of doom and gloom not just tens, not just hundreds but thousands of years in the future.

        The real problem is that these scammers and the credulous bedwetters that unquestioningly support them are destroying the credibility of real science – and not just in the field of climate either, and just as in the fable, when a real wolf does come – and it will, sooner or later, nobody will believe them.

      • Who were these scientists and what were these questions? Why is this never reported in the media. If you know either of these, please post them.

      • BFL. Thank you for the links. However, they do not say there is no greenhouse effect -quite the opposite:

        “This is in spite of the fact that the greenhouse effect at 1 bar on Earth is much stronger ..”

        None of these describe a mechansm for heating either. I suspect it is because there is not one, but please correct me if I am wrong. I do not see how a planet at thermal equilibrium can be made warmer by surrounding it with an atmosphere that is tranparent to radiation. Without the greenhouse effect there is no heating.

    • He didn’t claim to be an expert. When asked for his opinion he provided it in plain English:
      I’m not a great believer.

      Who is your favorite climate “expert” in the presidential race?
      Are you a believer, or do you prefer to perform your own analysis based on evidence and reason?

      • Simon —

        It can be said about Hillary Clinton —

        Her lies are big, her lies are small
        She lies when there’s no need to lie
        The strangest lies of all

        Trump is a paragon of virtue compared to Hillary.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Brett Keane,

        I agree. Those two clowns are doing all they can to demonize someone who has actually contributed to society by building dozens of massive hi-rise skyscrapers. He’s created thousands of private sector jobs, and paid more in taxes than those two jamokes ever earned (assuming they’re even working in productive, private sector jobs).

        The degree of their hatred and loathing is in direct relation to the quality of this man’s contribution to our economy and country. They’re not fit to shine Trump’s shoes. All they can do is to anonymously post their stupid leftist politics on a science site.

        Seth and Simon are off their leash. They need to trot on back to Hotwhopper, or wherever they get their talking points. It doesn’t work here, because readers of this site are intelligent.

      • dbstealey said: It doesn’t work here, because readers of this site are intelligent.

        You got that right. Even the laypeople that read here have more intelligence.
        Experience, growth and wisdom are eluded by the trolls.

  2. Trump was pretty right on regarding global warming and put forth good arguments. Wanna watch people lose their minds? See the reaction when some lunatic sets off off a dirty bomb anywhere in the world.

      • Even if you are not paid for this useless trolling, I doubt a good argument would change your mind on anything. In other words if “good arguments” were a piano and it landed on your head, you would still miss it.

      • They were “I’m a winner!”.
        ===============
        that is actually a great argument. a track record of accomplish. a hell of a lot better than electing lawyers as politicians. a lawyer thinks all you need to do to solve problems is pass a law.

        if passing laws actually solved problems, make it illegal to be poor. see how quickly that gets rid of poverty.

        The problem is that lawyers are talkers, they are not doers. They get into office you get a whole lot of talk, a whole lot of new laws and regulations, but nothing actually gets solved. Instead all the red tape simply creates new jobs for lawyers.

      • This attitude alone is enough for me:
        Republican front runner Donald Trump identified Brussels as a jihadist hotbed back in January, but he was criticized for ‘insulting’ the Belgian capital by numerous media outlets and pundits.
        “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.”
        http://www.infowars.com/trump-warned-brussels-was-an-islamist-hellhole/
        http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/18/leaked-german-govt-report-shows-refugees-committed-200000-crimes-between-2014-and-2015/

      • Simon —

        And Hillary’s argument for election is — I’m a woman!

        You make me laugh. Keep up the humor.

        Eugene WR Gallun

    • It’s easy to be right when you speak and don’t say anything at all.

      I find it amazing that folks that claim to be smart are falling head over heels for Trump. That’s more embarrassing than falling for a politician. Hope y’all a brushing up on your Chinese!

      • Christopher Paino

        I am a Cruz man, originally a Scott Walker man. I favor Cruz because I believe he will do exactly as he says he will.

        Trump has promised a list of ten judges from which he will pick his supreme court nominations — all to be like Scalia in their conservatism.

        Trump has come out as a climate skeptic.

        He has promised to crackdown on illegal immigration.

        He has promised to rework trade deals (What people don’t understand is that many of these trade deals were deliberately designed to transfer American wealth to poorer countries as a form of international welfare. They were never about fair trade. It was Liberals singing the “Internationale” while gutting America.)

        If Trump wins the nomination, which seems likely, i will support him.

        Eugene WR Gallun

        .

      • Eugene WR Gallun, pretty much agree. I voted for Cruz in our primary, “primarily” based on what he said and did before his run.
        Bernie seems sincere in what he would do, but being sincere doesn’t mean want you want to is right. It just means you’re not lying about it.
        Hillary? The most deceptively dishonest bitch in the bunch.
        (I think I just went into moderation. 8-)
        I’d only vote for Trump if the choice was either of those two Dems or him. But I would.

    • RD
      “Trump was pretty right on regarding global warming and put forth good arguments”
      I’m still waiting for you to provide some evidence for this laughable statement. I say he knows next to nothing. Don’t tell me I’m wrong, show me.

      • Simon,

        The guy knows more than you will ever learn. He’s a self made billionaire. What are you?

        And do your own research. Trump’s qoutes are easy to find.

      • DB

        I don’t give a toss how much money he has made. The worship you Americans have for the dollar, is not always shared by others.
        I’m asking what he knows about climate science? It seem next to nothing given the deafening silence from your team. So DB, don’t change the subject…. give me answers.

      • C. Paino says:

        “Daddy made”.

        Wrong. Sure, he inherited a small fraction of his wealth. But he earned the major part of it. $Billions.

        How do you compare?

        And he’s a guy who mans up and does things that would send Obama scuttling for cover:


        [click in pic to embiggen]

        And Simon, sorry to hear you’ve got nothin’. Same-same with your climate alarmism.

      • RD
        Maybe you meant this gem from the presidential genius Trump…
        “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
        Brilliant. The Chinese are so clever and it took a mind like DT’s to see through the smog to catch them out.

    • Trump was talking about nuclear weapons. A very serious problem.

      A dirty bomb is no different than a regular terrorist bomb with a pinch more of irrational fear added.

      Being able to prioritize problems is an important trait for leaders.

    • Simon wrote Actually, where is the “global cooling in the 1920’s” he is talking about?

      Perhaps he was thinking of the 1940’s? They’re easy to confuse. Not counting world war two, and if you confuse flapper dresses with bikinis, and sliced bread with ballpoint pens.

      • uhhh bikinis post date WW2….they were named after bikini atoll, the site of nuclear bomb tests.

        When you highlight your own lack of historical knowledge, it doesn’t lend credence to anything else you write.

      • Simon says:

        The guy knows nothing about climate change

        It’s clear he knows more than you and seth put together. Because what you believe that you ‘know’ is wrong.

    • You seriously think any of the others know this, either? They don’t (OK maybe Cruz does), but they likewise get asked, and likewise re-construct their handler’s preconditioned messages on the topic. What do you expect Trump to do, not answer at all? How would that work out better from his chances. They’ll say whatever will work. But in this case, Trump even said (paraphrasing), “hey, I know this won’t work out for me here, but this is what I think matters.” Would the others have done even that much? (OK, again, maybe Cruz might)

      So why are you taking any of it ‘seriously’?

      If you find yourself suddenly taking it ‘seriously’, that’s only a sign that you’ve been successfully duped into buying in to it all. You have now been successfully “engaged” by the BS machinery.

      • Canadian here, so not really any comment on who you guys elect. God help you either way and God help us as well since we just elected our own grinning idiot. These comments by Trump however, I do find to be refreshingly honest.

    • Heh. There’s no global cooling in the 20’s – yet!. Let’s revisit in a couple of years and see what the
      record looks like then. They’ve already flattened the sharp rise (the same amplitude as 80’s > 00’s)
      between 1910 and 1940 hoping nobody noticed.

    • So you trust Wikipedia? It censors anything that comes to it regarding climate, always making sure that only the alarmist view is presented on its site.

  3. And what an irony having Trump talking about “much bigger risks,” when he is probably the “biggest risk” facing the planet at the moment.

      • One of my favorite quotes is by Mike Tyson .. “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

        Saying it in person to someone who is full of s_it and delivering it with a smile creates a moment of silence.

      • Nope, just an outsider looking into the US political system and wondering how anyone in their right mind could rate this guy on any level, let alone think he knows anything about climate change, because, clearly he knows nothing. And some would have him president. It is a frightening thing to think about, let alone let happen.

      • Groups do very predictable things when they’ve had enough. You are witnessing it. Observe, digest, adapt. Measure how far the displeasure takes the NEW and emerging movement.

      • @ Simon March 21, 2016 at 11:47 pm

        You wrote:

        “Nope, just an outsider looking into the US political system……..”

        =============

        If an outsider as you claim, you certainly seem to be engaged with an issue that is not your business.

        Did Trump fire you or are you concerned that he will. Or at least cut your funding? If he’s elected as US President there will be changes but the climate will continue to do its own thing.

      • Simon is either a paid troll, or he doesn’t have a life to speak of. One thing is certain: Trump scares the crap out of him.

        I like it!

      • Patrick MJD

        “Remind us again about what Al Gore knows about climate change.”

        Laughing out loud. Razor wit vs. butterknife. No contest.

        Eugene WR Gallun

    • Why is Trump a risk to the world?
      Is it because he wants to close tax loopholes for his own class – the very rich?
      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/gallup_poll_voters_love_trumps_tax_plans.html

      Is it because he doesn’t let the media set the agenda with trivial hot button issues contrived to keep the proletariat distracted from rather serious problems? (see Trump response to Kelly’s attack at first Fox debate)

      Is it because he makes the media look like a cheap puppet show? (see Trump response to Kelly’s attack at first Fox debate)

      Is it because he appears to care more about the the welfare of the people in his country than those from foreign ones?

      Is it because he wants the United States to have defined borders in contrast to the George Soros “Open Society” with no borders?

      Is it because he wants to have “the strongest military in the world by far and that’s so we don’t have to use it,” in contrast to, say, Hillary, who…
      (i) cackled with glee on television about the extra-judicial slaughter of Qaddafi, and also stated:
      (ii) “Russia will pay a big price”

      Is it because Trump said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get along with China and Russia“.

      In your wild imagination, what specifically concerns you? You sure do sound frightened–but you haven’t specified why.
      Are you extremely rich and worried about tax loopholes closing on you? Or is it something else?

      • Trump is a megalomaniac. He believes his own BS. He is a bully and racist to boot. He is happy to distort truth. He changes his mind with the wind. He has few policies and those he does have, are never the same two days in a row. He has no experience as a politician or a statesman. He feeds on the fears of the ignorant. Other than that he’s a great guy.

      • Simon says:

        Trump is a megalomaniac.

        And Simon is an idiot.

        I prefer the man who has actually built things, paid taxes, and made a success of himself.

        Get lost, Simon. You’re a pest.

      • Simon March 22, 2016 at 12:21 am
        “Trump is a megalomaniac.”

        You know Simon, in my opinion one of Trump’s most endearing qualities is the effect he has on bedwetters like you lot.

        On the basis of that alone, I sincerely hope he wins the race to the White House.

        GO TRUMP 2016!

    • Your a shrinking minority Simon.
      Have a read of this story, which I’m absolutely certain you will be suitably impressed with it’s level of alarmism from all partys who contributed.
      But it’s not the fairytale promoted that is the real story, scroll down to the comments and you’ll get my point.
      http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-council-call-for-action-against-global-warming-amid-recordbreaking-heat/news-story/8321a36ffef8461a07abcc8cb54ec62a
      Your a shrinking minority Simon.

      • Alx, yeah.
        Simon is too young to have read Donna’s “Delinquent Teenager.” Now he is one.

        “So we’ve learned a couple of things:
        1) The best evidence of “the politicized nature of the IPCC” are three quotes that are taken out of context.
        2) So there is no evidence that the IPCC are political, so we should assume that their objectives are the ones of their website.”

        See what I mean.

  4. Exciting times. I can’t remember being so excited about an election since Carter v Reagan when Reagan was a full 15% behind Carter. The 70s was a rough economy. People were so eager to get out of the malaise.

    Since then, after decades of watching both parties cater/collude to their particular genre of special interest, I’ve about had it with both of em. Neither consistently serves the public interest unless it serves their narrow interests first.

    Perhaps expectedly, there is a heavy dose of anger from those who feel “unserved” by the swinging of the pendulum. I think that anger will define who gets elected this time.

    Backlash.

    Climate change is a peanuts issue. It’s not an everyday one like … I need a better job or why are my taxes so high or geebus public schools suck or man o man the streets are NOT safe. IF bad energy policy results in brown outs and outrageous utility costs, it will slap alot of folks in the head and theeeen it will become a meaningful issue. Until then other issues will crowd out its significance.

    Germany is ahead in the extreme nature of energy policy. They recently floated an 100% carbon free energy initiative. England seems to dangle about with the idea. Stupid considering they don’t have a viable storage solution for intermittent green energy sources.
    Let’s watch them do it first.

    In the meantime grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks over the next 7 months.

    CAGW was always political and will be politically decided.

    • Absolutely,
      Look what happened to the Carbon Tax in Australia, the public HATED IT and threw the government out in what amounted to a just about a record landslide. This is the future for any administration or parliament that tries this wholesale fleecing of the public. OK The UK doesn’t count…

      • About to return post July 2nd. Now, IIRC, that is when the document of the American declaration of independence was actually created, signed on the 4th of course. Can any US cousin confirm that or not?

    • “Climate change is a peanuts issue.”
      Partial from Peggy Noonan:
      “There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time. They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
      Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions. If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally. It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

      Mr. Trump came from that. . . .

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227774/

  5. “Climate Change” is such a capricious propaganda term, which is why Leftists love to use it…

    “Climate Change” is a “living” hypothesis, in the same way Leftists have propagandized the Constitution to be a “living” document without intent, and meant to be tortured to mean anything under the sun.

    The Scientific Method was designed to expeditiously disconfirm hypotheses to assure valuable time and resources are not wasted on failed ideas.

    Even though the criteria for CAGW disconfirmation has long been surpassed, Leftist governments sadly continue to finance and implement laws based on CAGW being a viable hypothesis.

    It’s nice see the next president (either Trump or Cruz) don’t buy into the “Climate Change” propaganda.

  6. as loathe as I am to quote Wikipedia!

    Wikipedia: Global cooling
    Concern in the 1920s and 1930s
    In 1923, there was concern about a new ice age and Captain Donald Baxter MacMillan sailed toward the Arctic sponsored by the National Geographical Society to look for evidence of advancing glaciers. (12)(13)
    In 1926, a Berlin astronomer was predicting global cooling but that it was “ages away” (4)….
    Concerns that a new ice age was approaching was revived in the 1950s (15)…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    Wikipedia: Donald Baxter MacMiillan
    In 1923 there was concern about a new ice age and he sailed toward the North Pole aboard the schooner Bowdoin, sponsored by the National Geographical Society to look for evidence of advancing glaciers (4)(5)…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Baxter_MacMillan

  7. If I was a US citizen don’t think I would be voting for or against Donald Trump based on his views of AGW/Climate Change and I suspect that would generally be the case.
    Nevertheless it is an illustration that a man many people consider to be quite mad in some regards can hold what many other people [ and perhaps even some of the former people] consider to be rational views on some subjects.

    Hilary Clinton, who is generally considered to be less mad, seems to support the AGW alarmist position whether she believes it or not. Possibly because her advisors think it runs better with Democrats who would otherwise support Sanders.

    • It’s intriguing to me, watching from afar the occasional news story on the US presidential race, that the world’s richest nation, with 300 million people to choose from, is going to end up making a choice between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton to lead them into the future.

  8. The Washington Post raised the question during yesterday’s hour long interview with Donald Trump. He answered that, and other questions, beautifully. It’s long been known that Trump is a “Climate Change” skeptic(natural climate variability, weather etc). Most importantantly(and very correctly) he pointed to “Nuclear Extermination” as the real threat
    facing mankind.

    • Except that almost no one thinks nuclear extermination is a major threat facing mankind. Maybe 30-50 years ago, but not today.

      • Except he appears (to me) to be pretty good at observing trends that the people in power don’t want others to see. So maybe he knows something…..

      • Hey, Chris, I agree with you…but not in a way that supports your outlook. I have spent 40 years working in national defense, a good part of it in strategic defense, so I am well versed in the nature of nuclear weapons technology, which is now 70 years old. Trying to keep it in a bottle is like trying to limit access to gunpowder. Anyone with the industrial sophistication of 1940s USA can make a nuclear weapon–and there are more such nations than ever before–so our only option is to deal with the possibility, not laugh it off.

        Now, I said I agree with you. How can that be? Because I know from my background and life experience that human society can tolerate the occasional nuclear detonation much the same as with the occasional volcanic eruption, tsunami, tornado, hurricane, meteor strike, or other devastating natural event. We survive. None of these events are major threats facing mankind. But it doesn’t mean that a mushroom cloud is anything to look forward to.

      • Give it some time. If Iran and other islamic states begin developing and producing nukes both large and small, missile delivered and backpack delivered, and it delivers them to the various Islamic death cult terrorist organizations so they can further Islam by killing the infidel then, while it might not exterminate man, it damn well could make life for everyone shorter and more miserable than a global temperature increase of a few degrees celsius.

  9. So trump is crazy but Banki doom gets a photo with angry bird and he is ok . Not an American voter but I always vote for the one who is most vocal about the lies of AGW and it seems Trump is calling it for what it is .
    Could he really be worse than Obama?

  10. Trump: “our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons”

    Given North Korea claims to have a nuclear device that can be made at will AND now a delivery system, I would say the opinion of Trump to be a valid issue to focus on. Climate change, Muslim outreach programs, not so much.

    • Proliferation is the big danger. With Iran working on getting nukes, the only rational response by neighbors like Saudi Arabia is to get them too. it’s possibly easier for the Saudis to just buy them from Pakistan or N. Korea. Of course, imagine how much worse yesterdays bombing in Brussels would have been if they had been dirty bombs – inevitable? I think yes.

  11. “Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?”

    As soon as the AGW bletheren try to bring up the precautionary principle…

    you KNOW that have lost the scientific argument.

  12. Listening to Seth simply boosts Donald Trump in my opinion…it’s kinda like…if Seth is attacking Trump…then he must be doing ‘something ‘ right!

  13. I live in the UK, but my view of Trump: he is the least worst of those on offer!

    At least he tells you what he is thinking.

    Take our case, A young Tony Blair, elected in a landslide, looked so sweet that butter would not melt in his mouth, that he believed in ‘the truth’ and ‘fairness’.

    How many wars did Blair order the UKs armed forces to conduct? How many hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the ‘person who said the right thing at the right time’?

    With Trump, he might have many human failing, but he does not hide them from public view, you can see them ‘warts and all’.

    There is a backlash against established parties due to politicians saying one thing and doing another.

    Changing ones mind due to changed circumstance is one thing but to do the opposite whilst deliberately hiding your intention is a terrible action.

  14. I think it is best that our political leaders listen to the peak scientific organisations in their own countries, accept that their considered opinions are probably the best available at the time, and act accordingly.

    • Oh yeah. Like the CSIRO, James Cook University and University of NSW down in Australia – totally credible policy making guidance, right there. And then add former Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery and Professor of Economics, Ross Garnaut to create a proper shambles

      Yep. Great advice

    • Or we could encourage people to think for themselves! Mr Preece’s comment is the on-ramp to tyranny and ought to be shamed with loud voices.

    • Geoffrey, did you forget the “sarc” tag?
      Here in Canada we have “Environment Canada’s Science”which is pure ideology on the claims of catastrophic climate change and mighty short of measurements.Not to mention being an unintended self mockery as obviously the ordinary methods of science are not suitable for their tasks.
      If measuring the temperatures of the high arctic was important to gauge the “changing climate”, any idea why it still is not done?

  15. Say what ? You must be joking surely the answer would be the lie of AGW all carbon is bad , wind and solar is good .

  16. It’s very easy to refute both Seth and Simon, and also demonstrate that Trump knows exactly what he’s talking about.

    You know how people have bad hair days. It’s real dry and one’s hair gets frizzy. Or it’s damp and your hair takes on a mind of its own. Well, we have scientific evidence through the hair test that the climate hasn’t change one iota in 40 years. Just look at Trump’s hair; not one wit of a change in 40 years.

  17. Scientific American joins the anti-Trump brigade!

    21 Mar: Scientific American: Does Trump Have an Energy Policy?
    Trump dislikes hair spray regulations and is dismissive of global warming but the rest of his energy policies seem unclear
    By Evan Lehmann, ClimateWire
    It appears that the Republican front-runner hasn’t hired a top energy adviser, according to multiple GOP analysts who work on the issue.
    “I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s got somebody working with him directly on energy policy,” said George “David” Banks, a former climate aide in the George W. Bush administration. “At some point, look, he’s going to have to do that.”…
    One Republican lobbyist thinks Trump doesn’t get enough credit for his policies. The lobbyist pointed to Trump’s earlier criticism of the production tax credit for wind developers as a sign that he studies certain energy issues…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-trump-have-an-energy-policy/

  18. I think that we should all be ble to agree that there has been global warming……..modest, almost entirely beneficial warming, with a substantial increase in entirely beneficial CO2 on this planet that is greening up.

    The question being disputed is how effective the marketing scheme has been to convince people that the warming is causing widespread extreme weather and only bad to very bad things to happen……..despite the plunge in some extreme weather events, like severe storms, violent tornadoes, hurricanes and event slightly less global drought.(meteorology 101 makes it clear that warming the higher latitudes would do this)

    It seems to me, based on the media coverage highlighting extreme weather(that has all happened before) in unprecedented fashion, emphasizing man made climate change and a CO2 is pollution theme, that the propaganda scheme is working.

    Despite the scientific fact that CO2 is a beneficial gas and that for millions of years, life on this greening planet has always done better during warm periods and suffered greatly during cold periods.

  19. Hopefully, when Trump wins, he and a Republican congress will clean up the climate financing industry which pays researchers to become ever more alarmist. Then, the auditors need to go into the NCDC and get the climate records redone so they reflect facts once again.

    The last several elections have not been about global warming. It barely gets mentioned. I think the Republicans and non-global warming believers would be better off forcing the issue and get the believers to come clean about how much money they are going to waste on climate change.

    • “Republicans and non-global warming believers would be better off forcing the issue” –

      .. and no one has more credibility at doing that than Ted Cruz. Trump is far more likely to “go along to get along” once he is office because a major part of is life experience has been “making deals” while Cruz’s has been defending the Constitution to reign in an out of control federal government.

      • ” … while Cruz’s has been defending the Constitution …”

        He’s not a natural born citizen, so I really don’t care to support someone who disregards the Constitution so as to better defend it . .. He can of course do that from Congress though.

      • Constitution my butt. Cruz was no defender of free speech and assembly when Trump’s Chicago rally was shut down by paid leftest radicals. Disgusting.

  20. Trump’s statement “our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons” is pretty dumb. One can only guess that he’s referring to the long-debunked myth of “nuclear winter”. But at least he has the right idea policy-wise which, stated simply might be that nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands is a far more important thing to worry about than “climate change”.
    I don’t like Trump; I’d rather see Cruz get the nomination, but that possibility seems a bit remote. So, I am steeling myself to the very good possibility that it will be Hillary vs Trump, and I know that Hillary would just be an extension of Obama, so in November I will wear a big clothespin on my nose and vote for Trump, and hope for the best.

    • When the material arrives at its intended target, assembling the fissile material into a nuclear bomb is something which could be performed in a normal suburban basement.

      Yes it can be performed in a basement or a warehouse or just about any enclosed structure. So what?

      The implication is that it is easy. It is not. It requires tremendous expertise, very specialized equipment, and unforgivably high tolerances in the build. It is not easy. Even with some expertise and getting hold of the equipment and they avoided giving themselves radiation poisoning while building it, the chances of amateurs making a working bomb is highly improbable.

      • They don’t need to make a working atomic bomb. They just have to make a dirty bomb and any idiot can do that.
        Although the construction of a basic “Fat Man” style atomic bomb is not that difficult and could be assembled in a basement. A little plutonium nitrate, some Oxilaic Acid, an induction furnace, Paraffin wax, couple of aluminum bowls, a few kilos of C4, along with a bunch of detonators and a few other chemicals. I am not going into details but it is not that hard to make a few kiloton atomic bomb. The ease with which an atomic bomb could be made scared the hell out of me back in the seventies, while doing the research on this topic, when I learned that the US had misplaced a few tons of plutonium back in the sixties and still doesn’t know where it went.

      • They don’t need to actually make it. Two islamic countries are the most unstable with the most advanced & biggest nukes (Pakistan and Turkey) and it is just time before more obtain them (if Iran comes close then Saudi or another neighbor will want them). When they have their own, then we don’t control them and dissidents could possibly supply a rouge group. While it might not be a world war (depending on Russia/China) when one of the supply countries has to be taken out or invaded after a major city is reduced to rubble it certainly would have a major effect worldwide. Then there is simply the basic instability of countries like Turkey where Ergodan has said “democracy and freedom have “absolutely no value” and has already had disagreements with Europe and Russia.

      • You don’t need a nuke…much easier to make a “dirty” radioactive bomb.
        At the most extreme get hold of some polonium and some conventional explosives to disperse it.
        Once ingested Polonium 210 is massively more toxic than cyanide.
        One gram could kill 50 million people and cause severe illness in another 50 million people
        It’s not easy to get hold of but if you could obtain some you could make threats that people would need to take seriously

    • Bruce,
      I will definitely do the same. One of the problems with Obama has been that our Congress has not used the power of the checks and balances to “check” Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions. They do not want the blame for impeachment of the first black president. How willing would they be to use those same powers to impeach the first woman president?
      With a president Trump, they would have the MSM screaming for impeachment if Trump did a fraction of what Obama has done. Trump would have to follow the constitution – unlike either Obama or Hilary.

  21. Between Cruz and Trump, Trump is the one who will equivocate on this issue and allow “some feces in the ice cream” as Mark Steyn would say. Trump is an empire builder who, despite maybe his best intentions, will grow federal government even larger and the 2nd best agency to help him do that is the EPA.

    • EPA at its core leans anti-business. Trump is not going to consider EPA an ally in building an empire or anything else.

      • “Trump is not going to consider EPA an ally in building an empire” If it helps bring him more power then why not? Domination is all he really “cares” about.

  22. The comedy duo of Seth and Simon should take their clown show on the road. They’d be a hit!

    • “They’d be a hit!”

      They would be a success like the Air America radio network. Oh, wait…..

  23. The funny thing is whether Climate change budgets are gutted or gets hundreds of billions of dollars, it will have next to zero if not zero impact on climate.

    The only arena where climate change has an effect is in politics.

  24. Why is The Donald paying any attention to the nuclear issue? He’s pandering to the Jewish vote. Benjamin Netanyahu has decried the deal with Iran. Trump does the same.

    Trump wasn’t making idle speculation. His comments were part of a deliberate political strategy.

    1 – Iran still has centrifuges and is making fissionable material.
    2 – That fissionable material could fall into the hands of terrorists.
    3 – Terrorists could plant a nuclear bomb in New York.
    4 – Therefore it’s in America’s interest to support Israel.

    “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” Trump said …

  25. ” if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming….”
    .
    It’s good that Trump is a climate sceptic, but he really should get his facts right.
    Almost half of the total global warming had occurred by around 1945, which clearly demonstrates natural warming. Then the temperatures started to fall.
    The global cooling scare occurred during the 1970’s and certainly not during the 1920’s.
    .
    I hope Cruz will be the next US president. As well as being sceptical, he also knows what he’s talking about.
    For the record, I hope Boris will be our next prime minister after our own Independence Day in June. Boris has made some sceptical remarks.
    Chris

    • I agree. For climate realists, Ted Cruz offers the best chance of electing a President who, with the help of a Republican Congress, will dismantle the EPA and get the Climate Cultists out of the bureaucracy and out of Washington. He’ll stop the Green Gravy train of grants and stipends that have totally distorted the energy marketplace in America, and he’ll reopen the coal-burning power plants.

      /Mr Lynn

    • Spot on! Actual (unadulterated) met station temperatures world-wide were high in the 20’s and 30’s, then cooled strongly to a deep trough in 1976 (1979 in USA), before abruptly shifting upward.

  26. Is there human-caused climate change?

    The obvious answer is yes. However it is the wrong question. For some reason journalists are getting better and better at asking the wrong questions.

    There are many better questions, one is

    Is there significant human-caused climate change?

    Then the obvious answer is No, none that we can measure or prove.

    • Since there is none that can be measured or proven, then how do we know it exists? The obvious answer is, we don’t actually know. We can only speculate that there is some very small, and entirely unimportant manmade effect on our climate.

  27. The only intelligent, thoughtful CAGW skeptic in the Presidential race is Ted Cruz. He actually held a hearing in the Senate, called “Data or Dogma,” and invited John Christy, Mark Steyn, and Judith Curry to testify. A vote for Cruz is a vote for rationality and science.

    Donald Trump is a snake-oil salesman who will tell you whatever he thinks will make the sale—in this case, your vote.

    /Mr Lynn

  28. Seth and Simon are agents provocateurs, who are jumping on WUWT threads with the aim of disrupting any rational discussion and turning them into incessant argument. I hope the moderators will take a cold look at them.

    /Mr Lynn

  29. Eric Worrall writes:

    . . . Refining fissile material is incredibly difficult, but once produced, weapons grade fissiles are horribly easy to smuggle across international borders. When the material arrives at its intended target, assembling the fissile material into a nuclear bomb is something which could be performed in a normal suburban basement.

    This is not true. The creation of a nuclear warhead requires very sophisticated industrial and technical capabilities, which is why Iran is reported to have a whole factory(ies) devoted to the enterprise. Refined fissile material is just the beginning. An implosion-type device, for instance, requires very precise machining of the fissile components, and the building of a complex structure and shell incorporating conventional explosives.

    It is possible for amateurs to build a ‘dirty bomb’, which is just a conventional bomb packed with radioactive material. But that’s not a ‘nuclear’ or ‘atomic’ bomb.

    /Mr Lynn

    • Not for a Fat Man style atom bomb. It is a basic implosion style bomb and doesn’t require precise machining. Also remember terrorists won’t care if they get poisoned with the plutonium dust in the process.

      • Sorry, Matt, but you don’t have the faintest idea. It was not for nothing that the Manhattan Project enlisted Nobel-laureate-class physicists to figure out whether the implosion concept would work, and how to make it work. It was the Little Boy bomb that was a simple contrivance (but still required great skill to design it properly in accordance with the expected neutron multiplication of the chain reaction).

      • A terrorist doesn’t have to design it (HARD ) He just has to build it (easy ) The concept is proven, the rest is construction techniques and skill. Much easier now that computers can be used to help design the detonator pattern for a spherical explosion.

      • Dear Matt, try it and see. I have worked on munitions and am familiar with warheads using hydrodynamic implosion techniques, and they are tricky things. You really have to know what you are doing. It is not under-the-apple-tree auto mechanics. Fat Man requires an understanding of how detonation waves propagate through explosive materials…and the explosive materials must be precisely characterized and capable of being made according to close specifications. As a result, the explosive segments must be precisely shaped. So much for “doesn’t require precise machining.” You don’t know what you are talking about, because, if you did, you would be classified to a level that would prohibit you from saying anything.

      • We can agree to differ on this topic but I will add that inexpensive used C&C machines and a shit load of computing power make it not so hard to construct just not very small.

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon#Proliferation_and_terrorism

        With regard to the risk of proliferation and use by terrorists, the relatively simple design is a concern, as it does not require as much fine engineering or manufacturing as other methods. With enough highly enriched uranium, nations or groups with relatively low levels of technological sophistication could create an inefficient—though still quite powerful—gun-type nuclear weapon.

      • True, I neglected gun-style (‘Little Boy’) bombs. But they do require precise machining of the fissile components, not to mention the ‘gun’ itself. Maybe not beyond the capabilities of a skilled machinist/engineer with good equipment—without robots to handle the material?

        Matt Bergin: Every article I’ve read says the ‘Fat Man’ implosion-type bomb (using plutonium) is a much more difficult engineering project.

        /Mr Lynn

      • Am I correct in believing that a gun-type bomb cannot even be made using plutonium? And does anyone even think of basing nuclear weapons these days using uranium?

        Ian M

      • For Ian (below): Yes. The implosion bomb was developed because the gun assembly would not work with plutonium. The plutonium chain reaction “goes” too fast for the gun process and a faster “assembly” process was needed. It also requires “weapon-grade” plutonium-239 (the other isotopes would take even faster assembly).

  30. There’s huge investment streams pouring into green political and industrial schemes, most are following by some extreme tracking of individuals actions and taxability.

    The bulk of “Social” Democrats adhere to their unknown notion that people are like trees and need to be “antisocially” cut down.

  31. With Trump, I would follow his donations and investments to determine his stance. And until proven wrong, the null hypothesis rules: his stance is whatever it takes to line his pockets with money in his bank accounts (which are where?), power (over as many people as he can gather), and photo ops (preferably with just him in the photo). As for his beliefs? I couldn’t tell you. What day is it? Morning or afternoon? Then maybe the list is a current list.

      • BFL, what about tomorrow? What color will his spots be then? It amazes me that while so many rightly hold off on the CO2 fad due to inconsistencies in the theory, but have jumped on the Trump bandwagon even though they understand the man girds himself with changing views. If it lined his pockets, he would turn into the greenest watermelon on the planet.

      • As I said, you might be correct, but he is at least an unknown outsider with claims that are mostly consistent with what I like. Also hard to believe, though possible, that he would put himself through the verbal backlash (from all sectors), threats and potential physical harm that he knew he was going to be dealt without some good intentions for the country. Many of the very rich do turn to charitable and other well meaning endeavors (e.g. Gates/Buffet).
        To me his biggest plus, assuming some honesty of course (which will not come from Hillary), is his claim that he can’t be bought because of his wealth and can therefore provide a counter balance to lobbyist control of DC. While how much of that he can get done with a mostly corporate controlled congress would remain to be seen, he at least should be given the chance. Also if congress became intransigent, he is the one persona that might be able to get the public interested in changing congress’s corrupt mentality.
        Corporations through lobbyists (~12,000 in number spending ~3 billion a year/that’s a lot of congressional influence) control nearly all aspects of the economy. Think bulk purchases of drugs & medical supplies would reduce medicare expenditures, lobbyists got it nixed. How about open books on inflated hospital and doctor charges (secret charge master lists), nope.Think green energy/other projects should be done away with, guess who inspires them. Banks say they need fewer rules to promote more wall street gambling with depositor money (think 2008), you guessed it. There have even been plans to shift SS to the banks/wall street (now that would be the epitome of security) except so far public backlash has prevented it. And on and on.
        Although not perfect, he seems like a no brainer compared to the others and those past.

      • Trump was bought and admits it. By the government. He willingly applied for every corporate gimme available to him. He is even proud of it. Before, during (godforebid) and after his presidency, he will continue to be bought and paid for by whoever is in governmental charge. And he will continue to give money in exchange for being bought. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and it alarms me how many people are blindly following him like some kind of neo-savior.

      • “Trump was bought and admits it. By the government.”
        Hmmm…. me thinks that you have this a bit backwards. It’s not the gov. that buys corporate leaders but the other way round. And as a business man he was doing exactly that, and admits it, in order to promote his business interests. However he appears to not like this corrupt business association with congress and knowing how it works promises to do his best to change it. Since he is the one person NOT on the inside and therefore has received no promises from influence peddling corporate lobbyists (he had his own lobbyists working on congress, remember); so he would seem to be perfect for prompting change in this arena since he has never been under any lobbyists thumb. Don’t you know that this is one of the major sticking points with congress because if things are changed then huge numbers of them will not be able to retire AS lobbyists working for the very corporations that they have become bondservants of.
        “Today, 50% of retiring Senators and 42% of retiring House members stay in DC and become lobbyists.”
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/07/29/half-of-retiring-senators-become-lobbyists-up-1500-in-40-years/

      • BFL, please reconsider. Governments have bought its voters since governments were first formed.

    • All irrelevant. I think he is a flaming anal orifice, but will vote for him should he be the gop candidate as the alternative is unthinkable. Four more years of socialism will destroy the country.

  32. Seth is under the impression that scientist write the reports for the IPCC. Wrong. The basic report is roughed out by a group of people with a political agenda. Then the summary for policy makers report is written. Each paragraph is discussed and changed as necessary to support their agenda. Next the basic report is gone through also paragraph by paragraph and changed to support the policy report. No one knows the inner workings of the IPCC as well as Donna Laframboise. It may be time for many to spend some time on her site.
    Ric Haldane

  33. Why is it that anyone that posts an opinion contrary to the majority there they are called a troll?
    There seems to be a strong correlation between approving of Trump and regular posters at WUWT. Trump said “I don’t know, all I know is what’s on the internet.” Perhaps we can see the connection.

    • Seaice1, it only takes one opposing datum to make your correlation suspect, which I have provided. A true skeptic paints with a well-defined narrow brush. Your observation would benefit from just such a brush.

      • One datum does not disprove a strong correlation, only a perfect one. Your contribution certainly weakens the correlation, but I think it is still a positive one. As a very rough count I make it 9 that support Trump, one that does not like him much but will vote for him anyway, and 4 that don’t like him. I think that is more support than you would find in a random selection of people, which supports a positive correlation.

      • “Seaice1, it only takes one opposing datum to make your correlation suspect, which I have provided. ”

        No, that is incorrect. That simply means the correlation is less than 100%, which is the case for many well correlated things.

      • Chris, you are wrong. Data points that do not follow the trend can be outliers and not influential. Or they can be outliers and significantly influential. Example: If the trend is up, an outlier on the upside significantly above the trend is not influential. If the trend is up, an outlier significantly on the downside is highly influential. My opposition is of that kind, therefore is influential to the trend Seaice1 proposes. The correlation coefficient is not the same simply because of an outlier. Any outlier in opposition to the trend will significantly effect your coefficient to a far greater extent than an outlier equally distant from the trend but in the same direction.

        https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat501/node/337

    • “There seems to be a strong correlation between approving of Trump and regular posters at WUWT. Trump said “I don’t know, all I know is what’s on the internet.” Perhaps we can see the connection.”

      For the sake of clarity, are you inferring that the regular WUWT posters only repeat what they read on the internet? That they are not learned or are subject matter experts in climate related fields?

      Speaking for myself, I am NOT one of these experts, but that is why I frequent this site – to learn from both the articles and comments that are posted. But I’ve always felt I am in the minority – that the majority were in fact extremely knowledgeable, with many holding doctorates.

    • It isn’t about “approving of Trump”. The Democrats, by virtue of their completely wrong-headed stance on climate and consequently energy have driven many of their own, as well as probably most Independents away. The issue goes to very foundations of a democratic society. We value democracy above all else.

  34. I think the likely Republican president will change the climate by drying up the old gravy train.

      • Yes, the word for putting a stop to the climate gravy train is called sanity. Because the CAGW gravy train has nothing to do with science, research, or evidence, though it pretends with all its might to do those things.

  35. Good comment thread on what is a political issue. While Cruz knows the details on the CAGW movement, Trump may be doing the proper sales job in opposing the even more ignorant, shallow support for CAGW offered by Clinton and Sanders.
    I was in business foe over thiry years, and my worst tendency in sales was to get lost in the weeds–I know what the technical details are of what I was trying to sell, and tended to forget what the customer was looking for. Trump is superficial, coarse, rude, so shallow he damn near beads up. Unfortunately, he may be neccessary to overcome an even more contemptible sales job from CAGW devotees.

  36. Whether it’s trouble with stringing coherent speech together or an intentional tactic of putting everything into 3rd grade level terms … I’m sorry … this dufus does nothing to help.

  37. Trump might more right than you think. In 1962 “Scientists” exploded an H-Bomb in the outer atmosphere, just to see what happens, some think this is what created the hole in the ozone.

    • Oh, for Cripes sakes! A little learning would be helpful here. That was the Starfish Prime test event, which took place at 250 miles (400 km) altitude, far above the atmosphere. It had nothing to do with the ozone layer (and the “ozone hole” is over Antarctica, not the central Pacific Ocean), although it did jazz up the ionosphere for a while with beta electrons. (30 seconds with Wikipedia…)

      What is this? Ready, fire, aim?

      • Do you think deodorant being sprayed on the earth’s surface has a greater effect on the ozone layer than an H-Bomb? Notice how it changed color as it fell to earth, plus the ozone hole has moved over the years used to be over the Arctic.

      • Dear Elmer, I’m saying that when the subject event is 300 km away from the farthest fringes of the atmosphere, it has no effect on the atmosphere (in fact, it had no effect on the atmosphere). Moreover, there is no scientific reason to think it would have had an effect on the atmosphere.

        The theory and understanding of nuclear detonations is pretty complete (see “Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” by Samuel Glasstone (ed.)). Bone up before you phone up.

        The “ozone hole” has always been over the Antarctic, where it was first discovered. It is not actually a “hole,” but a depression in ozone density. It is seasonal. And it doesn’t matter a damn, because it produces no harm (a point that always goes unmentioned when the subject arises).

        And here’s a freebie: space is a radiation environment (Van Allen belts, cosmic rays, solar wind). The atmosphere is our ARMOR against all this. The observers directly underneath Starfish Prime were completely safe from its effects.

  38. Two guys meet in a bar. One, produces a little matchbox, says he trains fleas and in so doing has learned a lot about them. ‘..for example, watch this (removes a flea from the matchbox, places it on the bar beside the matchbox, taps his finger firmly on the bar), jump!’, he says. The flea jumps over the matchbox. ‘that’s nothing..now here’s what’s really interesting.. (picks up the flea and pulls its legs off, one-by-one, and puts it back on the bar), jump!’ he repeats. The flea doesn’t move. ‘See, if you pull their legs off they can’t hear a damn thing you say!!!’

  39. Larry, I wish you knew skeptics better for your 350 articles on the subject. Most of us, including the world’s premier site on the subject, WUWT, are not funded by foundations, fossil fuels and other interest groups. You may point to, say, the Heartland Inst. putting up cash for their own endeavors, but theirs is chump change compared to the Billions (and trillions if you want to include green “mitigation” with windmills and solar panels, etc.). No, most of the skeptical community is actually out of pocket or contributing time. You are obviously a political scientist or some such evidenced by your view that there is some kind of political goal on both sides.

    There is unquestionably a lefty/elitist cynical international agenda on the CO2 side. We skeptics aren’t an organized group, but rather a feisty disparate, bunch of thinkers of uncompromising integrity that are brought together by outrage at the worst scientific fraud and political sleight of hand in history. There is on both ‘sides’, of course, those who aren’t engaged by the science but are low information ideological supporters or dissenters of CAGW. On the skeptical side, we regret such mindless supporters because they make a nice target for the warmists to tar and feather all skeptics. On the lefty/elitist side, they value their hordes of useful idiots.

    Now, your suggestion that we have an opportunity to ‘win’ with an election looming, etc., by supplying data and cogent arguments is a good thought. This is something I would hope such as the Heartland Inst. would take up and put forward into the debate. Managing skeptics (characterized as being like herding cats) into a potent political force ain’t gonna happen. However the data is all here and in like sites and in Heartland publications,etc. The IPCC documents are available to read. They should start with the difference between the “science” and the “summary for policy makers” and the elitist new world order types have generously provided thousands of quotes about where they are really going.

  40. How is it that Roy Spencer closes down his blog comments and Watt expresses HIS frustration with moderating and suddenly there is an upsurge of clearly AGW partisan postings in Watts comment thread from erudite young fellows who clearly have a lot of time on their hands and that oh so snotty “clearly you don’t have the facts” attitude one is used to seeing on Yahoo from professional activists like “Crown of Creation”. It’s not conspiracy ideation to suggest that the Trolls think they smell blood in the water and are attempting to rob WUWT of its entertaining give and take by endlessly droning the litany of CAGW conclusions that have been thoroughly discussed and set aside in previous threads. WUWT Seth?

  41. Smuggle? Who needs to smuggle?
    Containers are searched in the port, not 20 miles out at sea.
    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    R

  42. I’ll be happy with either Trump or Cruz. I do think Trump is going to win.

    We certainly don’t want a moral degenerate like Hillary Clinton back in the White House, she will steal the White House furniture again, like she did the first time.

    • What if Trump does not have enough votes to have won when the convention is held and Kasich wins? He seems to be the most sensible of the five. (But being Canadian I don’t have a vote, so this is only speculation.)
      Ian M

  43. How about graphing out how many of us wouldn’t mind a few degrees warmer average temperatures. They make warming a bad thing. I think exactly opposite. Bring on the warming!

  44. For those who buy into all the nonsense that Donald Trump is a megalomaniac, that he’s crazy, etc., I’d like to point out a few things:

    • Trump is a populist. He listens to the concerns worry the people, and he proposes solutions. People like his proposals.

    • If it were not for Trump, the out-of-control, accelerating illegal immigration crisis would still be on the back burner, with all the candidates talking ‘amnesty’. Trump will build a Wall. We need that.

    • The military has been decimated by Obama. It is demoralized. So is a large part of the country. Trump wants to re-build our military. It isn’t a safe world out there.

    I could go on. But Judge Pirro says it better. (This short six minute video that answers plenty of questions.)

  45. Trump and Cruz are absolutely right about the mann made global warming farce . As Ryan above says
    let’s hope for more warming because cooling would be far far worse for plants and animals who don’t get a vote .
    All we have is a bunch of rent seeking parasites sucking on the government debt tit while it lasts .
    Who funded the Chicago Climate Exchange before he took the big chair ? No conflict there oh no no .

    I am glad Obama ‘s legacy will be tied to his biggest scary thing opinion , the over exaggerated scam global warming because it forever confirms what an idiot he and his flunkies actually have been .

    Trump is right . If one nuclear bomb were to go off in anger scams like the earth has a fever would disappear overnight . I like Cruz and Trump for not being afraid or bought to sing the scary global warming tune.
    Hillary claims she wants to shut down the fossil fuels . Which means the potential shut down of what remains of the USA steel industry and other manufacturing if she was successful .

    In any event climate changes and humans are not about to turn a CO2 dial to control it . Besides
    as long as it is warming less fossil fuels will be used , plants will be happier and humans will adapt .
    Any global warming is good and should be celebrated instead of wetting your pants and lying to school kids .

  46. Chances of catastrophic climate change within a hundred years, close to zero.
    Chance of a city being wiped out by a nuke within a hundred years, closer to 100% than you dare to admit.
    But even so it won’t change the climate.

  47. “Seth” has been a member of the Church of Clmate since day one. He’s dug in so deeply there’s no chance he’ll ever back away. His ship, and the rest of his cult will go down with all flags flying. As such a firm believer, perhaps Seth can provide us with some empirical data showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. This is particularly difficult, given that, even over geologic periods, including when co2 level was 2,000+ ppmv, the only correlation tracking both up and down variation between co2 and temperature level shows temperature variation FIRST, with very similar co2 variation 800 to 2800 years LATER.

    Then there is the cherry-picked start date for temperature increase as the mid 1800s, as the industrial revolution began cranking up — but wait — our current warming BEGAN, by definition, not in 1850, but at the bottom of the LIA in the mid 1600s. That’s 200 years of warming BEFORE co2 began rising. — but wait — there’s more — every warm body out there with an IQ greater than a potted plant understands that, at an annual average increase of 2ppmv per year, it would have taken another century of co2 increase before it could have possibly had any measurable impact on global warming. That brings us to about 1950, so now we see 300 years of natural temperature increase.

    But from the 40s to the 70s was a (mild) cooling, so 320 years of natural warming. The only warming was between the mid 70s and 1998, followed (by our two weather satellites) with a hiatus until our current El Nino, which even NASA admits has nothing to do with human activity.

    Then there are those embarassing recent exposures by receding glaciers in Alaska and the Alps, both showing uncovered trees, some splintered trunks still standing in their original positions (dated 1,000 years old at Mendenhall and 4,000 years old in the Alps. Anybody shrugging this off as anecdotal evidence fits that Marx brothers claim … believe them rather than your own lying eyes……

    But it gets worse. These same alarmists cannot dare admit that the MWP was a global (not regional) event and as warm, likely warmer than now, in spite of the various peer-reviewed temperature studies performed around the world confirming the MWP was not just regional. (There’s also thousands of boreholes showing that same trend!).

    Give us all a break Seth.

    • It has truly become a joke of epic proportions.

      History will not treat this political mindf_cking kindly. It will go down as the penultimate example of deception in the least transparent administration ever.

  48. Part of Trump’s statement on the climate I like is he is aware of the propaganda like nature of the discussion made clear by the shifting of terms over time.

    In fact, that alone gives strong credence to an agenda based stance rather than science based stance.

    Perhaps Donald is on to something.

    (Global Warming to Climate Change to Extreme Weather………)

    Trump seems to be very aware of the use of language and how it’s used to shape an issue. He loves to buck PC especially when the PC position is completely illogical. (like his comments about Brussels before the disaster) To a marketing person like Trump, seeing the obvious marketing of the warming cult diminishes it’s importance since he sees the marketing for what it is. It’s all just hype with an agenda behind it.

    Paid trolls just add to the entertainment. (or unpaid religious fanatics whichever the current thread trolls are)

    As far as the graph that started this all off? Cruz is clearly the most informed on the range of science on the issue and I’m encouraged by Trumps’ more recent statements.

    The appeal to authority fallacy (the 8 “scientists”) that are the basis for the scoring of the candidates is simply a reflection of bias and not fact.

    Ignoring the scientists or the stated methodology of the graph, you could easily nuance the same graph by simply asking, which candidates are most in line with the Guardian newspapers ideas concerning global warming, or is it climate change, or is it extreme weather….

    Is the Guardian a scientist? See, no difference in the graphs results. The ‘appeal to authority’ just can delude some people to thinking the graph has some meaning. And since when are facts and science decided on how many people think this or that. Even the need to produce a graph like that with the appeal to authority speaks volumes.

    There are graphs I do like, though. They have nothing to do with the rankings of unnamed scientists but are nice clear proxies of historical temperatures from multiple correlating sources and methods.

    These graphs are paleo-climate graphs that show we are experience nothing special in our slight warming since the little ice age and even our current ‘peak’ is yet one of a continuing descent of peaks (Roman Period was warmer than now, Medieval Warming period was warmer than now, etc…) back to the inevitable return of the full ice age conditions which is the norm rather than these short little inter-glacials.

    Is their a ‘human’ signal in all this or do we have an ability to geo-engineer the weather on this planet? I wish. No one is going to like it when we drift out of this inter-glacial.

    What’s odd is many people that read this blog or comment are very environmentally concerned. But we place our concern in areas that are justified and not religious. I despise the bird and bat deaths that all the windmills cause in our area of the USA. I’ve seen this discussed here before and the general public don’t seem to realize the birds and bats to not have to be hit by a blade to be killed, just being in the shock wave zone can destroy their lungs. If an oil company was killing wildlife like these windmills they’d be suffering heavy fines. In some wind areas the government grants waivers for the birds killed when the windmills are killing endangered species.

    I’m not a fan of what’s going on at all and will certainly vote for the candidate that is not religious in their view of science. Likely that’ll mean whomever ends up with the Republican nomination.

    Thanks for the chart. Most helpful in confirming whom to vote for.

Comments are closed.